ML20147C629
| ML20147C629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1987 |
| From: | ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C583 | List: |
| References | |
| ERC871417, NUDOCS 8801190299 | |
| Download: ML20147C629 (73) | |
Text
_ _ - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ . .---- _ _ _.- -- __--_ _--_--_ -_ _----- _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - . - - - - - _ - - _ - - _ - - - - - . - - - _ _
ERC871417 Rav. 11/18/87 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY t
ANO UNIT 2 SIMULATOR 3
r ABSTRACT:
i PERFORMANCE TEST DEVELOPMENT, CONDUCT AND EVALUATION l
l l
l
- l l
Prepared By: h b Approved By: ,
L v
i l l
l 8801190299 871207 PDR ADOCK 05000368 y PDR r c
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 I. PERFORMANCE TEST DEVELOPMENT The performance test was developed by Arkansas Power and Light Company personnel to ensure that the ANO Unit 2 Simuator meets the performance requirements of 10 CFR 55 and those additional requirements contained in ANSI /ANS 3.5, 1985 as endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.149. The
-performance test was formatted to compare closely with the guidance provided in Appendix A to ANSI /ANS 3.5, 1985. The first two sections provide general simulator information and design data and will not be-detailed in this abstract. The third section of the performance test concentrates on simulator testing that is designed to demonstrate com-pliance with the documentation requirements of the standard by compari-son with the data base, where applicable, or with anticipated plant response. The simulator testing section of the performance test pro-vides testing in the following six (6) areas:
- 4. Computer Real Time Testing
- 2. Transient Testing
- 3. Normal Operations
- 4. Malfunction Testing
- 5. Steady State Operations
- 6. Surveillance Testing The testing conducted in the above areas is described in the following sec-tions.
A. Computer Rea'l Time Testing The purpose of this test was to ensure that the simulator is running in real time. To accomplish this purpose, two (2) evolutions were performed. First the computer clock frequency was measured to ensure operations at 60 Hertz. The second evolution was a calculation of CPU /IPU cycle time statistics.
B. Transient Testing The purpose of this test was to ensure that t;imulator performance was consistent with real plant performance in areas where documented plant response is available. Resources utilized to select transients in-cluded in this section are ANO Unit 2 Transient Reports and Licensing i Event Reports. Additionally, selected transients were performed using l plant responso predicted in the Safety Analysis Report as a standard.
The following transients were evaluated as part of this test:
l
! 1. Turbine Trip / Reactor Trip, High MSR Level l 2. "A" MSIV Closure
- 3. Main Turbine Runback l 4. Loss of Circulating Water l S. "D" RCP Trip / Reactor Trip l 6. Reactor Trip, "A" S/G Level
- 7. Partial Loss of Off-Site Power (Natural Circulation)
- 8. Main Steam Line Break
- 9. Loss of Coolant Accident 2
L l , __. _
l ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 Data was collected during the performance of these transients and plots of pre-determined parameters have buen plotted on the simu'ator x y plotter. These results will be used as baseline performance data and should be re-run annually as part of the simulator operability test program.
The simulator was operated in accordance with approved plant proced-ures including abnormal and emergency operating procedures. Personnel conducting the test performed procedurally required steps, if any, during each transient.
C. Normal Operations Testing The purpose of this test was to determine the ability to operate the simulator in accordance with ANO Unit 2 approved plant procedures.
fo determine this, the simulator was taken from a 100% power con-dition to a Cold Shutdown condition (150 F/50 psia) using all required plant procedures. The simulator was then taken from Cold Shutdown and returned to 100% full power as per plant procedures.
During this test protected initial (onditions (ICs) for future training use were established.
D. Malfunction Testing The purpose of this test was to ensure that the simulator was capable of performing malfunctions required by both 10 CFR 55.59.C.3.1 and ANSI /ANS 3.5, 1985 and that the response of the simulator corresponds in direction to actual plant data or to that expected from best es-timate while not violating the physical laws of nature. The "best estimates" cited above were determined by round table discussion between Training and Operations personnel who were licensed on ANO Unit 2 at the Senior Reactor Operator level. The results of these discussion were recorded on "Anticipated Plant Response" sheets which were used during the conduct of the test. The simulator was operated in accordance with approved plant procedures including abnormal and emergency operating procedures and symptoms and auto-matic plant responses were evaluated to approved procedures. Per-sonnel conducting the test performed procedurally required steps, if any, during each malfunction. In cases where the same malfunc-tion could be repeated with the same generic plant response occurring, i.e. dropping any one of the Control Element Assemblies, only one malfunction was required. Selected data from each malfunction was l recorded on eight pen recorders. The malfunctions that were tested during this section of the performance test are listed on Attachment 1.
l l
l l
3
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 E. Steady State Operations Testing The purpose of this test was to demonstrate simulator stability by establishing steady state conditions and monitoring parameter varia-tions with respect to time. The test also compared simulated data to reference plant data at various power levels. The following steady state tests were performed:
- 1. 30% power for 20 minutes
- 2. 60% power for 20 minutes
- 3. 100% power for 70 minutes Critical data collected as a result of this test was collected and saved.
F. Surveillance Testing The purpose of this test was to ensure that the simulator was capable ,
of performing selected surveillances required during plant operations.
The surveillances were condt:ted in accordance with approved plant procedures. Data obtained during the test was logged as appropriate and compared to approved acceptance criteria contained in the surveil-lance procedure. A list of surveillances conducted is contained in Attachment 2.
II. PERFORMANCE TEST CONDUCT The performance test was conducted in accordance with Section 6.1 of the Simulator Fidelity Testing Guideline (see Attachment 3). In accordance with Step 6.1.5.b of the Simulator Fidelity Testing Guideline, there was
- a meeting conducted between Operations and Training personnel to determine what testing would be required to verify that the inherent reactor core characteristics that change over core life are modeled properly. The results of that meeting are documented on Attachment 4. See Attachment l
5 for specific details concerning performance testing staffing and sched-uling. The Test Director and both instructors are licensed Senior Reactor Operators on Unit 2 with a minimum of five (5) years experience operating Unit 2 and six (6) additional years in the Navy Nuclear Power Program.
l The Simulator Support personnel, who are engineers at ANO, have been in-l volved with the acquisition and development of the simulator project for several years and have detailed experience in hardware, software and system modeling.
III. PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS EVALUATION The pe formance test was evaluated in accordance with Step 6.1.6 of the Simulator Fidelity Testing Guideline (Attachment 3). The report con-taining the results of the evaluation have been included in Attachment
- 6. Outstanding Discrepancy Reports have been documented and and are being processed in accordance with the Simulator Modification Control Guideline (Attachment and Section 6.2 of the Simulator Design Control Guideline (Attachmer 4
ERC871417-Rev. 11/18/87.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Malfunction Test Addendum Attachment 2 Surveillance Testing y Attachment 3 Simulator Fidelity Testing Guideline Attachment 4 Time-in-Life Testing Determination Attachment 5 Memo ANO-87-2-01160 Unit 2 Simulator Performance Test Attachment 6 Performance Test Results Evaluation Report '
Attachment 7 Simulator Modification Control Guideline ,
Attachment 8 Simulator Design Control Guideline :
. Attachment 9 Simulator DCP Control Guideline ,
t e
\
l l
r 6
e S
l 1
, - ~ , , , - - - . . - - - - ,, --. , . --- , ._., - , --, - -. . - - . - - . - - - - - - , . , , , , . ~ , , , - - , . - . . . . , , - - -
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 1 MALFUNCTION TEST ADDENDUM D-1 The following is a list of malfunctions that will be tested during the Performance Test. Malfunctions will not be used in Operator Training Programs unless tested in accordance with the Malfunction Test portion of the Performance Test.
Malfunction I.C.
1.0 LOCA (CVCS Relief) 1 2.0 Loss of CCW to L/D HX 1 3.0 Defeat Selected Group Rod Motion 15 4.0 Loss of all Feedwater 1 5.0 Loss of Both MFW Pumps 1 6.0 MFRV Failed Open 1 7.0 Main Generator Trip 1 8.0 Main Turbine Trip 1 9.0 Stuck CEA 15 10.0 Degraded Rad Motion 15 11.0 Defeat CEA Command 15 12.0 Uncontrolled CEA Group Withdrawal 15 13.0 SGTR (>CCP Capacity) 1 14.0 SGTR (<CCP Capacity) 1 15.0 LOCA (Large:lnside Cont.) 1 16.0 LOCA (<CCP Capacity:Inside Cont.) 1 17.0 MSLB (Large:Inside Cont.) 1 18.0 MSLB (Large: Downstream MSIV's) 1 19.0 Steam Leak (Small: Downstream MSIV's) 1 20.0 Pzr Steam Space Leak (Large) 1 21.0 Pzr Safety Valve Failed Open 1 22.0 Pzr Spray Valve Failed Open 1 23.0 Loss of 1 MFW Pump (A Pump) 1 24.0 MFRV Failed Open 1 25.0 Failure of Reactor Trip 1 26.0 Emergency Boration 15 27.0 Loss of A.C. Busses 1 28.0 Loss of D.C. Busses 1 29.0 Dropped CEA 1 30.0 Turbine Bypass Valve Failed Open 17 31.0 Loss of S.W. To SDC Hx 10 32.0 Loss of S.W. To Individual Components 1 6
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.)
Malfunction I.C.
33.0 Loss of "A" Heater Drain Pump 1 34.0 Loss of SDC Flow 10 35.0 Loss of Instrument Air 1 36.0 High RCS Activity (Failed Fuel) 1 37.0 Loss of Protection System Channel 1 38.0 Loss of EDG (Surveillance) 1 40.0 Loss of CCW Pump 1 41.0 Total Loss of CCW 1 42.0 1 Linear Safety Channel Failed High 1 43.0 2 Linear Safety Channels Failed High 1 44.0 Blackout 1 45.0 2P7B Failure 1 46.0 2P7A Failure 1 47.0 Inadvertent SIAS 1 48.0 Dilution of Power 1 49.0 Loss of SW Pump 1 50.0 Loss of SWC 1 51.0 Pzr B/U Htrs On 1 52.0 Loss of Lube Oil to Main Turbine 1 53.0 FWCS Failure 1 54.0 Ejected CEA 1 55.0 Vacuum Pump Failure 1 56.0 LPSI Pump Failure 10 57.0 Condensate Pump Trip 1 58.0 Gland Seal Failure 1 59.0 Loss of Cooling Water - RCP 1 60.0 Uncontrolled Rod Withdrawal /
Insertion 1 61.0 FW Line Break 1 62.0 Turbine High Vibration 1 63.0 Charging Pump Failure 1 64.0 LPSI Suction Leak 10 65.0 LPSI Discharge Leak 10 l 66.0 SDC System Cooler Leak 10 l
l l
1 l
l
, 7 l
l
g , ,u- n ._ .. .. ,. -.c .- + , wes , w . .a . -.y-ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 1 i
ATTACHMENT 2
.c F. SURVEILLANCE TEST 1.0 DISCUSSION Serveillance Tests are performed to demonstrate the ability to perform Normal Operation surveillances in accordance with reference plant procedures. .
