ML20207E454
| ML20207E454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1988 |
| From: | NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207C316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808180051 | |
| Download: ML20207E454 (20) | |
Text
.
STATION PROCEDURE COVER SHEET A.
IDENTIFICATION Number: OP 263 Rev.
O
Title:
UNIT 1 VALIDATION PROGRAM Prepared By: P. PRZEKOP B.
REVIEW I have reviewed the above procedure and have found it to be satisfactory.
TITLE IGNATURE DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD 8-/O'8b Ak
$/f/A$
h
' /
C.
SPECIFIC UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION EVALUATION REQUIRED:
Modifies intent of procedure and changes operation of systems as described in design documents.
YES [ ]
NO [
(If yes, perform written USQ determination and Safety Evaluation, and contact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to determine need for Integrated Safety Evaluation.)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIRED
/
(Adverse environmental impact)
YES [ ]
N0 [ T D.
SPECIFIC SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRED Affects response of safety systems, performance of systems which may have been credited in the safety analysis or non-credited systems which
/
may indirectly affect safety system response.
YES [ ]
NO [1 (If yes, perform written Safety Evaluation and contact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to determine need for Integrated Safety Evaluation.)
E.
INTEGRATED SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRED YES [ ]
NO [
F.
PROCEDURE REQUIRES PORC/SORC REVIEW (In addition to review, items with a YES response must be documented in the PORC/50RC meeting minutes.)
YES [
NO [ ]
G.
PORC/SORC APPROVAL PORC/50RC Meeting Number
/-88 ' h H.
APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION The attached procedure is hereby approved, and effective on the date below:
bA M s l a les
~
Statidyfiervice/lfnit Superintendent Effective Date SF301/9/s/SES/87-12/lof1 hhk DO f
P f
OP 263 Pag 3 1 Rsv. 0 UNIT 1 VALIDATION PROGRAM Page No.
Eff. Rev.
~
1-9 0
OP 263 Paga 2 Rsv. 0 1.
PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to describe the validation program to be utilized for the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs).
This procedure describes the methods to be utilized to insure that the E0Ps meet the specific validation objectives described herein.
2.
APPLICABILITY This procedure applies to the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) developed from the Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedures Guidelines.
Changes to this procedure shall not be made without verifying that commitments made in Reference 3.10 are not altered.
3.
REFERENCES 3.1 Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedures Guidelines.
3.2 Millstone Unit 1 Plant Specific Appendix C Calculations.
3.3 Millstone Unit 1 Safety Technical Specifications.
3.4 Millstone Unit 1 FSAR.
3.5 BWR Owner's Group Emergency Operating Procedures Guidelines.
3.6 Appendixes A, B, and C of BWR EPGs.
3.7 NUREG 0899 Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures.
3.8 INP0 83-006 Emergency Operating Procedures Validation I
Guideline.
3.9 ACP-QA-3.02, Station Procedures and Forms.
3.10 Response to PGP Safety Evaluation, W. G. Counsil to l
J. A. Zwolinski, A04371 dated January 31, 1985.
l 3.11 ACP-QA-10.04, Nuclear Power Flant Records.
3.12 OP 262, Unit 1 Verification Program 4.
DEFINITIONS 4.1 Validation - A performance evaluation to determine that the actions specified in the E0Ps can be followed and implemented by Operations personnel to manage emergency conditions.
Simply l
stated it determines whether the E0Ps are usuable and operationally correct.
OP 263 Pzgs 3 Rev. 0 4.2 Validation Methods - The various methods that may be utilized to validate the E0Ps and are as follows:
4.2.1 Simulator Validation - A method of validation whereby Operations personnel perform the actual control functions, specified in the E0Ps, on simulated equipment in response to a predetermined emergency scenario.
4.2.2 Walk Through Validation - A method of validation whereby Operations personnel conduct a step by step enactment of their actions, specified in the E0Ps, in response to a predetermined emergency sc qario without carrying out the actual control functions.
4.2.3 Table Top Validation - A method of validation whereby Operations personnel explain and/or discuss their actions, specified in the E0Ps, in response to a predetermined scenario without carrying out their particular actions.
4.3 Validation Objectives - The objectives that are to be demonstrated to be met as a result of applying one or more of the validation methods to the E0Ps.
