ML20236N441

Rev 0 to Procedure P11.17, Emergency Operating Procedures Verification Procedure,Point Beach Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2

ML20236N441
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/25/1985
From:	Malamouth T WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20236N340	List: ML20236N337 ML20236N430 ML20236N441 ML20236N448 ML20236N466
References
P11.17, NUDOCS 8711160165
Download: ML20236N441 (21)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

PROCEDURE: P11.17 AT W HMENT 3 1 ,.

REVISION: 0  ;

.15 SUE DATE:_3/25/85'

\ .

1 l

4 hUC_E AR ENGis EERING P OS T-T MI CO NSTR UCTION P.OINT BE ACH NUCLEAR PL ANT EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES VERIFICATION PROCEDURE I POINTBEACHNUCLEARPLANT, UNITS 1AND2 WRITTEN BY: T# -

NES APPROVED: Mh e EA"28sei Esas866 m DATE: 9/#MV PBNP APPROV -

an:ndn k a m mM7rt llbbC '

J b ., . . ,

i'

. i P11.17. Rev. 1

- March 25, 1985

)

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1

2.0 REFERENCES

1 2.1 General 1 2.2 Implementation 2 I

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 2 0 3.1 Manager - PBNP 2 3.2 Manager's Supervisory Staff 2 l

'3.3 Superintendent - Operations 2 3.4 General Superintendent - NSEAo 2 3.5 E0P Writer 2 3.6 Verification Team 2  !

4.0 EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE 3 VERIFICATION PROCESS 4.1 Preparation Phase 3 4.1.1 Designate Personnel 3 4.1.2 Obtain and Review the Source Documents 3  ;

4.2 Assessment Phase 4 .

4.3 Resolution Phase 4 ,,

4.4 Documento'. .on Phase 6

Attachment 1 - E0P Verification Forms 8 Attachment 2 - Evaluation Criteria Checklist 12 a

.i.

,. t

}

/,, r3 ' ' p. ]

\ E4 P11.17. - Rev. ' O L.

r- March 25, 1985  :

1 j

ce 1.0 OBJECTIVE ,

L: . q

!S ' '

Thel ob,jectiveLof the Emergency Operating Procedure -(E0P) verification- .i d

procedure is to determine and document that consistency has:been-1 0 4 maintained between E0P..' source documents and.the PBNP-EOPs'and te J

assignfresponsibilities.for. conducting the verificationTprocess. The

.1 j

EOP! source documents are the Emergency Response Guidelines:(ERG) that

.were developed by the Westinghouse Owners Group-(WOG) to aid utilities! j in the development'of. plant-specific E0Ps, the PBNP E0P-Writer's' Guide, and previous' PBNP emergency procedures., The verification is made by evaluating the E0Ps for the characteristics of written correct s -

. ness:and technical accuracy..

E0P Written Correctness'- Addresses proper incorporation of infor--

i mation from the plant-specific writer's guide,for E0Ps and other appropriate._ administrative policies. <

- E0P Technical. Accuracy - Addresses proper incorporation of generic and/or plant-specific technical information from E0P source docu-ments and plant hardware into the E0Ps. <

-This, verification process is complete whe'n procedures are submitted to the Manager's Supervisory Staff for approval. E0P validation will be performed

-separate from this verification.

' 2;0 REFERENCES j 1

2.1 ' General

- NUREG 0899 " Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency Operating

-Procedures" .U.S. N.R.C.,-. August 1982.

- NRC Generic Letter 82-33, " Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 - Requirements q

\

for Emergency Response Capability", December 17, 1982. i

,- ,C. W. Fay Letter to H. R. Denton, " Response to Generic letter l l

1 of 19 4

1

v+ .

t P11.17, Rev. O March 25, 1985

. No. C2-33. . ." April 15, 1983.

PBNP Emergency Operating Procedures, current approved revisions.

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) Guideline, " Emergency Operating Procedures Verification Guideline,83-004, March 1983. -

Emergency Operating Procedure Writer's Guide, PBNP 4.19.