The following criteria was used to select which surveillances will be run:
- Safety related and routinely performed by operations.
- Require Control Room manipulations.,
- Provide training value.
2.0 REFERENCE (S) 2.1 ANSI-3.5, 1985, 3.1.1, ANS NPP Simulators for Operator Training i 2.2 ANO Unit 2 Surveillance Test Procedures i
[
3.0 EQUIPMENT j 3.1 None .
4.0 INITIAL CONDITIONS 4.1 Initial Conditions (ICs) will be at IC-1 (100%), unless otherwise noted. ,
5.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ,
5.1 The simulator will perform, without distraction from training, ,
reference plant surveillance procedures.
i 6.0 NON ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 6.1 Non acceptance is defined as the inability to perform surveillance
, tests, or those that detract from training.
6.2 Non acceptance shall halt routine training involving such operations.
Discrepancies shall be recorded, models enhanced, and retested, as required.
7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Using, the latest revision of the reference plant surveillance procedures, -
perform the following operations:
7.1.1 Pzr Lvl Respanse (OP2103.05 Supp 1) ,
7.1.2 Qtrly SI TK V1v Stroke (OP2104.01 Supp 2) L 8
.n -- -g - -,- ---e- , - . , , - - + . - - - - - . . - , , .
-v,- - ., ,-an.m ,-a----.+, - - -, - - . . .--w, ----,--,n. , ,
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont.)
7.1.3 Cont Atmospheric Conditions (0P2104.33 Supp 4) 7.1.4 2DG1 Monthly Test (OP2104.36 Supp 1) 7.1.5 2DG2 Monthly Test (0P2104.36 Supp 2) 7.1.6 Semi-Annual H2 Recombiner 2H55B Function Test (0P2104.44 Supp 2) 7.1.7 Excore NI Log Safety Chn1 Functional (0P2105.15 Supp 1B) 7.1.8 Monthly 2P7A Test (OP2106.06 Supp 1) 7.1.9 Monthly 2P7B Test (OP2106.06 Supp 2) 7.1.10 Qtrly EFW Vlv Stroke Test (9P2106.06 Supp 3) 7.1.11 Verify "A" Train Flow Path (0P2106.06 Supp 4) 7.1.12 Verify "B" Train Flow Path (0P2106.06 Supp 5) 7.1.13 MFWP Turbine Stop Vlv Test (LP2106.07 Supp 1) 7.1.14 Turb. Overspeed Trip Test (0P2106.09 Att. D) 7.1.15 Turb. Gen. Operations Monthly CV Stroke Test (0P2106.09 Att. F) 7.1.16 Turb. Gen. Operations Monthly CV Stroke Test. (0P2106.09 Att. G) 7.1.17 MSIV Qtrly Partial Stroke Test (OP2106.16 Supp 1) 7.1.18 Elect. Sys. Bkr Algment & Pur Avail (OP2107.01 Supp 4) 7.1.19 ESF Swgr. Rm. Exh. Fans Monthly (0P2107.02 Supp 1) 7.1.20 HPSI 2P-89A Monthly (0P2104.39 Supp 1) 7.1.21 HPSI 2P-89B Monthly (OP2104.39 Supp 2) 7.1.22 LPSI 2P-60A Monthly (0P2104.40 Supp 1) 7.1.23 LPSI 2P-60B Menthly (OP2104.40 Supp 2) 7.1.24 Containment Spray 2P-35A Monthly (0P2104.05 Supp 1) 7.1.25 Containment Spray 2P-35B Monthly (OP2104.05 Supp 2) 7.1.26 18 Month Verification of Pressure Interlock (2104.01, Supp 3) 7.1.27- 2P36A Monthly (2104.02, Supp 1) 7.1.28 2P36B Monthly (2104.02, Supp 2) 7.1.29 2P36C Monthly (2104.02, Supp 3) 7.1.30 2P39A Monthly (2104.03, Supp 1) 7.1.31 2P39B Monthly (2104.03, Supp 2) 7.1.32 Automatic Isolation & Interlock of SDC Valves (2104.40, Supp 6) 7.1.33 Rx Trip Circuit Breaker Test (2105.09, Supp 1) 7.1.34 Relief Valve Monitor Monthly (2105.11, Supp 1) 7.1.35 Heat Balance Calculstion (2103.16) 7.1.36 Moderator Temperature Coefficient Test (2302.09) 8.0 Final Conditions 8.1 Surveillance Procedures are completed and initialed.
D/R written for problems encountered.
i i
l I
l i
f
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACliMENT 3 SIMULATOR FIDELITY TESTING GUIDELINE 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline is to provide the administrative controls required to conduct and document f!delity testing on the simulator.
2.0 SCOPE This guideline is applicable to the ANO Unit 2 Simulator.
3.0 REFERENCES
3.1 ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985 3.2 10CFR55 3.3 Simulator Modification Control Guideline 3.4 S; alator Design I:ontrol Guideline 3.5 Administrative Guideline - DCP Control 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Fidelity Testing There are three types of tests that are designed to test the fidelity of the simulator,
- a. Performance Testing A performance test will be run at the completion of initial construction and anytime that simulator design changes result in significant simulator configuration or performance varia-tions.
- b. Discrepancy Report (DR) Tecting A DR Test will be performed to validate a modification prior to its use for training. The test will be controlled by a test plan that is approved by a lead trainer and retained in the DR package,
- c. Operability Testing A simulator operability test shall be performed annually ( 3 months) and is intended to:
- 1) Verify oveicl1 simulator model completeness ,ind integration.
- 2) Verify simulator pectormance criteria ag in,. the steady state criteria, 10
_ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTAC101ENT 3 (Cont.)
- 3) Verify simulator performance against the transient criteria for a benchmark set of transients.
- 4. 2. Terminology used in this guideline is consistent with the definitions provided in ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985 and 10CFR55, 5.0 RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY 5.1 The Operations Training Supervisor is responsible for insuring com-pliance with regulatory requirements concerning simulator lidelity testing.
5.2 The Operations Training Supervisor shall approve simulator performance and operability tests prior to testing.
5.3 A Lead Trainer must approve DR test plans prior to testing.
5.4 The Test Director is responsible for the performance and documentation of simulator performance and operability testing.
6.0 INSTRUCTIONS 6.1 Performance Testing 6.1.1 Each simuistor performance test will provide guidance and evaluation criteria in the following areas:
- a. Computer Real Time Testing
- b. Transient Testing
- c. Normal Operation Testing
- d. Malfunction Testing
- e. Steady State Operations Testing
- f. Surveillance Teating 6.1.2 Test Sequence
- a. The Test Director will determine if a problem resolu-tion is required immediately (prior to proceeding with l the test) or if the test can continue after a DR has
- been written.
6.1.3 Control of Testing l
- a. Approved plant procedures will be used to perform s11 plant operations required by the performance test.
11 l
l
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACIDfENT 3 (Cont .)
- b. Malfunctions to be tested will be evaluated against criteria previously established by Operations and Training personnel,
- c. Transients-to be tested will be evaluated against re-corded plant data and the SAR.
- d. Each section of the performance test will include ac-ceptance criteria that is consistent with the require-ments of ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985.
- e. The Test Director is responsible for determining if acceptance criteria have been met,
- f. Testing will be considered complete when the Test Director determines that the following termination criteria have been met:
- 1) Transient Testing Simulation shall continue until s'ach time that a stable, controllable and safe condition is attained which can be continued to a Cold Shutdown condi-tion or until the simulator operating limits are reached.
- 2) Malfunction Testing
- a. For malfanctions not resulting in a plant trip but requiring a plant shutdown, terminate when a shutdown is started.
- b. For malfunctions resulting in a plant trip, terminate when the plant is being controlled in accordance with the appropriate section of the E0P.
- c. For mslfunction not covered by a or b above, terminate when the plant reaches (or is placed into) a stable condition.
- 3) Unless otherwise specified, testing will be con-ducted at MOL.
4 12
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACitMENT 3 (Cont.)
6.1.4 Selection of time-in-life testing
- a. To insure that the inherent characteristics that change over core life are modeled properly a set of malfunc-tions to be tested over core life have been selected.
These were selected based on discussion between Training and Operations personnel and are listed in Section 7.3.1 of the Operability Test.
6.1.5 Documentation during Performance Testing
- a. The Test Director is responsible for insuring that the information required by the performance test is gathered, attached, logged and evaluated as appropriate,
- b. The Test Director will document any procedural step that can't be completed from the simulator Control Room or Instructor Aid Console,
- c. The Test Director will insure that <a Discrepancy Report (DR) is initiated on any item that does not meet the established acceptance criteria or that in his opinion should be evaluated further. This includes problems encountered in Step b above. The Test Director will keep a chronological log of problems encountered as a result of testing on Attachment 1.
6.1.6 Upon completion of the performance test the results shall be revieved and evaluated by the Operations Training Supervisor, the Test Director and the Operations Superintendent (or his designee) if available. A report will be written that speci-fies problems encountered during testing, actions being taken to resolve the problems, impact that the problems have on training and recommendations concerning utilization of the simulator to avoid acy "negative training".
6.1.7 The following conditions must exist to consider the perfor-mance of the simulator satisfactory for training:
- a. The performance test must be completed and documente'.
- b. All discrepancies noted by the Test Director have been documented and a Discrepancy Report (DR) has been initiated.
- c. The DRs resulting from the performance test have been reviewed and evaluated by the Training Supervisor and the Operations Superintendent or his designee.
13
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 3 (Cont.)
6.2 Discrepancy Report (DR) Testing 6.2.1 Each simulator change resulting from a DR must be tested prior to being used for training.
6.2.2 A Lead Trainer will assign a trainer (usually the trainer who initiated the DR) the responsibility of writing a DR Test Plan. The test plan will give adequate guidance to run a "performance test" on the component that has been changed.
6.2.3 The Lead Trainer will review the test plan for completeness and approve it for use.
6.2.4 When work on the DR has been completed, the Simulator Support group will notify the Lead Trainer that the DR is ready for testing.