They are as follows:
4.3.1 Usuability - The E0Ps provide sufficient and understandable information to the Operations personnel.
The level of detail presented is consistent with the qualifications, training and experience of Operations personnel.
The language and presentation of information can be comprehended by Operations personnel.
4.3.2 Operational Correctness - The E0Ps are compatible with plant hardware and response and provide appropriate guidance in mitigating transients and accidents.
The actions described are within the capabilities of plant design and equipment operates as specified in the E0Ps.
The E0Ps are compatible with required manning levels, responsibilities and ability to manipulate controls.
l l
~
OP 263 Page 4 Rev. O i
4.4 Verification - A performance evaluation to determine whether or not E0Ps are written correctly and technically accurate.
5.
RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Operations Supervisor - Has overall responsibility for E0P validation program.
Responsible for selection of validation methods, scenarios and validation program coordinator.
Also responsible for approval and implementation of resolutions identified in validation process.
5.2 Validation Program Coordinator - Has responsibilities for coordinating validation process.
Responsible for briefing personnel, following scenarios, documenting assessments and discrepancies and providing resolutions.
5.3 Unit Superintendent - Responsible for insuring E0Ps, requiring validation, are validated prior to approving for implementation.
6.
INSTRUCTIONS 6.1 Determination If Validation Is Required The Operations Supervisor or designee will determine whether an E0P revision requires validation.
This determination will be based upon the significance and magnitude of the changes being made.
Minor revisions or changes which do not alter the intent of the procedure do not require any additional review other than what is required by Reference 3.9, ACP-QA-3.02, Station Procedures and Forms.
The Operations Supervisor or designee shall document this determination on the Validation Form, OPS Form 263-1, Part A.
6.2 Determination of Validation Method 6.2.1 The Operations Supervisor or designee will determine j
which method is to be used in the validation process.
l l
l
OP 263 Pagn 5 Rev. 0 6.2.1.1 The simulator method, on the site specific simulator, allows evaluation of E0Ps in a setting similar to which the E0Ps must be capable of being performed.
The availability of indication, work space design and placement of controls are easily evaluated with regards to instructions provided in the E0Ps. The simulator is also preferred because of the extent that computer modeling is able to simulete actual plant performance.
6.2.1.2 The walkthrough method, while allowing evaluation in the setting that the F0Ps must be capable of being performed (similar to the simulator method), does not allow for the time dependence of operator action.
However, it may be the most desirable, method in those cases where the simulator is not available or does not have the plant hardware to allow enactment of operator actions.
6.2.1.3 The table top method allows personnel to explain and/or discuss operator actions, specified in the E0Ps, but is limited as far as time dependent responses and enactment of actual operator action.
It is l
not expected that this method will,be utilized but may provide a forum for E0P evaluation and review.
6.2.2 The Operations Supervisor will ensure that E0P
(
revisions, requiring validation, are evaluated using the simulator method, if the simulator method is applicable to the revision being made.
i l
l
OP 263 Pags 6 I.
Rev. 0 6.2.3 E0P revisions implemented prior to simulator validation, due to simulator availability and scheduling, may be validated using the other methods described in this procedure.
Follow up validation using the simulator must be performed at a later date.
6.2.4 The Operations Supervisor or designee will determine the validation method to be used and document the determination on the Validation Form, OPS Form 263-1, Part A.
6.3 Determir.ation of Scenarios to be Used in Validation Process 6.3.1 The Operations Supervisor or designee will determine the scenario to be used in the validation process.
6.3.2 The scenario chosen should excercise as many of the E0P steps as possible within the capabilities of the validation method (s) being used.
The scenarios should also lead the operator through the necessary steps to stabilize plant conditions using both the basic entry and contingency E0Ps.
6.3.3 The Operations Supervisor or designee will document the scenario to be used on the Validation Form, OPS Form 263-1, Part A.
6.4 Performance of Validation 6.4.1 Preparation 6.4.1.1 The Operations Supervisor shall designate a Validation Program Coordinator to coordinate all aspects of the validation program.
The Operations Supervisor will also provide Operations personnel to participate in the validation process.