Westinghouse Owners Group " Emergency Response Guidelines".

2.2 Implementation Source ~ documents, with proper revision numbers used in the compar-ative evaluation, should be noted on Form 1 of the.E0P Verification Forms.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Manager-PBNP - The Manager PBNP shall approve all E0Ps'and revisions.

3.2 Manager's Supervisory Staff - Manager's Supervisory Staff, or a subcomtnittee thereof, shall have the responsibility of reviewing the E0Ps after verification resolutions have been incorporated and modifications accepted by the E0P Verification Team, and making a recommendation to the Manager.

3.3 Superintendent-0perations(PBNP) - The Superintendent Operations shall approve the verification resolutions.

3.4 General Superintendent (NSEAS) - The General Superintendent-NSEAS shall have overall responsibility for the E0P verifi-cation process.

3.5 E0P Writer - The E0P Writer shall review and comment on resolutions before they are forwarded to the Superintendent Operations for approval. He shall. incorporate approved resolutions into the E0Ps. '

1 3.6 Verification Team - The verification team shall manage and execute the technical accuracy evaluation and the written correctness eval-  !

i i

2 of 19

. . ___ _ _ - . - 3

(

1 P11;17,Rev.0 o i' ,

March 25,1985_. i 1

1

, 't A-uation portions'of the process. They shallDrecommend verification

resolutions to the Superintendent Operations _ for approval. l

..]

4.0 EOP VERIFICATION PROCESS  !

- 4.1 - Preparation Phase -

The preparation ~ phase will consist of designating personnel to-conduct _the comparative evaluation, and obtaining and reviewing i the'E0P source documents.

4.1.1  : Designate Personnel The verification team shall include'a minimum of two personnel from the NSEAS engineering staff and one person i from PBNP operations. Additional personnel from Nuclear - 4 Engineering and PBNP may be assigned as needed. The General Superintendent-NSEAS shall act as chairman of i

the verification team. The composition of the verification tean shall be approved in writing by the Vice President, Nuclear Power Department. A summary of the' qualifications of designated personnel shall be documented.

-4.1.2 Obtain and Review the Source Documents  !

E0P source documents shall be listed on Form 1 of the E0P- ,

Verification Forms and reviewed by the verification team member responsible for the particular E0P. These documents-shall be reviewed to ensure they are complete, current, j and. applicable. These documents may include, but are not  !

restricted to, the following source documents:  !

PBNP Emergency Operating Procedure Writer's Guide ,

WOG Low Pressure ERGS 3 of 19 m_ _ - - - . 1

s, P11.17 Rev. 0 March 25, 1985

- WOG ERG-LP Background Documents WOG ERG Executive Volume PBNP FSAR

- 'PBNP P& ids and Logic Prints Existing PBNP E0Ps

- Applicable PBNP Deviation Document

- Applicable PBNP Setpoint Calculation Packages 4.2 Assessment Phase In the assessment phase, the assigned verification team member per-forms an independent review of the draft E0P and records all dis -

crepancies in detail on individual discrepancy sheets (Attachment 1 Form 3). This review is performed using the guidelines of the EvaluationCriteriaChecklist(Attachment 2).

4.3 Resolution Phase In the resolution phase, all discrepancies are reviewed, resolved and appropriate modifications are made to the E0P. The following process is used to resolve all discrepancies: -

1. The evaluator shall determine a solution for each discrepancy I and indicate this as the resolution on the discrepancy sheet {

l (Attachment 1, Form #3).

2. The verification team will then review the discrepancy resolution using the E0P and any applicable source document, 1 1

One of the following discrepancy categories will also be chosen by the team: l

1. Written correctness - A deviation from the E0P Writers Guide (e.g. punctuation, spelling, format).  !

l I

4 of 19 u-__ _ i

P11.17, Rev. 0 March 25, 1985

2. Background documents - A deviation from the WOG ERGS or the ERGS background document, which is not adequately justified in the deviation document.