6.2.5 The Lead Trainer will provide a trainer to test the component as per the approved test plan.
6.2.6 If the results of the test are satisfactory the test plan will be signed off ar.d included with the DR package. If the test is not satisfactory the Simulator Support group will continue worx on the DR.
6.3 Operability Testing 6.3.1 Each simulator operability test will provide guidance and evaluation criteria in the following areas:
- a. Steady State Testing
- b. Transient Testing
- c. Malfunction Testing
- d. Real Time Testing 6.3.1 Test Sequence
- a. There is no required sequence for testing so che se-quence will be at the discretion of the Test Director.
- b. The Test Director will determine if a problem resolu-tion is required immediately (prior to proceeding with the test) or if the test can continue after a DR has been written.
14
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 3 (Cont.)
6.3.3 Control of Testing
- a. Approved plant procedures will be used to perform all plant operations required by the operability test.
- b. Malfunctions to be tested will be evaluated against criteria previously established by Operations and Training personnel,
- c. Transients tested will be normally be the same tran-sients tested in the performance test and will be evaluated against performance test resul'cs.
- d. Each section of the operability test will include ac-ceptance criteria that is consistent with the require-ments of ANSI /ANS-3.5-198b.
- e. The Test Director is responsible for determining if acceptance criteria have been met.
- f. Testing will be considered complete when the Test Director determines that the following termination criteria have been met:
- 1) Transient Testing Simulator shall continue until such time that a stable, controllable and safe condition is at-tained which can be continued to a Cold Shutdown condition or until the simulator operating limits are reached.
- 2) Malfunction Testing a) For malfunctions not resulting in a plant trip but requiring a plant shutdown, terminate when a shutdown is started.
b) For malfunctions resulting in a plant trip, terminate when the plant is being controlled in accordance with the appropriate section of the E0P.
c) For malfunctions not covered by a or b above, terminate when the plant reaches (or is placed into) a stable condition.
- 3) Unless otherwise specified, testing will be con-ducted at MOL.
15
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTAC10ENT 3 (Cont.)
6.3.4 Selection of Time-fo-life Testing
- a. To insure that inherent characteristics that change over core 1.'.fe are modeled correctly, test the set of mal-functions listed in Step 7.3.1 of the operability test :
annually.
6.3.5 Documentation During Operability Testing
- a. The Te<,t Director is responsible for insuring that the informat;en tequired by the operabilf ty is gathered, attached,, logged and evaluated as appropriate.
- b. The Test Dittetor will document acy procedural step that can't be completed from the Simulator Control
'oom or Instru, tor Aid Console.
- c. fhe Test Director will insure that a Discrepancy Re-port (DR) is initiated on any item that does not e .
the established acceptance criteria or that in hir opinion should be evaluated further. This incluces problems encountered in Step b above. The Test Director will keep a chronological log cf problems encountered as a result of testing on Attachre.nt 1.
6.3.6 Upon completion of the (perabilit y test the results shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Operations Training Super-visor, the Test Director and the Operations Superinte.sdent (or hie designee) if available, i. repor>. will be written that specifies problems encountered duri g testing, actions being taken to resolve the problems, im_.act that the prob-lems have on training and recommendationa concerning utili-zation of the simulator to avoid any "negative training".
6.3.7 The following conditions must exist to consider the perfor-mance of the simulator satisfactory for training.
a) The operability test must be complated and documented.
j b) All discrepancies noted by tne Test Director Lave been documented and a Discrepancy Report (DR) has been initiated, c) The ors res,iting from the operability test have been reviewed and evaluated by the Training Supervisor and the Operations Superintendent or his designee.
16 l
l l
- ~
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 i
ATTACl&ENT 3 (Cont.)
6.4 Reports and Record Retention 6.4.1 Submit, every four years on the anniversary of the certifi-cation, a report to the Commission which identifies any uncorrected performance test failures, and submit a schedule for correction of such performance test failures, if any.
6.4.2 Retain all reports for at least four years.
l l
17 l
ERC871417 RQv. 11/18/87 ATTAC101ENT 3 (Cont.)
PERFORMANCE TEST DR LOG l i i 1 ~l l DR NUMBER I PERFORMANCE l OPERATING l DISCREPANCY l l l TEST STEP # l PROCEDURE j PREVENTS l l l l AND STEP # l COMPLETION l l l l l OF STEP l l l l l l l 1 l l (Y) (N) I I i l I i l i l I I I I _ l l I I I I I I I I L I I I I i 1 '
l .
I ,
I I I ._ l i I I I I i 1
- l I I I i I I 1 1 I I I I I
'l I i l i I I I l i i I I i i i I L i I _ l l I I I I I I I _I l l l l l 1 __I I I l l l ~
1 1 I l l l I I I I l l l 1 I i I _ _ . -
l l l l ! l I I I I I I l l 1 I I i 1 1 I I I I I __
l i 18'
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 4 TIME-IN-LIFE TESTING DETERMINATION A meeting was held on 10-16-87 to decide what simulator malfunctions should be tested at multiple core ages. The general criteria for selecting the malfunc-tions were those that would be affected by changes in MTC, FTC and decay heat.
Present at the meeting were:
G. King Unit 2 Ops Trainer C. Anderson Unit 2 Lead Ops Trainer W. Perks Unit 2 Ops Training Supervisor R. Edington Unit 2 Shift Supervisor Of the malfunctions listed in the simulator performance test, the following were determined to be effected by changes in MTC, FTC and/or decay heat.
- Main Steam Line Break Saall Steam Leak Dropped CEA Loss of SDC Flow Loss of 1 MFP
- T/G Runback (Loss of ACW to SWC lix)
The above malfunctions will be test at BOL, MOL and EOL conditions.
- These malfunction will be recorded on tape, saved, plotted and attached with the transient data in Section E of the Performance Test (BOL & E0L).
A. Main Steam Line Break - Tape Serial #22037030429
- 1) BOL - Log #13 (Start 00:00:00)(Stop 00:12:00)
- 2) EOL - Log #14 (Start 00-01-00)(Stop 00:13:00)
B. T/G Runback .
l l 1) BOL - Log #15 (Start 00:01:00)(Stop 00.13:00) l
- 2) EOL - Log #16 (Start DC:00:00)(Stop 00:12:00) ,
19 l
.: ERC871417
< Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 5 i Arkansas Nuclear 0ne Russellville, Arkansas October 12, 1987
'ANO-87-2-01160
- iEMORANDUM T0: Unit 2 Operations Trainers Bryan Heikes
-Rodney Russell Robert Virden FROM: Walt Perks SUBJECf: Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 Simulator Performance Test
. The Simulator Performance Test will commence on 10/26/87 and continue until completion with the test staff as indicated below:
Test Director Craig Anderson Instructor Sam Cecil Instructor Dan Sealock Sim Support Bryan Heikes Sim Support Rodney Russell ~
Sim Support Robert Virden i
The Test Director has the final responsibility to determine if acceptance criteria have been met and is responsible for proper documentation.
Testing will take place as indicated below:
Week Hours 10/26 - 10/31 0700 - 1700 11/02 - 11/07 0700 - 1700 11/09'- 11/13 1200 - 2000 11/16 - 11/20 1400 - 2200 l
l 20 I
I
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACIDfENT 5 (Cont.)
Unit 2 Ops Trainers ...
October 12, 1987 Page 2 It is expected that the performance test will be completed by 11/7/87.
The remaining two weeks will be used to correct any problems found during the test.
This test is a major milestone for the Unit 2 training group and for AP&L. Besides the fact than an annual performance (operability) test is a requirement, we have made significant improvements in the simulator over the last year which mandate a complete performance test . This docu-ment will be the basis for our certification effort and will be important to reaccreditation.
WEP:djj cc: J. Vandergrift P. Almond L. Gulick ANO-DCC 21 L~
ERC871417 RQv. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 6 PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS EVALUATION REPORT Section 6.1.6 of the Simulator Fidelity Testing Guideline establishes the fol-loving criteria for performance testing:
The following conditions must exist to consider the performance of the simulator satisfactory for training:
- a. The Performance Test must be completed and documented,
- b. All discrepancies noted by the Test Director have been documented and a Discrepancy Report (DR) has been initiated,
- c. The DRs resulting from the Performance Test have been reviewed and evaluated by the Training Supervisor and the Operations Superintendent or their respective designee.
The purpose of this evaluation is to compare the results of the Performance Test with the above criteria to identify problem areas, recommend action necessary to resolve the problems and evaluate the impact on training.
A. THE PERFORMANCE TEST MUST BE COMPLETED AND DOCUMEh"FED :
The Performance test commenced on 10/26/87 and continued over the period of about six weeks. The Performance Test staff was as follows:
Position AP&L Staff Test Director C. Anderson - SRO Instructor S. Cecil - SRO Instructor D. Sealock - SRO Sim. Support B. Heikes - Engineer Sim. Support R. Russell - Engineer Sim. Support R. Virden - Engineer The results of each test were documented as required by the Performance Test and the information is available for review. An ANNUAL REPORT, containing the completed Performance Test along with associated graphs, plots and tape locations will be completed in the first quarter of 1988.
B. ALL DISCREPANCIES NOTED M THE TEST DIRECTOR HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED AND A DISCREPANCY REPORT (DR) IIAS BEEN INITIATED Supplement 1 is a list of the DRs that were open at the completion of the Performance Test. Supplement 2 is a list of DRs that are currently open (12/7/87). The DRs missing from Supplement 2 have been cleared in accordance with the Simulator Modification Control Guidelines.