6.4.1.2 The validation program coordinator will insure that the Validation Form, OPS Form 263-1, Part A, is complete and approved by the Operations Supervisor or designee.
i,'
OP 263 Page 7 Rev. 0 6.4.1.3 The Validation Program Coordinator will review the Validation Form, OPS Form 263-1, Part A, and become familiar with the validation method (s) and ses'orio to be used.
6.4.1.4 The Validation Program Coordinator will verify that the Operations personnel used fulfill the staffing requirements required by Reference 3.3, Safety Technical Specifications.
6.4.1.5 The Validation Program Coordinator will brief the Operations personnel involved on the requirements, objectives and methods of the validation program described in this procedure.
6.4.1.6 The Validation Program Coordinator will brief the Operations personnel involved on the scenario to be followed for the validation process.
6.4.1.7 The Validation Program Coordinator will review the Evaluation Form, OPS Form 263-2, f
with the Operations personnel involved to insure that they are aware of the objectives and evaluation criteria being utilized.
He will also review the manner in which comments and discrepancies are documented on the Discrepancy Form, I
OPS Form 262-5, and resolved.
6.4.1.8 The Validation Program Coordinator will insure that the Validation Form, OP5 Form 263-1, Part B, is completed.
l 1
{,,
OP 263 Pagg 8
~
Rev. 0 f
6.4.2 Assessment 6.4.2.1 The Validation Program Coordinator will follow the scenario for the method (s) of j
validation being used, paying particular attention to not interfering with the actions of Operations personnel.
q 6.4.2.2 Tha Validation Program Coordinator can note any observations in the observation section of the Evaluation Form, OPS Form 263-2.
6.4.2.3 After the scenario has been completed the Validation Program Coordinator will conduct a debriefing with the involved Operations personnel.
6.4.2.4 The Validation Program Coordinator wi.1 document on the Evaluation Form, OPS Form 263-2, any parts of the E0P that could not be exercised on the simulator (if the simulator was the validation method).
He will insure that these sections are validated using the walkthrough method.
6.4.2.5 The Validation Program Coordinator will complete a response for each of the evaluation criteria listed on the Evaluation Form, OPS Form 263-2, with input provided by the Operations personnel irvolved.
6.4.2.6 Discrepancies and comments identified in completing the Evaluation Form, OPS Form 263-2, will be documented on the l
Discropancy Form, OPS Form 262-5, by the
(
Validation Program Coordinator.
g' B
OP 263 Pagn 9 Rsv. 0 6.4.3 Resolution 6.4.3.1 The Validation Program Ooordinator will review all comments and discrepancies documented on the Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5, and propose resolutions which will also be documented on the Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5.
6.4.3.2 The Validation Program Coordinator shall submit a documentation package consisting of the Validation Form, OPS Form 263-1.
Evaluation Form, OPS Form 263-2, and Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5, to the Operations Supervisor for review.
6.4.3.3 The Operations Supervisor shall review the documentation package and document his approval of the resolutions by signing the Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5.
6.4.3.4 The Operating Supervisor shall insure that all proposed resolutions are incorporated as necessary.
6.4.4 Records The Operations Supervisor will transmit all forms associated with the validation process to the Nuclear Plant Records Facility in accordance with Reference 3.11, ACP-QA-10.04.
7.
FIGURES N/A 8.
ATTACHMENTS N/A i
I PP:1js l
l i
i i
k
s
, f
__5 lrn loe
.-l-29-44 FORM APPR D BY' UNI'T 1 SUPERINTENDENT EFFECTIVE LATE PORC MTG, NU.
~
EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES VALIDATION FORM PART A (To be completed by Operations Supervisor / Designee) 1.
E0P Number Revision Title 2.
Validation Required?
a.
Yes b.
No (If No is indicated Items 3 and 4 are N/A proceed to Item 5.)
3.
Validation method (s) to be used.
a.
Simulator b.
Walkthrcugh c.
Table Top 4.
Brief Description of Scenario:
^
5.
Approved Operations Supervisor / Designee PART B (To be completed by Validation Program Coordinator if Yes is indicated in Part A.2 above) 1.
Designated Validation Program Coordinator OPS Form 263-1 Rev. O Page 1 of 2
_.. _ =
- g D
2.
Operations Personnel Involved in Validation.
Names Qualification (SRO, RO, PRO) 4 3.
