ML20213H072

Rev 1 to Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure FNP-0-AP-74, Emergency Response Procedures Verification

ML20213H072
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	05/12/1987
From:	ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20213H063	List: ML20213H061 ML20213H072 ML20213H101
References
FNP--AP-74, FNP-0-AP-74, NUDOCS 8705190129
Download: ML20213H072 (12)

Text

.

FNP-0-AP-74 '

ATTACHMENT 2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES VERIFICATION 1 INTRODUCTION

~

1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this attachment is to establish the administrative process used in the verification of the emergency response procedures (ERP's). This process governs the evaluation performed to confirm the written correctness of the procedures by addressing the following objectives:

ERP's are technically correct, i.e. they accurately _ reflect plant specific guidelines and other ERP source documents.

ERP's are written correctly, i.e. they accurately reflect the Writers Guide.

The language and level of information' presented in the ERP's are compatible with the qualifications, training and experience of the operating _ staff.

1.2 APPLICABILITY This procedure applies to ERP implementation and revisions for Unit I and Unit 2 of the Farley Nuclear Plant.

t. AsiERENCES 2.1 Emergency Operating Procedures Verification Guideline INPO 83-004-2.2 Farley Nuclear Plant Emergency Response Procedure Writers Guide. FNP-0-AP-74 3 DEFINITIONS Emergency Response Procedures (ERP's) - Plant procedures directing operator actions necessary to mitigate the consequences of transients and accidents that cause plant parameters to exceed reactor protection system setpoints, engineered safety features setpoints, or other appropriate technical limits.

Emergency Response Guidelines (ERG's) - Guidelines that provide sound technical bases for the development of ERP's.

ERP Source Documents - Fundamental documents or records upon which ERP's are based.

ERP Technical Accuracy - Proper incorporation of generic and/or plant-specific technical information from ERP source documents and plant hardware into the ERP's.

8705190129 870512 Page 1 of 3 Gen. Rev. 1 PDR ADOCK 05000348 F PDR -

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment 2 ERP Verification - The evaluation performed to confirm the written correctness of the ERP's and to ensure that the generic and/or plant-specific technical aspects have been properly incorporated.

ERP Written Correctness - Proper incorporation of information from the writers guide for ERP's and other appropriate administrative policies into the ERP's.

Symptoms - Displayed plant characteristics that directly or indirectly indicate plant status.

4 RESPONSIBILITIES 0

4.1 Operations Superintendent The Operations Superintendent shall have overall responsibility b and approval authority for ERP verification. #

4.2 Emergency Response Procedures Coordinator The Operations Superintendent shall designate an Emergency Response Procedures Coordinator who shall be responsible for coordination of the ERP verification process.

4.3 Additional Personnel As deemed necessary by the Operations Superintendent, additional assistance to ensure technical accuracy and written correctness of the ERP's will be provided by the Technical Superintendent, Training Director and Nuclear Engineering Technical Support d"; , r r~=" r .

5 ERP VERIFICATION PROCESS The process of ERP verification consists of four phases: preparation, verification, resolution, and documentation.

5.1 Preparation Phase The preparation phase consists of the following activities:

Designate persoanel to conduct the verification Obtain and review the ERP source documents 5.1.1 Designate Personnel The Emergency Response Procedure Coordinator, under the direction of the Operations Superintendent, shall appoint the necessary personnel as evaluators to conduct the verification. Personnel should be appointed based on operating experience and understanding of plant hardware, the ERG's and the writers guide.

Page 2 of 3 Gen. Rev. 1

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment 2 5.1.2 ERP Source Docum, ente Evaluators shall determine and list the ERP source documents on Figure 1 of the ERP Verification Forms.

These documents shall be obtained, verified to be current and complete and shall be reviewed _by the personnel conducting the verification.

5.2 Verification Phase In the verification phase the evaluator shall:

Complete the ERP verification cover page Figure 1.

Make a general review of the ERP using the procedure-specific portion of the evaluation criteria (Table 1) and source documents.