22
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 C. TIE DRs RESULTING FROM TIE PERFORMANCE TEST HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND EVALUATED BY THE TRAINING SUPERVISOR AND THE OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT OR THEIR DESIGNEE The Operations Training Supervisor and the Operations Superintendent reviewed all open DRs to evaluate their impact on training. Supplement 3 describes the results of the evaluation and indicates that none of the open DRs will result in "negative training". The DRs will be cleared in accordance with the Simulator Design Control Guideline.
i i
i i
l i
23 l
ERC871417 ,
Rev. 11/18/87 :
I SUPPLEMENT 1 TO ATTACHMENT 6 DR NO WRT DATE DESCRIPTION 87-036 02/23/87 VCT LEVEL DECREASES T00 FAST.87-053 03/30/87 MFWP AUTO LIGHT COMES ON BEFORE LOW l
87-056 03/26/87 MODEL TRIP CHAN. BYPASS BUTTONS FOR CH. 2 87-148 06/01/87 MALF 50 SHOULO RESULT IN PUMP TRIP 87-151 06/03/87 NEED LOSS OF SPDS MALF ON EITHER SCREENS .87-153 06/22/87 NEED 2PSV-4822 MODELED r;*174 06/30/87 INSTALL COMMON SWITCHES
!87-220 08/20/87 INCORRECT SCALE ON PZR NARROW RANGE ,87-228 08/26/87 ADD MALF. FOR PREVENTING HPSI STARTS87-252 09/14/87 2PIC-0300 NEEDS A WORKING LOCAL / REMOTE 87-260 10/01/87 IMPLEMENT CYCLE 6 CORE BOL.M0L %E0L 87-265 10/08/87 REMOVE ALL SPARES FROM PANELS i 87-266 10/09/87 HODIFY IC DISPLAY TABLEAU !87-276 10/27/87 FWP L/P STOP VLV TEST INCORRECT 87-277 10/27/87 PLANT POWER INDICATIONS 00 NOT TRACK 87-278 10/28/87 2K03-C13 ALARM IS BACKWARDS i
- 87-280 10/29/87 NR004, NR003 INCORRECT ON CAPS COMPUTER 87-281 10/28/87 2CV-4826 NEEDS SET AND RESET POINT l 87-282 10/28/87 L/D BACKPRESSURE CONT WOULDN'T CONTROL 87-283 10/30/87 T0207.T0208 ARE IGNORING VALVES87-284 10/30/87 2CV-5001-1 SHOULON'T CAUSE 2PIS-5000 DEC [
8/-286 10/30/87 P:CRTOP ABORTS FREQUENTLY [
l 87-287 10/30/87 NEED HORE REALISTIC SHELL WARMING FLOW 87-288 10/30/87 VOLTAGE REGULATORS WILL NOT NULL
!87-289 10/30/87 LOAD SELECTOR VERY SLUGGISH 87-290 10/30/87 IST STAGE FEEDBACK POT NOT WORKING 87-291 11/01/87 INCORRECT LABELS ON 2C11 87-292 11/01/87 7% MISMATCH BETWEEN NEUTRON & CAL. PWR 87-293 11/02/87 CPC'S DIDN'T TRIP ON HI DELTA TC'S l 87-294 11/02/87 2E6.7 DUMP BYPASS VALVS REMAINED OPEN
,87-295 11/02/87 MEGAWATT SWINGS ON TURBINE RUNBACK MALF.
24 l
l
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 SUPPLEMENT 1 TO ATTACHMENT 6 DR NO WRT DATE DESCRIPTION 87-296 11/02/87 S/G PRESS. & LOOP TC'S DIFFERED ALOT 87-297 11/02/87 2CV-5075-1 LIGHTS NOT WORKING CORRECTLY 87-298 11/03/87 LOAD SET METER DIDN'T SETBACK TO 670MW 87-299 11/02/87 S/G GO EXCESSIVELY LOW ON RX TRIPS87-300 11/03/87 FLASH LOGIC FOR 2K07-C9 INCORRECT 87-301 11/03/87 2CV-4823 DOES NOT RESPOND TO AIR LOSS87-302 11/03/87 2CV-0744, 0753 DID HOT RESPOND / AIR LOSS87-303 11/03/87 BTV'S SHOULD ACT LIKE CHECK VLVS/IA LOSS87-304 11/04/87 PULSE COUNT TO 0 OROPPED CEA 87-305 11/04/87 2CV-1075-1 LIGHTS WORKING INCORRECTLY 87-307 11/04/87 CONTAINMENT PARAMETERS /PZR STEAM LEAK 87-309 11/05/87 HI S/G DP WHEN 1 DCP SECURED IN EACH LP 87-310 11/05/87 ITEMS NOT LOST ON 2A1 MALFUNCTION 87-311 11/05/87 ITEMS NOT LOST ON 2A2 MALFUNCTION 87-312 11/05/87 ITEMS NOT LOST ON 2A3 MALFUNCTION 87-313 11/05/87 2CV-1010-1050 DRIFTED SHUT ON 2021/22 1 87-314 11/05/87 RCP CONTROL PWR INCORRECT 87-315 11/05/87 "B" CIRC PMP CONTROL PWR INCORRECT 87-316 11/05/87 2TR-0610-0720 DON NOT ADVANCE PAPER 87-317 11/05/87 MN CHILLERS SHOULO TRIP ON LOSS OF ACW 87-318 11/05/87 EH FLUID TKS INDICATED PWR DRUING BLK0UT 87-319 11/05/87 X:CE2100 MALF. IS NOT ACTUATING 87-320 11/06/87 HYDROGEN RECOMBINER PROBLEMS87-321 11/06/87 HI VIBRATION MALF. INCORRECT ORIGIN 87-322 11/06/87 PRESSURE INCORRECT ON MALF 51 87-324 11/06/87 ENHANCEMENT TO HEAD BUBBLE MODEL 87-325 10/27/87 2LI-1079/1179-2 DON'T FUNCTION IN DRED 87-326 11/07/87 INCREASE SPDS SWITCH CHECK UPDATES87-327 11/07/87 OVERRIDE SCREEN SCRAMBLES SOMETIMES87-328 10/09/87 SHUTDOWN SCREEN DOES NOT ALWAYS APPEAR 25
)
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 SUPPLEMENT 1 TO ATTACHMENT 6 DR NO WRT DATE DESCRIPTION 87-329 11/06/87 MALFS, 13, 32, 68 CAN BE ACCESSED 87-330 11/03/87 2CV-3015 NOT IN SWITCH CHECK 87-331 11/12/87 D/G CROSS CONNECTED WITH OFFSITE PWR 87-332 11/12/87 THROTTLE PRESS LIGHT ON IN SWITCH CHECK 87-333 11/09/87 CANNOT ENTER A CONDITIONAL TRIGGER 87-334 11/04/87 NE4G0205 ON 2C16 IS ON CONTINU0USLY 87-335 10/29/87 CE: LELL(81) TOGGLES.TRUE./. FALSE.87-336 11/09/87 R00 DROPS AND BOL.MOL AND E0L 87-337 11/09/87 EFPD SEEMS TO HAVE AN UPPER LIMITS87-338 11/09/87 SPDS DISPLAY SCREEN INDICATING INCORRECT 87-339 11/11/87 PZR SPRAY AND PZR LEVEL 87-340 11/12/87 "8" SW PMP STARTED W/ DIESELS ON A3 & A4 87-341 11/17/87 2 HIC-0301 PDT HAS NO EFFECT 26
ERC871417 Rsv. 11/18/87 ,
SUPPLEMENT 2 TO ATTACHMENT 6' DR NO WRT DATE DESCRIPTION 87-036 02/23/87 VCT LEVEL DECREASES T00 FAST 87-053 03/30/87 MFWP AtJTO LIGHT COMES ON BEFORE LOW 87-056 03/26/87 MODEL TRIP CHAN. BYPASS BUTTONS FOR CH. 2 87-148 06/01/87 MALF 50 SHOUDL RESULT IN PUMP TRIP 3
87-151 06/03/87 NEED LOSS OF SPDS MALF ON EITHER SCREENS87-153 06/22/87 NEED 2PSV-4822 MODELED 87-174 06/30/87 INSTALL COMMON SWITCHES87-220 08/20/87 INCORRECT SCALE ON PZR NARROW RANGE ,87-228 08/26/87 ADD MALF. FOR PREVENTING HPSI STARTS ,87-252 09/14/87 2PIC-0300 NEEDS A WORKING LOCAL / REMOTE 87-265 10/08/87 REMOVE ALL SPARES FROM PANELS87-266 10/09/87 HODIFY IC DISPLAY TABLEAU ,87-278 10/28/87 2K03-C13 ALARM IS BACKWARDS87-280 10/29/87 NR004.NR003 INCORRECT ON CAPS COMPUTER 87-282 10/28/87 L/D BACKPRESSURE CONT. WOULDN'T CONTROL 87-283 10/30/87 T0207.T0208 ARE IGNORING VALVES87-284 10/30/87 2CV-5001-1 SHOULDN'T CAUSE 2PIS-5000 DEC 87-287 10/30/87 NEED MORE REALISTIC SHELL WARNING FLOW 87-288 10/30/87 VOLTAGE REGULATORS WILL NOT NULL 87-290 10/30/87 IST STAGE FEEDBACK POT NOT WORKING 87-292 11/01/87 7% MISMATCH BETWENE NEUTRON & CAL, PWR 87-293 11/02/87 CPC'S DIDH'T TRIP ON HI DELTA IC'S87-294 11/02/87 2E6.7 DUMP BYPASS VLVS REMAINED OPEN 87-298 11/03/87 LOAD SET METER DIDN'T SETBACK TO 670MW 87-299 11/03/87 S/G G0 EXCESSIVELY LOW ON RX TRIPS87-303 11/03/87 BIV'S SHOULD ACT LIKE CHECK VLVS/IA LOSS87-316 11/05/87 2TR-0610.-0720 00 NOT ADVANCE PAPER 87-317 11/05/87 MN CHILLERS SHOULD TRIP ON LOSS OF ACW 87-319 11/05/87 X:CE2100 MALF. IS NOT ACTUATING 87-322 11/06/87 PRESSURE INCORRECT ON MALF 51 87-324 11/06/87 ENHANCEMENT TO HEAD BUBBLE MODEL 27
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 SUPPLEMENT 2 TO ATTACHMENT 6 DR NO WRT DATE DESCRIPTION 87-326 11/07/87 INCREASE SPDS SWITCH CHECK UPDATES87-327 11/07/87 OVERRIDE SCREEN SCRAMBLES SOMETIMES87-328 10/09/87 SHUTDOWN SCREEN DOES NOT ALWAYS APPEAR 87-332 11/12/87 THROTTLE PRESS LIGHT ON IN SWITCH CHECK 87-336 11/09/87 ROD DROPS AND BOL.MOL AND E0L 87-337 11/09/87 EFPD SEEMS TO HAVE AN UPPER LIMITS87-338 11/09/67 SPDS DISPLAY SCREEN INDICATING INCORRECT 87-342 11/18/87 LOWER RANGE ON GRID DEGRADATION VOLTAGE 87-343 11/18/87 ANN. LIGHT /CKNOWLEDGE INCORRECT 87-344 11/18/87 2K04-09 ALARM LOGIC INCORRECT 87-345 11/20/87 2 TIC-1607 RESPONDS INCORRECTLY 87-346 12/01/87 CIRC. PMP TRIP SHOULD NOT CAUSE RUNBACK
!87-347 12/01/87 2K03-H14 WAS ON WITH LOSS OF 2A2 87-348 12/01/87 TURBINE SUMP ALARMS DID NOT COME IN 87-349 12/02/87 ADD LOA'S FOR DEGRADED POWER TAB 87-350 12/02/87 ADD MALF FOR CCW PHP TRIPS
,87-351 12/02/87 ENHANCE EJECTED CEA MALF FOR LOCA t 87-352 12/03/87 MALF GROUP 65 NEEDED DESCRIPTION ADDED 87-353 12/03/87 VLVS CYCLING FOR NO REASON 87-354 12/03/87 DG SHOULD HAVE STARTED ON UV ON 2A3 i 87-355 12/04/87 PZR RESPONSE IS TOO SLOW FOR MAIN SPRAY 4
i l
28
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 [
SUPPLEMENT 3 TO ATTACHMENT 6 Arkansas Nuclear One-Russellville, Arkansas '
December 3, 1987 ANO-87-2-01328 4
MEMORANDUM ;
r T0: J. D. Vandergrift FROM: W. E. Perks '# I i
i
SUBJECT:
Arkansas Nuclear One ;
Unit 2 Simulator Discrepancy Report Evaluation j A meeting was held on December 2,1987 in the E0F to evaluate Discrep-ancy Reports written against the Unit 2 Simulator for adverse effects on operator training. Present at the meeting were: [
L. Gulick .
D. Sealock c W. Perks
[
- Approximately 40 of the 80 DRs discussed during the meeting have al- t l ready been corrected and the documentation is in progress. We agreed ,
that none of the 40 remaining DRs will cause "negative training". ,
. These DRs will be corrected within the time limits allowed by the ;
3-Unit 2 Simulator Design Control Guidelines.