3. Technical - A discrepancy of a direct technical nature with regard to PBNP.

3. The discrepancy sheets are then sequentially numbered, and the E0P Verification Forms 1 and 2 (Attachment 1) completed. The discrepancy sheets and verification forms are then sent to the E0P writer for review and comment.

4. After myiew and comment by the E0P writer, the discrepancy sheet with the E0P and any applicable source documents are sent to the Superintendent-0perations for approval / disapproval of the resolution.

5. If the resolution is not approved, the verification team reviews the E0P writers' comments and determines whether the Superintendent-0perations disapproval is acceptable.

a. If it is acceptable, a representative of the verification team signs the discrepancy sheet " Disapproval Acceptable".

b. If it is not acceptable, the evaluator is to determine a new resolution that is acceptable to both the Super-intendent-0perations and the verification team. A new dis-crepancy sheet is to be initiated by the evaluator and approved by a verification team member and the Superinten-dent-0perations. This new discrepancy sheet will have the same number as the original discrepancy, but will be followed by a letter (i.e., A, B, etc.) and attached to 5 of 19 l -__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

-m.-~m- a

$\

P11.17, Rev 0  :

March 25, 1985 m ,

th'e original discrepancy sheet.

6. . After the discrepancy resolutions are approved by the Super-

)

intendent-0perations,. the procedure writer updates the -E0P or deviation document with the approved resolutions,. signs 'l

" resolution incorporated'!, and returns.the modified procedure. I to the verification team. ' Resolution incorporated' is left i blank when an' item is referred to training. Training items  ;

are the responsibility of. the Superintendent-Training at PBNP.

7. A verification team member then reviews the modified procedure 1 and determines.whether the resolution, as' incorporated into the'

. procedure.-is, acceptable.

a. If the modification incorporating the discrepancy resolbtion is acceptable 'no modification is necessary, or the resolu- I tion was addressed to training, a representative of the team signs the discrepancy sheet " Modification Acceptable." -

<b. If the modifi:,ation is not acceptable, a new discrepancy sheet is generated and'the: resolution process continued from step 4.3.5.b. If an acceptable modification cannot be agreed-upon, the discrepancy, resolution, and modifica-

, tion are forwarded to General Superintendent-NSEAS and General Superintendent-PBNP for resolution / approval. Any ~ 1 further resolution / approval will be the responsibility of the Manager-PBNP.

8. When each discrepancy sheet (or attached rewrite) has the " mod- l ification accepted" signoff completed by the verification team on Form 3, the verification process is complete. In some cases the resolution will not be incorporated prior to implementing 1

, P11.17. Rev. O i

" - March 25, 1985 the procedures. These open items will be identified for imple-mentation by PBNP and considered closed by the verification team.

4.4 Documentation Phase E0P Verification Forms (Forms #1 and #2), Discrepancy Sheets (Form #3),

and Deviation Documents shall be maintained-at PBNP per the Adminis-tration Procedure, PBNP 2.2.1, " Records Administration ar.d Storage."

l The revised PBNP E0Ps'are submitted for. approval and implemented per Administration Procedure PBNP 2.1.1, " Classification, Review, and a

Approval of Procedures."

7 of 19

4

'7: . 4 P11.17, Rev, O s March 25, 1985 i

t

[_-

{ Attachment 1 i

E0P VERIFICATION FORMS 1

l l

J l

l 8 of 19 l

P11.17, Rev. O j March 25, 1985  :

E0P VERIFICATION FORM #1 i

i E0P TITLE: '

E0P NUMBER: REVISION:

l E0P SOURCE DOCUMENTS USED:

l i

i i

EVALUATOR: DATE -

PROCEDURE-GENERAL VERIFICATION

)

A. WRITTEN CORRECTNESS AREAS ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY SHEET #(s)

1. E0P FORMAT CONSISTENCY g CONSISTENCY i

2. IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION l

3. LEGIBILITY .,

1

4. MECHANICS OF STYLE

)

}

B. Technical Accuracy I AREAS ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY EHEET #(s)

1. Entry Conditions or .

Symptoms

2. ERG Strategy 9 of 19

i' P11.17. Rev. 0 March 25, 1985

.t 1 E0P VERIFICATION FORM #2 E0P Rev.