Make a step-by-step review of the ERP using the step-caution-note-specific portion of the evaluation criteria (Table 1) and source documents.

For all discrepancies identified, complete the discrepancy information on the Discrepancy Sheet (Figure 2) and if possible, provide a proposed resolution. Additional discrepancy sheets shall be utilized as required.

Complete.the verification completion sheet of the ERP Verification Forms (Figure 3) and forward the verification package with the cover and discrepancy sheets to the Emergency Response Proceda es. c r-dinatot 5.3 Resolution Phase In the resolution phase, the Emergency Response Procedures Coordinator shall:

Review the evaluator's comments and coordinate resolution of any conflicts between the writer's and evaluator's comments.

Coordinate documentation of final discrepancy dispositions (Figure 4).

Update applicable source documents and procedures with approved solutions. ,

Upon completion of the verification of each procedure, forward the completed package to the Operations Superin-tendent for review and validation determination.

5.4 Documentation Phase l The documentation developed throughout the process will be maintained in accordance with FNP-0-AP-4. 1 Page 3 of 3  !

Gen. Rev. 1

)

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment 2 FIGURE 1 ERP VERIFICATION Page of ERP TITLE:

ERP NUMBER: REVISION:

ERP SOURCE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

. 6.

7.

EVALUATOR (S):

Gen. Rev. 1

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment 2 FIGURE 2 ERP VERIFICATION ERP REV DISCREPANCY SHEET Page of_

STEP, CAUTION, NOTE-SPECIFIC VERIFICATION STEP NO.

CAUTION OR NOTE DISCREPANCY BASIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION m, .

-e. * .-. . - = ma _.a_. ,m Gen. Rev. I

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment.2 FIGURE 3 ERP VERIFICATION ERP REV VERIFICATION COMPLETION Page of Verification Completion Date:

Performed by:

All actions required by the verification have been completed and approved.

Date:

Gen. Rev. 1 l

E'NP-0-AP-74 Attachment 2 FIGURE 4 DISCREPANCY DISPOSITION STEP / NOTE /CAUTI0h NUMBER DISCREPANCY:

DISPOSITION:

__o-Gen. Rev. I

, - . . . . - - . . . . . . - . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . - . . _ . - .,.._.._...a- _.

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment.2 TABLE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA CHECKLIST Writers Guide Section Area Reference

I. . PROCEDURE-GENERAL

A. Written Correctness

1. Legibility

a. Are the printed borders visible 5.8.3 on all procedure pages?

b. Are the text, tables, graphs, 5.5 l figures, and charts legible to the evaluator?

2. ERP Format Consistency

a. Do the following sections exist in 4.1 l

! each ERP:

i_ 1. TITLE

2. PURPOSE

.3 . 5YMPTOMS i 4. OPERATOR ACTIONS

b. Is the operator actions section 4.1.3 I presented in a dual-column format?

c. Is the page layout consistent with 5.8 l the sample page format?

1

3. Identification Information

a. Is the procedure title descriptive 4.1 l of the purpose of the procedure?

b. Does the Title Page correctly 3.1 l provide the following:

(1) procedure title (2) procedure number (3) unit number (4) revision number s

i

! Page 1 of 5 Rev. 2 4

-,.m.. - --,,,__,..,..~.,--._..-...~.-_m,...r_-,-..m_, - . . - . ~ . . - . , _ _ _ . ...~-.~.m ..,_.m. , - --m,.-..._- ...m.. - _ _ . -

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment 2 TABLE 1

c. Does each page correctly provide 3.4 the following:

(1) procedure designator (2) revision number (3) Page number / number of pages

d. Does the procedure have all its pages in the correct order?

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

1. Information Presentation

a. Are instruction steps numbered 4.1.4 l correctly?

b. Are operator-optional sequence 4.1 5 steps identified?

l

c. Are instruction steps constructed to comply with the following:

(1) Steps deal with only one idea. 5.1.2 (2) Sentences are short and simple. 5.1.1 (3) Opa star actinns era =rac3 fi- 5.1.1 cally =L. Leu.