There were 4 active DRs that exceeded the time limits established in the Design Control Guideline. These will be cleared as time permits i l and will cause no "negative training".
WEP:djj t cc: L. Gulick D. Sealock :
- 8. Heikes '
ANO-DCC l 29
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE SIMULATOR MODIFICATION CONTROL GUIDELINES (REV. 0)
/
DEVELOPED DATE
/
REVIEWED DATE
/
U-I OPS /TRG APPROVED DATE
/
U-II OPS /TRG APPROVED DATE
/
SSG APPROVED DATE
/
TRAINING MANAGER DATE 30
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
SIMULATOR MODIFICATION CONTROL GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 OBJECTIVE 2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 DESIGN DATA BASE (DDB)
- 2. 2 DISCREPANCY
- 2. 3 DISCREPANCY REPORT (DR) 2.4 LEAD SIMULATOR INSTRUCTOR
- 2. 5 LOADUP
- 2. 6 MODIFICATION
- 2. 7 OPERATOR TRAINING GROUP SUPERVISOR 2.8 PROBLEM
- 2. 9 PROBLEM VALIDATION 2.10 REJECTED 2.11 SIMULATOR ENGINEER (SE) 2.12 SIMULATOR ENHANCEMENT 2.13 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION (SM) 2.14 SM DESIGN PACKAGE 2,15 SOFTVTRE MODULE 2.16 SOFTWARE SIMULATION SYSTEM 2.17 SOFTWARE SPECIALIST 2.18 SYSTEM MODULE 2.19 SIMULATOR SUPPORT GROUP (SSG) ,
31
ERC871417 -
Rov. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENTf7.(Cont.)
3.0' REQUIREMENTS 3.1 SOURCES OF SIMULATOR MODIFICATIONS (SM) 3.1.1 MODIFICATIONS TO REFERENCE PLANT 4
3.1.2 SIMULATOR PROBLEMS
[
3.1.3 SIMULATOR ENHANCEMENTS' !
3.1.4 SIMULATOR SPECIFICATION CHANGE 3.1.5 JUMPER LOG ,
3.2 INITIATING DISCREPANCY REPORT 3.2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM ,
3.2.2 PROBLEM VALIDATION 3.2.3 ASSIGNING DR NUMBER 3.2.4 TRAINING PRIORITY 3.2.5 SE RECEIPT OF A DR 3.3 AUTHORIZATION TO DEVELOP SM I
3.4 SM DESIGN PACKAGE 4 3.4.1 DESIGN DATA IDENTIFICATION I 3.4.2 SM SPECIFICATION l
3.4.3 SM SPECIFICATION REVIEW l 3.4.4 SM DESIGN 3.4.5 SM IMPLEMENTATION l 3.5 SM TESTING 3.5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL TEST 3.5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE TEST 3.5.3 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE TEST 32
ERC871417 Rsv. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
3.6 SM ACCEPTANCE 3.7 DOCUMENTATION UPDATE 3.8 SM CLOSE0VT 4.0 RECORDS 5.0 ATTACHMENTS FIG 1 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION PROCESS DIAGRAM FIG 2 DCP STATUS FILE FIG 3 SIMULATOR DISCREPANCY REPORT FIG 4 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION
SUMMARY
INFORMATION FIG S DISCREPANCY REPORT LOG, ANO-1 PROJECT FIG 6 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION
SUMMARY
FIG 7 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION SPECIFICATION REVIEW FIG 8 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION HARDWARE DESIGN FIG 9 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION SOFTWARE DESIGN FIG 10 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION TEST PLAN FIG 11 DOCUMENTATION UPDATE PACKAGE 33
ERC871417 Rsv. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
1.0 OBJECTIVE To establish guidelines for the initial, design, tracking, installation and documentation for modifications to the AP&L ANO Unit I and II Simu-lators.
2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 Design Data Base (DDB): A collection of data consisting of reference plant drawings, manuals, performance data and other documents that defines the plant being simulated.
2.2 Discrepancy
A difference between observed performance and the current data base.
2.3 Discrepancy Report (DR): A form used to identify discrepancies, problems and needed corrections and/or upgrading of the Simu-lator hardware and/or software and initiates the review and correction process.
2.4 Lead Simulator Instructor: An instructor currently certified by the NRC to conduct Simulator training and appointed by the Supervisor of Operator Training as the interface between the Ops. Training group and Sim, group or his appointed designee.
2.5 Loadup
The process of loading the simulation software from libraries and load modules into memory in preparation for execution.
2.6 Modifications
Any addition, deletion or change to simulation software or hardware.
2.7 Operator Training Group Supervisor: Individual responsible for meeting established regulations.
- 2. 8 Problem: A difference between observed performance and ex-pected or desired performance.
2.9 Problem Validation: The process of ensuring the simulator problem report identifies a valid problem.
2.10 Rejected: The proposed revision is not satisfactory.
2.11 SimulatorEngineer(SE}: An individual responsible for changes in the performance of the simulators. The engineer will be designated by the Sim Support Supervisor.
?4
ERC871417 ,
Rev. 11/18/87 .
I ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
i 2.12 Simulator Enhancement: A simulator modification which will result in any of the following:
- 1. Addition of data to the Design Data Base.
- 2. Elimination of simulation design simplifications or as-sumptions.
- 3. Increasing the capability of the Simulator.
4 2.13 Simulator Modification (SM): A change in the simulation software or hardware.
2.14 SM Design Package: The document that defines what the SM is to accomplish (specification or requirement) and how (design) the SM is going to accomplish it. ,
2.15 Software Module: A unit of software whose source code is con-tained in one file.
2.16 Software Simulation System: The simulation system consists of the software necessary to execute and control the simulation.
This shall include the job streams necessary to load, save, restore and unload the simulation system.
2.17 Software Specialist: An individual responsible for performing i
software modifications. ,.
i 2.18 System Module: A software module that simulates a portion of ,
a particular plant system. ;
2.19 Simulator Support Supervisor (SSS): Individual responsible for maintenance of Simulators and its perifery equipment at the Training Center.
i l 3.0 REQUIREMENTS i ;
3.1 Source of SM: It is intended that a Simulater modification be i i initiated from one of five sources. These sources as well as a discussion of each follows:
i 3.1.1 Modifications to the Reference Plant: As modifica- i tions to a Simulator's reference plant are made (i.e., Facility Changes, Specifications Changes, 1 Set Point Changes), appropriate training and engine-ering evaluation of these modifications may result i in the necessity to implement similar modifications -
into the Simulator. !
NOTE: This type of Simulator modification will l require updating of the Design Data Base. -
35 1
N
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
3.1.2 Simulator Problem: As a result of trainee or Simu-lator Instructor feedback a problem with the current simulation system may be identified. Once reviewed, a SM may be initiated in order to resolve the problem.
3.1.3 Simulator Enhancements: It may become desirable to enhance the simulation beyond its current capabilities.
A formal letter to the LSI from the individual desiring the change should precede such a SM and describe the en-hancement. If subsequent discussion between the LSI and the Simulation Engineer result in an agreer.ient to enhance the Simulator, a SM may be initiated.
NOTE: This type of modification may result in the addition of data to the Design Data Base, may result in the elimination of simulation design simplifications or assumptions, or may extend the current scope of simulation.
3.1.4 Simulator Specification Change: From time to time it may become necessary to add, replace, or modify non-simulation software such as operating system software or system utilities, etc.
Also, it may become necessary to modify the Simulator's hardware design. A SM should be initiated in order to document these type of changes.
NOTE: This type of SM may not require a change to the Design Data Base.
3.1.5 Jumper Log: Occasionally, plant operations requires certain logics or equipment performance to be altered by temporary methods until permanent changes can be incorporated. These changes will be monitored by the Lead Simulator Instructor and the appropriate actions taken.
3.1 Initiating Discrepancy Report (DP.):
3.2.1 Identification of Problem: Problems with the Simulator are generally discovered by Instructors or Operators in requalification, but may also be identified by others.
Identified problems shall be documented with a Simulator Discrepancy Report (DR) (See Fig. 3). The originator of the DR shall fill out - Date, Time, Reported By, Describe Problem, Test in Progress /IC, Other Info /
Reference and must provide data to validate DR. The originator will then submit the DR to a Simulator Instructor (SI). The SI shall forward the DR and data to the lead Simulator Instructor (LSI).
36 l
l
ERC871417 Rov. 11/18/87 L
ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
3.2.2 Problem Validation: Upon receipt of the DR with the ;
appropriate sections completed and supporting data, the LSI shall determine if the problem is valid. If :
the problem is not valid, an explanation shall be at-tached to the DR and both shall be returned to the originator. If the problem is valid, the LSI shall then check the DR Log to see if the problem has been previously identified. If the problem has been iden-tified, this shall be noted on the DR and the DR shall ,
be returned to the originator. If the problem has not !
been previously identified, the DR shall be assigned a DR Number and logged into the CR Log (Fig 5).
3.2.3 Logging in Simulator Problem Re3 orts: The LSI shall log the DR in the appropriate DR Log by doing the fol-lowing:
- 1. Assign a DR number using the following format:
DR No XX-YYY Where XX = Year Designation YYY = Sequential Log Number for that year
- 2. Enter the DR on the next available line of the
! DR Log Form (Fig. 5) contained in the DR Log.