Page of STEP, CAUTION, NOTE-SPECIFIC VERIFICATION STEP NUMBER, WRITTEN CORRECTNESS BACKGROUND TECHNICAL CAUTION, OR ]

i NOTE ACCEPT DISCREPANCY. ACCEPT DISCREPANCY ACCEPT DISCREPANCY l l

SHEET # SHEET # SHEET #

l 1

?

i i

1 l

1 1

10 of 19

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .____-____--_a

September 21, 1984 I Form #3 L DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER l

l' E0P: REV. CATEGORY PAGE NUMBER: STEP NUMBER: , j DISCREPANCY:

Y d RESOLUTION: ]

i 1

i i

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED / DISAPPROVED: SUPT.-0PS. DATE:

DISAPPROVAL ACCEPTABLE /NOT ACCEPTABLE: DATE:

RESOLUTION INCORPORATED: DATE- ,

l 4

MODIFICATION ACCEPTED /NOT ACCEPTED: DATE:

11 of 19

_-___ _-___-_- _ A

.; ,. y . ..

"'i I '. .l

,. (

I

'l . .

, September 21,-1984 j s i

. . i 1

• . 1 1

Attachment 2 J' X

,r. i ,

l 4

o1 . EVALUATION CRITERIA CHECKLIST l

.v.) ,

j

[ 4

, .I I 4-  ;. , ,

.-[ ..

t

g. ip i t! ,.t.

-3 1.I t /' I i 1

'A, , ,,

jI 1 Y I' ' )

, 1 ,/! ;

i,i', 4 't', f. 3. 9 , ,f .I.

i

.n;

'j . \. ' s t'

'i\

,; ; , ,( 'll ', .I

-}-

, , 'l' ji e

, q ,r 3- _

'/

.N 'f.

-) [ j

),' '

'9 \

N

\

o

,l: '(

(, $ '.

I ' h H

.. p' '~)' -  ;

t;y--

.N t,f is,. '

. 1 i

l

. i

!\

s .#- s-s

. i i ; - .

.\ -(.,I ) l

.'s s I .' ,.  ;

I- L

,je if g I 4 1

l :- l

f. \

),I \i f ,,

s s 'p :. l 4

g,

t. t

'l':

( ,1

.y i

v,, ,

\

I i

i 4,P l

12 of 19

~ c s * ' . ,

,, l$ )

September-21;i984'-

.e >

l i

' EVALUATION' CRITERIA-CHECKLIST ,

' Area Refehence-I..JPROCEDURE-GENERAL i

, ' A.t Written Correctness

~

1.:  : E0P Format Consistency t

a. Do the following sections exist'in- WG 4.1.-

the E0P:--

y .

Section 1 - COVER SHEET with purpose 1 1 -and entry condition

.Section 2 - OPERATOR ACTIONS with-stepwise guidance Section 3 - FOLD 00T PAGE with summarized information (not in CSP Series): 1

, ~b.- Is the operator actions section - WG 4.2 presented. in a dual-column. format?.

c. Is the page' layout. consistent with WG,

- the sample page format? ' Fig. I

d. Is the' foldout page titled " Foldout WG 4.2 For. E0P-X Series" or I' Foldout- for-ECA-X' Procedure" as. appropriate. g Is the'. typing format consistent.and

'e. WG 7.0 ,

correct?