Operations Personnel briefed a scope of validation process, scenario, evaluation and resolution of comments.
Validation Program Coordinator 4.
Date(s) of Validation OPS Form 263-1 Rev. O Page 2 of 2 L
~
- y.
e A
shs L 4 no. er FORM APPR ED Bf UNIT 1 SUPERINTENDENT EFFECTIVE 0 ATE PORC MTG N0.
~
EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE l
EVALUATION FORM (To be completed by the Validation Program Coordinator with input from involved Operations personnel.
Comments and discrepancies to be documented on Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5.)
1.
E0P Number Revision i
Title 2.
Validation Method (s) Used:
a.
Simulator (S) b.
Walkthrough (WT) c.
Table Top (TT) 3.
Evaluation Criteria (Note:
The letters in parenthesis following each criteria indicate which methods are applicable to the criteria.) Complete Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5 for all sections checked NO.
I.
Usuability YES NO N/A J
A.
Level of Detail 1.
Did the operator have sufficient information to perform the specified action at each step?
(S, WT, TT) 2.
Did the operator take the desired course of action at steps involving a decision?
(5, WT, TT) 3.
Was the operator able to find the needed equipment and controls with the labels, abbreviations, symbols and location information provided in the E0P?
(5, WT) 4.
Was the operator able to manage the emergency condition with the information provided in the E0P?
(5, WT, TT)
OPS Form 263-2 Rev. O Page 1 of 5
r 4
s YES NO N/A 5.
Were the titles and numbers sufficiently descriptive to enable the operator to find referenced and branched procedures?
(5, WT, TT)
B.
Understandability 1.
Was the E0P easy to read?
(S, WT, TT) 2.
Were the figures and tables identified, understandable and accurately read?
(S, WT, TT) 3.
Were the values on figures and charts easily determined?
(5, WT, TT) 4.
Were cautions and notes identified understandable?
(S. WT, TT) o-m 5.
Were the E0P action steps readily understandable?
(S, WT, TT) 6.
Were the E0P steps regarding referencing and branching clearly understandable?
(S. WT, TT) 7.
Were the E0P steps written clearly enough to minimize delays in implementing the E0P?
(5, WT, TT)
II.
Operational Correctness A.
Plant Compatibility 1.
Were the actions specified in the E0P able to be performed in the desired sequence?
(S, WT)
OPS Form 263-2 Rev. O Page 2 of 5 L
r
'e *. >
YES NO N/A 2.
Did the E0P address all apparent success paths?
(S, WT, TT) 3.
Was the operator able to obtain the necessary information from plant instrumentation as specified in the E0P?
(S, WT) 4.
Was the operator able to select the E0P from the plant symptoms provided?
(5, WT, TT) 5.
Was the information and equipment specified in the procedure adequate to accomplish the tasks?
(5, WT, TT) l 6.
Did the plant response agree with the response expected by implementa-tion of the E0P?
g, (S) 7.
Were the instrument readings and tolerances stated in the E0P consistent with the instrument values displayed on both local and remotely located instruments?
(5 and/or WT)
B.
Operator Compatibility 1.
If time intervals were specified was the operator able to perform the E0P steps within the designated time intervals?
(S) l 2.
Could the E0P be implemented by the minimum operations staffing required by the Technical l
Specifications?
(5, WT) l l
t l
OPS Form 263-2 1
Rev. O i
Page 3 of 5
's *.
YES NO N/A 3.
Were the steps specified in the E0P able to be carried out effectively and efficiently by the operators?
(5, WT) 4.
Was the operator able to follow the designated action step sequences?
(5, WT) 5.
Was the operator able to enter referenced and branched procedures at the required point?
(5, WT, TT) 6.
Was the operator able to exit and enter the E0P at the required point.
I (5, WT, TT) 7.
Is the E0P physically compatible with the work
[**'
situation (able to hold, space to lay down, etc.)?
(5, WT) 4.
If simulator method was used to validate the E0P list below any procedure steps that could not be exercised on the simulator.
These must be validated using the walkthrough method.
OPS Form 263-2 Rev. O Page 4 of 5 b
v; 4,'w y t
5.
Observations 8
M f~
l i
i OPS Form 263-2 Rev. O Page 5 of 5 L