Upon completing the logging in process, the original OR shall be submitted to the Simulator Engineer (SE) for further evaluation (all 3 copies).
$ 3.2.4 Training Priority: It is the responsibility of the Lead Simulator Instructor to assign a priority to
- each DR. The criteria for this evaluation should be based on the training value of the DR and not cost and schedule considerations.
l
[ 3.2.5 Simulator Engineer (SE) Receipt of a DR Upon receiving a DR from the LSI, the DR and/or DCP Databases are I
updated. Also, a Simulator Modification Summary (Fig. 6) should be completed. This summary may only be necessary for complex DR's. After completion of 1
this form, the entire package is submitted to the SSS j for approval.
i
! 37 1
i
l'RC871417 Rw. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
3.3 Authorization to Develop Simulator' Modification: It is the re-sponsibility of the Simulator Support Supervisor (Sc5) to either approve, disapprove, or defer each SM proposed by tne Simulator Engineer (SE). This action may take place as soon as the SM is initiated or may be delayed until manpower and cos c considerations have been more carefully analyzed. Approval shal' be indicated by the SSS with a signature in the appropriate ptocessing se-quence block of Figure 4, "SM Summary Informatica." Disapproval of a SM shall be accompanied with an explanation of why the SM is not to proceed. This explanation shall be filed in the DR Log and the SM shall be closed as described in Section 3.10.
Deferral of the'SM means that implementation should not proceed until a specified event takes place (e.g., existing component requires replacement, final design data becomes a cilable, etc.).
Deferral shall be accompanied by a paragraph explMqing the terms of the SM implementation. The word "DEFERRED" shaii be printed in the date closed block of the DR Log (Fig. 5).
3.4 SM Design' Package:
3.4.1 Design Data Identification: The SE shall procure enough pertinent data to allow the design of the new or modified simulation system to proceed with as few design assumptions as possible. Care should be taken to procure only data needed during the design phase and to eliminate all extraneous data.
3.4.2 (If necessary)
SM Specification: A Simulator Modification Specifica-tion shall be developed based upon specific plant data. .
This shall be in sufficient detail to allow a Design Engineer (Simulator Engineer and/or Software Specia-list) to design the required software. Mzrked-up or new simulation system diagrams shall be prepared as necessary to define the new requirements. Also, assumptions and simplifications to be used in the SM design shall be stated. Included in the SM Speci-fication shall be sufficient information to allow design and installation of any hardware associated with the SM. Marked-up Simulator drawings shall be used as much as practicable for this purpose.
3.4.3 (If necessary)
SM Specification Review: Once the SM Specification is complete, a review shall be conducted. The purpose 9f the review is to ensure that the specificatio satisfactorily addresses the original source (s) of the SM. As a minimum, this review shall be conducted by an SE and the LSI. The SSS may participate at his discretion.
30
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
The specification should be modified as a result of comments generated durug the review. In the event that an impasse is reached in the review, the SSS shall make the final dete miination. Once all com-ments have been resolved, the review team members shall indicate their approval by signing the Simulator Specification Review Form (Fig. 7) which shall be attached to the specification. The SE shall then sign the appropriate processing sequence block of Fig. 4, "SM Summary Information."
3.4.4 SM Design: Using the SM Specification generated in the sections above, modifications to the Simulator's hardware and software shall be designed. It is in-tended that this phase be performed by the Design Engineer. A hardware design shall be developed if any changes to the Simulator hardware are to be made.
This hardware design shall be in sufficient detail for a technician to make all changes and shall fol-low established conventions for wiring, labelling, component installation, etc. Fig. 8 shall be used as a c.over sheet for a hardware design.
If ahe SM requires software modifications, a software design shall be developed by the Design Engineer. Fig.
9 shall be used as a cover sheet for a software de-sign package. At a minimum, t*1 software design shall contain the file names of all source code modules that are to be modified. It should contain a descrip-tion of the changes that are to b2 made to each section of a software mo M e. Also, a listing of DATAP00L changes shall be -1 part of the software design. Ac-cepted programming conventions shall be followed in the softwarc design.
3.4.5 SH Implementation:
Hardware: Installation of SM hardware may proceed upon completion of the hardware design and receipt of hardware. Copies of all hardware procurement documents shall be part of the SM design package. Once all hardware has been ordered, the SE shall sign the ap-propriate processing sequence block of the SM Summary Information form.
Software: Implementation of SM software may proceeri at this point in accordance with acceptable software and engineering techniques.
39
ETC871417 Ru. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
, Completion of Work: Once the design work is complete and all necessary hardware and software modifications have been performed, the SM is ready for initial testing. At this point, the Design Engineer shall sign the appropriate processing seqt.ence block of Fig. 4, "SM Summary Information". As hardware work is completed, appropriate documents should be updated.
3.5 SM Testing 3.5.1 Development of Initial Test: Any SM that requires software modifications shall be tested by.the hardware /
software designers. The test shall be designed to ,
ensure that the modified Simulator meets the require-ments of the SH Specification. It is the responsi-bility of the person (s) developing the test to consider, as a minimum, the necessity of testing any of the fo'l-lowing:
- a. Digital Inputs Loop h. Switch Check
- b. Analog Inputs Loop i. I/O Override
- c. Lamp Check j. Monitored Parameters
- d. Meter Test k. Logic Response
- e. Recorder Functions 1. Dynamic Response
- f. Remote Functions m. Steady-State Response
- g. Malfunctions n. Transient Response 3.5.2 Development of Performance Test: Software modifica-tions shall be tested with a test aeveloped by the LSI.
The test should consider prerequisites, if any that must be met prior to performing the test and shall indicate the necessity for updating Simulator initial conditions files. The test shall be designed to ensure that the modified simulator meets the require-ments of the SM specification.
Any review team member may develop additional testing which shall be included as part of the test with the concurrence of the complete review team. When the test is complete, the review team members shall in-dicate approval by signing the appropriate area of the SM test plan cover sheet (Fig. 10).
3.5.3 Conduct of the Performance Test: Once the test has been prepared, reviewed, and Evised, the testing shall be conducted by the LSI. At the SE's direction, the SM shall be incorporated into the Training Disk.
3.6 SM Acceptance:
If rejected, remedial design efforts should proceed. Once cor-rective action has been taken, modified appropriate sections of the test previously used shall be prepared and run in accordance with Section 3.5.3 above.
40
ERC871417 9ev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
If accepted, Fig. 3, "AP&L Simulator Discrepancy Report",-shall be used to record the SM acceptance or rejection as wall as ad-ditional comments. Once accepted, the LSI shall sign the appropriate processing sequence block of Fig. 4 "Simulator Modification Summary Information." The acceptance form shall be maintained in the SM design package.
- 3. 7 Documentation Update: The intent of the updating process is to ensure the usefulness and accuracy of the documentation associated with the Simulators. It is necessary that the documentation employed to perform Simulator modifications reflect the current training simulation. All previous updates shall be incorporated in their final form on the document <; used to generate an update package or the accuracy of the updata package and assuciated documentation cannot be assured.
The updating shall be accomplished by the following personnel:
Document Responsible Personnel
- a. Final Design Specification / Software Designer Design Concept Documentation
- b. Operations Manual Software Designer
- c. Simulator Hardware Drawings Hardware Designer
- d. Design Data Base Report Simulator Engineer
- e. Simulator Test Lead Simulator Instructor
- f. Simulator Malfunction Cause Lead Simulator and Effects Instructor Fig. 11, "Documentation Update Package," shall be used to in-dicate what documents need to be updated. This form shall be maintained in the SM Design Package.
Once all the updates have been prepared, the SE shall review them for accuracy and clarity. Once the SM has been accepted and implemented into the new training pack, the remaining update packages shall be incorporated into the rehrence documents by whatever means is currently being utilized (local control, Document Control, Engineering Records, etc).
3.8 SM Closeout: It is the responsibility of the SE to review the completed SM status file for clarity and legibility in prepara-tion for entry into the Document Control System. Once the SE has prepared the file, the SE shall officially close out the SM by signing the appropriate processing sequence block of Fig. 4, "Simulator Modification Summary Information."
After closing, the SE shall enter the SM Design Package into the Document Control System and the DR Log shall be dated ac-cordingly.
41
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 i
AT ACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
+
4.0 RECORDS !
The Final Documentation, Functional Specs Unit-1 and Design Concept Docu-mentation Unit II, and the model codes are the final products of record keeping. The Design Data Base File provides the accountability of all data and defines the status of the simulator. The maintenance of the DDB is not only regulated but necessary to maintain simulator fidelity.
Two files support the DDB, DRs, the focal point of all simulator changes and DCPs, plant modifications. The DCP file provides a record of all plant modification imp'amented to be implemented, and those not affecting the simulator, the DR file provides a record of all simulator changes implemented or to be implemented.
5.0 DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (DCS) 5.1 The DCS provides the following functions:
5.1.1 Establishes a baseline record (DDB) 5.1. 2 Maintains a current data base of simulator design (DDB) 5.1.3 Tracks plant changes affecting simulator design and op-eration (DCP) 5.1.4 Tracks plant changes not affecting simulator design and operation (DCP) 5.1.5 Track; differences between the simulator and the simula-tor design bases (DR) 5.1.6 Tracks identified improvements needed in simulator design (DR)
- 5. 2 The DCS consists of 3 major files 5.2.1 Design Data Base (DDB) 5.2.1.1 Design Data Base (DDB) consists of the following:
5.2.1.1.1 Technical llanualt - name, vendor docu-ment identification 5.2.1.1.2 Drawings generating body, drawing number, drawing revision number 5.2.1.1.3 Power Plant Data process computer listings, recorder strip charts, design calculations, analytical data (accident analysis) 5.2.1.1.4 Applicable plant modifications incee-porated into the simulator -
identification of plant modification package, data incorporated and models affected, supporting test data and verification.
42
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)~
5.2.1.2 Design Data Base (DDB) iile provides accountability of the following information:
5.2.1.2.1 DOC NO - document to=bcr, file location:
DOC N0 is desigr. aced. WWW.XX.YYY. Unit I system numbers are 4 oigit, and Unit II uses 2 digits, to provide a consis-tant format, a 3 digit number was used.
Unit 1 system 0530 is 530, Unit'II 7.0 is 070.
WWW is system number. XX is used for DCPs and DRs and represents year in-corporated (this will be 00 for every-thing else).
YYY is a sequential number for distin-guishing data for each system.