2. Identification Information ,

1 a.'Is the procedure title descriptive of the purpose of the procedure? WG 3.1.4 )

b. Does the cover sheet correctly. .WG 3.1, provide the following: 3.2, 3.3 (1) procedure'titie n

(2) proceduredesignator(EOPor' CSP)andnumber i

l (3) revision / draft number ] y L

(. , (4) date of issue I

'(5) procedure priority coding (CSP only) g p

13 of.19 l

_ - . . _ _ _ _ -]

ik . '

-(- +

-September 21, 1984 i

e '.

c. Does' each 'page correctly provide WG 3.3 -)

(1) procedule designator and number:

6 (2) Procedure title a,

(3) Procedure priority coding (CSP.only)

d. Does the procedure have all its pages . WG 3.3, in the correct order? Does the last 6.8 page include the word "END"?

3. Legibility

a. Are the text, tables', graphs, figures, WG 5.1' charts, and appendices legible to '

the evaluator?-

b. Are the tables, graphs, figures, WG 5.11 charts, and appendices properly labeled?

I

4. Mechanics of Style for the cover sheet and foldout.page.

a. Is spelling correct? ' WG 6.1

b. Are hyphens used appropriately? ' - WG 6.2

c. Is punctuation used properly? WG 6.3

d. Is capitalization used properly? WG 6.4'

e. Does the vocabulary used fc110w proper rules?- WG 6.5 l

f. Are numerical values cor,sistent with established rules? WG 6.6 -j

g. Are abbreviations, letter symbols acronyms used properly? WG 6.7 B. . Technical Accuracy. . .

1. Entry Conditions or Symptoms Information

, a. Are the entry conditions of the E0P listed correctly? -

b. If additional entry conditions have been I added, do they comply with the following:

(1) appropriate entry conditions for whita the E0P should be used (2) not excessive e_ 14'of 19 l L L-----

I I

September 21, 1984 j i

o j

2. Is the ERG technical foundation (strategy) changed by the following changes in E0P  ;

steps, cautions, or notes: i

a. elimination (

b. addition

c. sequence

d. alteration II. STEP, CAUTION, NOTE-SPECIFIC A. Written Correctness

1. Mechanics.of Style

a. Is spelling correct? WG 6.1

b. Are hyphens used appropriately? WG 6.2

c. Is punctuation used properly? WG 6.3 ;

d. Is capitalization used properly? WG 6.4

e. Does the vocabulary used follow proper rules? WG 6.5

f. Are numerical values consistent with established rules? WG 6.6

g. Are abbreviations, letter symbols, acronyms used properly? WG 6.7

2. Information Presentation

a. Are instruction steps numbered WG 4.3 correctly?  ;

1

b. Are instruction steps constructed to i comply with the following: )

i (1) Steps deal with only one idea. WG 5.1 (2) Sentences are short and simple. WG 5.1 j (3) Operator actions are specifically WG 5.1 i stated. j (4) Objects of operator actions are WG 5.1 specifically stated.

L  !

t l

15 of 19

+ _ _ _ _

l. September 21, 1984

+ j (5) Punctuatio'n, spelling, hyphens, vocabulary WG 6.1  ;

and capitalization are proper, thru 6.6' '

(6) Abbreviations are correct and WG 6.7 understandable to the operator,

c. Are system response and operator response times given where appropriate? . WG 5.1

d. Do complex evolutions exist? They should WG 5.1 be prescribed in a series of steps,

e. Do instruction steps make proper use of WG 5.4 logic terms?

f. When an action instruction is based on receipt of an annunciator alarm, is the

-setpoint of the alarm identified in the setpoint document?

g. Are cautions-used< appropriately? WG 5.5

h. Are cautions placed properly and WG 5.5-do they extend across the entire page?

1. Are cautions constructed to comply WG 5.5 l t with the following? ]

(1) They do not contain operator actions.  ;

(2) They do not use extensive punctuation l !

for clarity.

(3) They make proper use of emphasis.

T (4) They are written in full capitals. )

1

j. Operator Actions Column ]

(1) Are the expected indications located in WG 5.2 the left-hand column?