(4) Objects of operator actions 5.2.3 are specifically stated.

(5) Objects of operator actions 5.2.3 are adequately stated.

(6) If there are three or more 5.3.2 objects, they are listed (and space is provided for operator check-off).

(7) Punctuation and capitalization 5.3.6, 5.7.2 are proper.

(8) Abbreviations are correct and 5.3.7 understandable to the operator.

d. Do instruction steps make proper 5.3.8 I use of logic structure?

, e. When an action instruction is based 5.4.4 l on receipt of an annunciator alarm, is the setpoint of the alarm identified?

Page 2 of 5 Rev. 2

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment.2 TABLE 1

f. Are cautions used appropriately? 4.1.6

g. Are cautions placed properly?. 4.1.6 l

h. Are cautions constructed to 4.1.6 l comply with the following:

(1) They do not contain operator 4.1.6 actions.

(2) They do not use extensive 4.1.6 punctuation for clarity.

(3) They make proper use of emphasis. 5.7

i. Are notes properly used? 4.1.7 l

j. Are notes properly placed? 4.1.7 l

k. Are notes worded so that they do 4.1.7 l not contain operator actions?

1. Are numerical values properly 5.4.1 l written?

m. Are values specified in such a way 5.4.5, 5.4.6 l that mathematical operations are not required of the user?

o Tc $ *able or graph provided in the procedure for necessary operator calculations?

o. Are units of measurement in the ERP 5.4.2 l the same as those used on equip:nent?

2. Procedure Referencing and Branching

a. Do the referenced and branched 5.6 {

procedures identified in the ERP's exist for operator use?

b. Is the use of referencing minimized? 5.6.1 l

c. Are referencing and branching 5.6 l instructions correctly worded?

(1) "go to" (branching)

(2) " refer to" (referencing)

d. Do the instructions avoid routing 5.6 l users past important information such as cautions preceding steps?

Page 3 of 5 Rev. 2

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment 2 TABLE 1

e. Are the exit conditions compatible 5.6 with the entry conditions of the referenced or branched procedure?

B. Technical Accuracy

1. Entry conditions or Symptoms Information

a. Are the entry conditions of the ERG l listed correctly?

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

(1) appropriate entry conditions for which the ERP should be used (2) not excessive

2. Instructional Step, Caution, and Note Information

a. Are ERP/ ERG differences:

(1) documented .

- (2) explained

b. Is the ERG technical foundation  !

(strategy) cf.a a;."8 by the Td ?r O changes in ERP steps, cautions, or notes:

(1) elimination (2) addition (3) sequence (4) alteration

c. Are correct plant-specific adaptations incorporated per ERG:

(1) systems (2) instrumentation (3) limits (4) control (5) indications

d. Have licensing commitments applicable to ERPs been addressed?

j ___

e. Are differences between the licensing commitments and the ERPs or ERGS documented?

Page 4 of 5 Rev. 2

- _ _ . _ _ . _ .. _ ...-__ _ ,___ _ _ _ . . . . _ . , _ , _ _ _ , _ _ , _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . ~ . . _ . _ _ .

FNP-0-AP-74 Attachment-2 J

TABLE 1

)

s 3; Quantitative Information

a. Do the quantitative values, including tolerance bands, used in the ERP comply with applicable ERP source document?

b. Where ERG values are not used in the ERP, are the ERP values computed accurately?

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

4. Plant Hardware Information

a. Is the plant hardware specified in the ERP available for operator use:

(1) equipment (2) controls ,

(3) indicators

~-

(4) instrumentation 9

4 j

'I i

i Page 5 of 5 Rev. 2 1

- . . . . - , -.--.._,.._.,.c.,. . _ - _ . - - - . - - . _ , , . , , _ . - _ - , . ..- . . - . - . - , _