5.2.1.2.2 SYS, S2, S3, etc. - system utilizing specific information, i.w. Sys 02.0 and 25.0, then 2 (or more) records are created with the same Doc. No., one record with SYS = 02.0 and S2 = 25.0 and the second (same Doc. No.) with SYS = 25.0 and 52 = 02.0. This allows printout of all data for SYS 02.0 and 25.0 to be outputted searching on only one field.
5.2.1.2.5 Description provides general informa-tion or title.
5.2.1.2.4 ID No. Doc - document identification number, print, sheet (if applicable),
and revision number.
5.2.1.2.5 Vendor - supplier and/or manufacturer 5.21.2.6 MOD /DATE - DCP (or DR) number and the date it was incorporated (i.e.
82-2279/12/05/86) (The DOC N0 would be 000.86 YYY) 5.2.1.3 Design Data Base Updates 5.2.1.3.. Assign data appropri, - Doc A 5.2.1.3.2 Ado SM package tc DDB fil; 34 rer assigned Doc. No.
5.2.1.?.3 Printout DDB for updated system l 5.2.1.3.4 Replace DCD printout with new printout i
43 i
L.
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 I
ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
5.2.2 Design Change Package (DCPs) 5.2.2.1 Design Change Package cons *sts of any of the following:
5.2.2.1.1 *AP&L Simulator Discrepancy Report (Fig. 3) 5.2.2.1.2 Simulator Modification Summary Infor-mation (Fig. 4) 5.2.2.1.3 Simulator Modification Summary (Fig. 6) 5.2.2.1.4 Simulator Modification Specifications Review (Fig. 7) r 5.2.2.1.5 SM Hardware Design (Fig. 8) i 5.2.2.1.6 SM Software Design (Fig. 9) 5.2.2.1.7 SM Test Plan (Fig. 10) 5.2.2.1.8 Documentation Update Package (Fig. 11) 5.2.2.1.9
- Design Change Package ITEMS ARE RFQUIN.D ,
5.2.2.2 Design Change Package File provides account-ability of the following information: (Fig. 2) 5.2.2.2.1 DCP No. - number as written on DCP s 5.2.2.2.2 A - Affects Simulator i Y = Yes N = No
( C = Cancelled (By Plant)
- D = Developma t (has not been l reviewed or is 4till being written) 5.2.2.2.3 Description provides general 11for-mation or title 5.2.2.2.4 DCD, DCD2, DCD3 - system (s) affec.. d by DCP 5.2.2.2.5 Date Irc. DATC2, CATE3 - date DR is implemented (this weald also be date for MOD /DATE, step S.2.1.2.6) 5.2.2.z.6 DR NO. DR2, DR3 - uR(s) written to implement DCP 5.2.2.2.7 Coments - contains FCN#, and any other pert.inent information 5.2.2.3 Design Change Package Updates 5.2.2.3.1 Master File - on a periodic bases 44 l
a%, - - . $
Ei<C871417.
Rev. 11/18/87
~
ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
.5.2.2.3.1.1 Ps: quest DCP Status
' Report-from Plant Data
.cocessing:
5.2.2.3.1.1.1 Doc No 5.2.2.3.1.1.2 Ooc Subj 5.2.2.3.1.1.'
JCP Status 5.2.2.3.1.1.4 Doc Activity
- 5.2.2.3.1.1.5- Beg. Date 5.2.2.3.1.1.6 End Date 5.2.2.3.1.1.7 Sort by Doc No. Ascending (Obtain years 1982 to pre -
sent; if all DCPs for a given year ha'.<e been closed out '
or canceiled, omit that .
year) 5.2.2.3.1.2 Compare Plant list to Master File 5.2.2.3.1.2.1 Add new DCPs as necessary (all DCPc will be A = D until.
The DCP is
> reviewed by
- SIM/TRG Groups) 5.2.2.3.1.2.2 Change field A from D to l- C if DCP has l' been cancelled r (close out DRs written on cancelled L DCPs)
[:.'
L l-o l
45 i
L
7 ERC871417 J' Rev. 11/18/87 ATTAChMEi,T 7 (Cont.)
y 5.2.2.'3.2 DCP completed 5.'. 2.3.2.1 Add appropriate infor-mation 5.2.2.3.2.2 Add eppe)p'rfate infor-matio. co DDB (5.2.1.3).
5.2.2.3.2.3 Place DCP in appropriate DDB file location 5.2.2.3.3 DCP toes not affect simuistor 5.2.2.3.3.1 Change field A from 0 to N 5.2.2.3.3.2 Discard DCP 5.2.3 Discrapancy Reports (DRs) 5.2.3.1 Discrepancy Reports (DRs) are the focal poirt of all simulator modifications. No change is done on the simulator without a DR 5.2.3.2 Discrepancy Reports (DRs) File y ovides c' count-abibility of the following informs 'on:
5.2.3.2.1 DR No - XX-YYY .
XX is year designatioi' YYY is sequential log r.'Jmbe, for that year 5.2.3.2.1 WRT-DATE - date the DR is written 5.2.3.2.3 REPORT-BY person writing the DR 5.2.3.2.4 CATEGORY - system or components affected 5.2.3.2.5 CRTPTH.- critical path, needed for training person responsible for 5.2.3.2.6 ASSIGN TO implementation b.2.3.2.7 TSTREQ - retest required 5.2.3.2.8 CLR-DATE - date DR implemented and tested, if applicable
. 5.2.3.2.9 DCUPRQ - documentation update required t
(must be YES if associated with DCP) 5.2.3.2.10 VER-DATE - date documentation update was verified 5.2.3.2.11 DCP NO - design cho.~ ackage 5.2.3.2.12 DESCRIPTION - descr problem or change 5.2.3.3 Discrepancy Report Updates 5.2.3.3.1 Add data from DR sheet 46
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
PAGE 1 OF 3
- DENOTES SIGNATURE REQUIRED 47
ERC871417 Rev, 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
PAGE 2 0F 3
- DENOTES SIGNATURE REQUIRED 48
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACIDfENT 7 (Cont.)
PAGE 3 0F 3 l
l l
l l
- DENOTES SIGNATURE REQUIRED 49
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACIDIENT 7 (Cont.)
DCP STATUS FILE DCD DATE INC DR NO DCD 2 DATE 2 DR 2 DCP NO. A DESCRIPTION DCD 3 DATE 3 DR 3 COMMENTS l
l 50 1
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACIRfENT 7 (Cont.)
PAGE 1 0F 2 l
l l
l l
l l
l l 51
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
{
PAGE 2 0F 2 l
l 52
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
SIMULATOR MODIFICATION
SUMMARY
INFORMATION DR # DCP #
PROCESSING SEQUENCE SIGNATURE DATE TRAINING PRIORITY ASSIGNED Lead Sim Inst SM INITIATED Sim Engr APPROVED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Sim Sup Supv HARDWARE ORDERED __
Sim Engr SOFTWARE WORK COMPLETE Sim Engr HARDWARE WORK COMPLETE Designer INITIAL TESTING COMPLETE Sim Engr TRAINING TESTED AND ACCEPTED Lead Sim Inst i
DOCUMENTATION UPDATED Sim Engr SM CLOSED Sim Engr l
l l
53
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
DISCREPANCY REPORT LOG I I I I I 1 IDR I DATE I DCP l DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM l DATE l' INO. I WRITTEN I # l l CLOSED I I I I I l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i l i I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I i l i l I I i i l l I i i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ _ _
l !
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I _I I I I I I l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! I I l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 54
, .- ._ .. ~ . . - . . .-
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
Page 1 of 2 SIMULATOR MODIFICATI0il
SUMMARY
DR # :
- DCP # :
TITLE :
SOFTWARE MODIFICATION:
H/W MODIFICATION:
9 l- BILL OF MATERIALS ITEM QUANTITY COST I
Total 55
= _ . , . , . _ . _ . - . . _ . . , _ - _ _ _ , . - _ . .-- _ _ - . . . - _ . -. _ -.__ __ _ _- __ . - -
ERC871417 Rsv. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
Page 2 of 2 SIMULATOR MODIFICATION
SUMMARY
OR # :
DCP # :
TITLE :
S/W ACTIVITY M/H S/H DB Related N/A I.A. Related N/A Detailed Design N/A Code Implementatiou N/A Initial Test _
Associated S/W Support Documentation N/A I
DWG Update N/A Total l H/W ACTIVITY M/H S/H Installation Dwg. Update N/A N/A Total PERFORMANCE TESTING M/H S/H Total 56
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
SIMULATOR MODIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW DR # DCP # DATE SM SPECIFICATION APPROVED:
Sim Engr Lead Sim Inst 67
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
SM HARDWARE DESIGN OR # DCP # DATE Designer:
58
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
SM SOFTWARE DESIGN DR # DCP # DATE Designer:
l l
59 l
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
SM TEST PLAN DR #
DCP #
Test Plan Developed by:
Approved by:
Lead Simulator Instructor Date
- Simulator Engineer Date Date Date l
l l 60
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT.7 (Cont.)
Page 1 of 2 DOCUMENTATION UPDATE PACKAGE
'DR #
Place.a check by the documents for which r.n update is being provided.
A. Final Software Design Specification
! 1. System Design Data
- 2. System Malfunctions
- 3. System Remote Functions
- 4. Design Assumptions
- 5. Design Simplifications ;
- 6. System Panel Instrumentation
- a. Meters r
- b. Recorders
- c. Controllers
- d. Lights
- e. Switches
- f. Miscellaneous
- g. Annunicators
- 7. PCM Monitored Parameters
- 8. Process Computer Monitored Parameters ,
i 9. Air Operated Valves
- 10. Solenoid / Motor Operated Valves i
61 l
l ERC871417 l Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
Page 2 of 2
- 11. Pump Motors
- 12. Meters / Transmitters
- 13. Simulation System Description
- 14. Simulation System Diagrams
- 15. Source Code Comments B. Simulator Operations and Maintenance Manual
- 1. Description and Leading Particulars
- 2. Operating Instructions C. Simulator Hardware Drawings
- 1. Trainer Block Diagrams (900 Series)
- 2. Wire List 3.
4.
5.
D. Design Data Base Report E. Simulator Test Plan (s) 62
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
F. Simulator Malfunction Cause and Effects 63
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 7 (Cont.)
JOB REQUEST
SUBJECT:
FROM:
T0:
DR #: UNIT #: DATE ISSUED:
DCP #: DATE COMPLETED:
DESCRIPTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
ACTION:
l 64
l ERC871417 l Rev. 11/18/87 :
ATTACHMENT 8 SIMULATOR DESIGN CONTROL GUIDELINE
- 1. 0 PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline is to provide the administrative controls- t on simulator design required to maintain simulator performance in ac-cordance with standards' established in ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985 and 10CFR55.45.