(2) Are operator actions appropriate for the  !

expected indications? WG 5.2 i

k.-Are the contingency actions located in the WG 5.3 right-nand column?

j l

l 16 of 19

ga . ..

h

-a Q? + r j. . "

W , jj _" " ' ,

g:6 h /

+

,jq

. September. 21, 1984 m- ,

t y ,

1. Isithel level of detail such that only the WG 5.10.

C, idetailTthat a' newly trained and licensed. o operator;would desire during an emergency j'

.n Lcondition is provided?

m.L Are appropriate-action verbs used?. ~WG 5.10 q

n. Are notes. properly used? . . WG 5. 5 '

]q I

e.

o. Are notes properly placed?

WG 5.5:

$f ,

.p. Are notes worded so that they do;not contain' operator l actions?

WG'5.5-

, g q.J Are numerical- values properly w.ritten? WG 6.6L j

.r. AreLyalues specified in such a way that . WG 5.6 ,

mathematical operations a're not rer; aired of the' user?

j

s. Is-a' chart or graph.provided in the pro- WG 5.6-  !

cedure 'for necessary. operator calculations?'

t. Are units of measurement in the E0P the' WG 6.6 .j same as those used on equipment?- a t u. Is underlining used-for emphasis.of high WG 5.7 f' level steps and some logic. terms only?

3. . Component Identification

- - - a. Are equipment, controls 'and displays WG 5.9 identified in operator langu6ge?.

b b. If names and numbers on' panel nameplates WG 5.9 and' alarm windows are specifically the- .,

item offconcern are they quoted verbatim? l

c. Are the names of plant system titles WG S.9 emphasized by-initial capitalization? l

]-

.d. Are components. seldom used or difficult to WG 5.9  ;

find' supplied'with location information in -l parentheses?

• 4. Printed 0perator Aids l 1

a. Are charts, graphs, tables, and figures self- J explanatory, legible, and readable? WG 5.11 r o

q

' < j wi

. ;.)'I 17 of;19 J, ne i ___ m- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- yy;;  ;, e ,

p 2 ms ,'

7m ,

' q ,

s: 9, ?C ~

g6 s'

Septemti er 21,-1984

l*

9 ,

~,t' ", <

4.?Are the units of measure, titles,Jand y numbering proper and consistent?.

t

.WG 5.11- j ic. Is tiie' foldout'page. format' correct?. 1WG 5.11

,a ,

B. ' Background Information f

l10Are:E0P/ ERG. differences i

g;$ , (a)'fdocumented

-(b) . explained

2. . Are correct, plant-specific. adaptions.-

incorporated. per ERG and-' existing ;EOPs:

-(a); systems t' '

instrumentation (b) .l 6: '

(c): . limits 2 (d)' controls (e): indications ,

s C. " Technical' Accuracy 1.l.Have. plant specific licensing commitments [e.g.. boron'

" .- precipitation control- or' R.~ G..'1.97) applicable to the

')-

? -E0Ps been' addressed-and' documented?

m, 2.. Quantitative'Information 1

a. Do the quantitative values, including i tolerance bands, used in the: E0P comply .(

w with applicable E0P source document?

d

b. Where ERG values are not used in the E0P,-are the"EOP values computed -

I accurately?

c. When calculations are required by the E0P,.are equations presented with sufficient information for operator use?

l j

-" d.. Ara limits expressed quanti.tatively WG 5.1 whenever possible? j u 1

. l d

c . , <

nu ., ,

y 18 . of -.19 '! .

_=_ _- . _ _ _ 1

_ t ' ,['i s m

September 21.1984 L F. '

• 4 f f:7 .-,

3. Plant- Hardware. Information

a. . Is the following plant hardware.specified

. in the E0P available'for operator use:

, (1) equipment ,

- (2)= controls .

indicators -!

(3)

(4) instrumentation

b. - Is the specified instrumentation' listed-in the WE response to Regulatory Guide 1.977 1

(Breaker and valve indicating lights and' annunciators are notconsideredinstrumentation) j i

i 19 of 19

.,