- 2. 0 SCOPE This guideline is applicable to the ANO Unit 2 Simulator.
3.0 REFERENCES
3.1 ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985 3.2 10CFR55 3.3 INP0 86-026 3.4 Administrative Guideline - OCP Control -
3.5 Simulator Modification Control Guideline 4.0 DEFINITIONS ,
Terminology used in this guideline is consistent with the definitions provided in ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985 and 10CFR55.
- 5. 0 RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY The designated lead trainer is responsible for the implementation of '
this guideline.
6.0 INSTRUCTIONS 6.1 Simulator Update Design Data ,
6.1.1 Plant modification (DCP's) shall be reviewed for training and engineering value at least once per quarter by the Operations Training Supervisor or his designee in ac- ;
cordance with the Simulator DCP Control Guideline.
6.1.2 If the plant modification is determined to have training and/or engineering value, the simulator update design data will be revised by the simulator engineer.
6.2 Simulator Modifications 6.2.1 Simulator modification will be controlled in accordance with Simulator Modification Control Guidelines.
65
- *+ -- , .-w=m,..- e ..4------e:---- - -+e+
--g s- r- ----,,,.,,-e--
. ---,,-..,.-,_,,---v-- ...-r, , , r,,.,m-w . . - -- - -----.,-,,-,~%r,-,,,
. .~
.7 - - - . --
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 8 (Cont.)
6.2.2 Any plant modification found to have training and/or engineering value in 6.1.1 above, should require simulator:
i modification within one year of the d.ite that the training and/or engineering value was determined.
6.2.3 Discrepancy Reports initiated as a result of a plant modi-fication (DCP) should normally be cleared within one year. .
6.2.4 Discrepancy Reports initiated as a results of observed improper simulator performance (Simulator problems) should normally be cleared with three month..
6.2.5 Discrepancy Reports initiated as a result of placament of plant jumpers should normally be cleared within three months.
6.2.6 Discrepancy Reports initiated as a result of Simulator en-hancements or Simulator specification changes should norms 11y be. cleared within one year.
6.3 Simulator Performance Testina 6.3.1 Prior to training on the simulator after a Simulator modi-fication has been made a partial _ acceptance test will be performed on the systems and components affected by the modification. This will be accomplished usirig a Test Plan.
6.3.? If the modification is large enough to effect overall Simu-lat.ir performance, a performance test will be completed !
piir'.* to training on the modification.
i-I 66 i
i
.ERC871417 23 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 9 ;
SIMULATOR DCP CONTR0L' GUIDELINE PURPOSE This guideline is intended to provide administrative guidance for the.
evaluation, tracking and disposition of Desiga Change Packages im-plemented into. Unit 2. They will not supersede any requirements of 1063.08 or any i ?gulatory requirement. The Lead Operations Trainer is responsible for ensuring that this guideline is fol owed. ' Attachment 1 indicatcs the general flow of a Design Change Package review.
RELATED REFERENCES Simulator Design Control Guidelir.e !
- I I i l l SUBMITTED
- I
'l PROGRAM COORDINATOR DATE I I I l l l REVIEWED:
l LEAD OPERATIONS TRAINER ___ DATE i l I I I
- I APPROVED- . _ _ _
l ,
l TRAINING SUPERVISOR DATE l 1 I I J.
,' 67 8 ,
i
,- - - - - - , - - . -, , , e s_7, e-- ,--r, r>
ERC871417 Rsv. 1./18/87 ATTACHMENT 9 (Cont.)
A. Upon receipt of a DCP, the DCP Coordinator will:
- 1) Complete Page 1 of the "Unit 2 DCP Training Checklist" (Att. 2).
The change description should be detailed enough to adequately describe the plant change.
- 2) Make a determination if immediate training is required. The Ops Tech Supervisor will notify Unit 2 Training if he feels that a DCP requires immediate training (See Att. 3). In the event that immediate training is required, inform the Lead Trainer resronsi-
, ble for requalification training and, if in progress, the Lead Trainer responsible for any license class in progress.
- 3) Complete items 1-4 on the DCP Tracking Log (Att. 4).
B. DCPs received will normally be reviewed during the last 2 weeks of the quarter in wnich they were received. The DCP Coordinator will prepare for this review as follows:
- 1) Obtain the latest computer printout for active DCPs and ensure that ell DCPs sent out during the sub het quarter have been ac-ccunted for.
- 2) Schedule a room for the review.
- 3) Notify the review committee members of the review committee meeting.
C) DCP Review Committee (DCPRC) shall function as follows:
- 1) The DCPRC shall be made up of three tambers each holding an SRO license on Unit 2. Members shall include at least one Lead Trainer (LEADER), +.he DCP Coordinator and another SRO.
- 2) The DCPRC shall complete Page 2 of the Unit 2 DCP Training Chtck-list for each DCP. If the answer to any part of Question 1 is yes, a Discrepancy Report (DR) shall be initiated by the DCPRC leader. If any training is needed as a result of the DCP, the t
DCPRC leader will schedule the training in an appropriate re-l qualification cycle.
- 3) If the answer to Question 3 (Page 2) c'1 the Unit 2 DCP Training ChacFlist is no. complete Items 4, 5, 0 & 11 on the UCP Tracking Log and file a copy of the Unit 2 DCP Tiaining Checklist chronolog-ically (by DCP Number) in the "DCP Closed Status" file, send the original to Records for file under AA22004-012 and discard the DCP.
a) Send a copy of Page 2 of the Unit 2 DCP Training Checklist to the Simulator Support Supervisor.
68
4 LERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 9 (Cont.)
- 4) :# the enswer to-Question 3 on the Unit 2 DCP Training Checklist is yes, proceed as follows:
a) Comniete Page 3 of the checklist and forward a copy to the trainer responsible for t;1e system / component being changed. ,
The trainer, along with his Lead Trainer will decide on a due dat> for the required change.- In no case will the due i
date exceed three months from the checklist date. The trainer will return Page 3 to the DCP Coordinator when completed.
b) The DCP Coordinator shall. complete the DCP Tracking Log as appropriate.
D. After the review process is completed: ;
- tached) in the "DCP Open Status" file. ;
- 2) The DCP Coordi...~3r shall review the DCP Tracking Log monthly. 3 the responsible Lead Trainer shall be notified of any training ,
, material update not completed within three months. ,
- 3) The DCP Coordinator shall notify the responsible Lead Trainer of any DR not closed within ten months who will investigate the ,
delay.
- 4) When the modification and(or) training matertal updates are complete the DCP Coordinator will file a copy of the Unit 2 DCP Training Checklist' chronologically-in the "DCP Closed Status" file, send the original to Records for file under nA22004-012 i
t and discard the DCP.
i e
a j
f 69
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 9 (Cont.)
Page 1 of 3 UNIT 2 OCP TRAINING CHECKLIST TUDI AA22004-012 TXD00 Date (Change Number)
DCP Status ,
(A, C, C0)
Title DCP Coordinator Yes No
- 1. Will this change affect any ANO-2 systam? o a
- 2. Will this change affect the operation of any system? o a
- 3. Will this change affect the location or operation of any switch or indication that is currently simulated? O o
- 4. Will this change affect the philosophy of plant operation? o a
- 5. Does the change have any training and/or engineering a o value?
CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
Completed By DCP Coordinator 70
ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTACHMENT 9 (Cont.)
Page 2 of 3 UNIT 2 DCP TRAINING CHECKLIST Change Number Title DCP REVIEW COMMITTEE:
- 1. Does the change affect simulated: Yes No
- a. Panel configuration (switches, metc 4, light, o o etc.)
- b. System process (additionE' required database, o o changes to logic of PJntr ' Valves, pumps, etc.)
- c. System response honge in 'he characteristics o o of operation)
- d. Parameter setpoi' ts a o
- e. Equipment powce supplies (power dependency) o a
- 2. Does this design change result in significant simu- 0 a lator configuration or performance variations?
- a. If yes, insert the following statement in the comments section of the DR written in Step 5:
"Completion of this DR will require a Simulator Performance Test.
- 3. If any answers to above are yes, submit a DR.
Number Date
- 4. Does the change require that any training be o a provided?
- 5. If any answer to Question 1 or 4 is yes: 1. Schedule raqual training
- Cycle 2. Complete Page 3 for assigned trainer review.
Completed By DCP REVIEW COMMITTEE LEADER 71
r . t: t 3:PJS 'ERC871417 Rev. 11/18/87 ATTA.C3hENT 9 (Cont.)
UNIT 2 DCP TRAINING CHECKtTST Page 3 of 3 Date Change Number _ . ,
Title ,_
~
TRAINERS When assigned a DCP for review each trainer is required to: 1. Review the lesson plan or STM for needed changes. 2. Revise the lesson plan or STM and get it typed and approved. 3. For lesson plans, indicated the revision number on this form. 4. For STNs attach a copy of Page-1 to the revision and send to the STM Coordinator, 5. Review and update the exam bank.
LP Trainer Due Date , . _ _
Requires change _
Rev # 1-5 above complete yes/no Trainer LP Trainer Due Date ,_,
Requires change __
Rev # 1-5 above complete yes/no Trainer STM Trainer Due Date Requires change ___ Rev # __ 5 above complete _
yes/no Trainer STM Trainer Due Date Requires change __
Rev # 1-5 above complete Trainer yes/no 72
~" '^ ^ ^ ~ -
~w* - " ^ - - - - ~ ~ ' " ' ~ ~ ^ ~ ' ^ ^
~~
- .;vn .. e,
,[; 4f 3 g,
"" _wz t'n , ' ERC871417'
<, - l J '
Rev. 11/18/87 i
ATTACHMENT 9 (Cont.)
Arkansas Nuclear One Russellville, Arkansas September 3, 1987~
ANO-87-2-01003 4
p MEMORANDUM a
PQ.
~
TO: . Curt Taylor FROM: Walt Parks
SUBJECT:
Arkansas Nuclear One Design Chances Unit 2 operations training personnel have been reviewing DCPs to determine the need for modifications to the simulator and/or the
- need'for classroom training. In the future we will be reviewing
- DCPs on a quarterly bases. If during your review process, you determine that a DCP reauires immediate training, please notify me i or either Unit 2 Lead Trainer. ;
f WEP:1sl L. Gulick
- cc
- C. Anderson P. Crossland
- R. Doty
. ANO-DOC j . ..
l i
b L
l l
t 73 I
l I
.--,-sr... -
, , , , . . , _ _ , ,, , . . , . . , _ . - - _ . . .. ,n .,,, , n , ..,--- - . _ ,, - , , . -