IR 05000528/1990032
| ML17305A995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1990 |
| From: | Johnston G, Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305A994 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-90-32, 50-529-90-32, 50-530-90-32, NUDOCS 9008130163 | |
| Download: ML17305A995 (7) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V
Docket Numbers:
50-528, 50-529, 50-530 Inspect>on Report Number:
50-528/90-32, 50-529/90-32, 50-530/90-32 License Numbers:
NPF-41,. NPF-51, NPF-74 Licensee:
Arizona Nuclear Power Project P. 0.
Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Facility Name:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and
Inspection Conducted:
July 9 - 13,.1990 Submitted By:
G.
s on, perat r
icens ng xaminer ate Signe Accompanying Personnel:
Approved By:
~Summar:
Ml er Jr.,
C ef, perations Section 7/~a/ 0 ate signed Ins ection on Jul 9,
1990
-
Jul 13, 1990, (Re ort Hos. 50-528, 50-529, A~I A regional initiative inspection of the Licensee Requalification Training Program in accordance with Inspection Modul'e 41701.
The inspection focused on the impact of the Simulator Upgrade Project on the simulator phase of the licensed operator requalification training.
Results:
Si nificant Safet Issues:
No significant safety issues were identified.
Violations:
Ho violations or deviations were identified,
l)
f
~
. i.
Persons Contacted ANPP Personnel:
REPOPT DETAILS
'*M. Marsh, Director, Plant Operations and Maintenance
- E. Firth, Training Manager
- D. Brown, Simulator Upgrade Manager
- T. Bradish, Compliance Manager a
M. Rudolph, Operations Training Supervisor R. Henry, Lead - Licensed Operator Requalification N. Mann, Employee Concerns Program
- R. Rouse, Compliance Supervisor
- J. baxter, Compliance Engineer
- K. Hall, El Paso Electric Engineer
- S. Gross, El Paso Electric Engineer
- S. Kanter, Part Services, Senior Coordinator
- D. Stover, Nuclear Safety tlanager
- D. Yiarks, Nuclear Safety Engineer
"S. Rost, Simulator Upgrade Project Administrator
- C. Narmi, Simulator Upgrade Project Certification Specialist
- B. Picchiotino, Operations Training Lead Instructor NRC:
- G. Johnston, Team Leader, Operator Licensing Examiner, RV N. Hunemuller, NRR-OLB
- F. Ringwald, Resident Inspector 2.
In addition other members of the licensee staff were contacted during the inspection.
- Denotes those present at Exit Meeting on July 13, 1990.
Im act of Simulator U grade Pro 'ect on. Licensed 0 erator,Re uali'fication
~Tra > n > n
.
To determine the impact that the Simulator Upgrade Project (SUP) would have on Requalification Training the inspector interviewed the'upervisor of Operations Training and the Lead Instructor for Requalification Training.
The apparent impact of the SUP will be to reduce the amount of time, available for training on the simulato'r for the period of October 1,
1990 to April 1, 1991.
For the six week interval of November 26, 1990 to January 7, 1991, a four hour block of time has been set aside for requalification training on the simulator.
The inspector determined that a period of thirteen weeks was planned from January 7, 1991.to April 1, 1991 where no simulator training would be conducted for Requalification Trainin ~,
,The inspector emphasized to the facility management during the exit meeting of July 13, 1990 that this period could be used more effectively to ensure operators remained proficient.
No specific course outline or lesson plans existed at the time of the inspection for the scheduled training occurring in the interval November 26, 1990 to January 7,
1991.
The time would be utilized, during a normal two year requalification training cycle, for make-up of required manipulations that had been missed and for assuring that the 60 hour6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> per year training commitment was met.
I In this instance, the training requirements for simulator time for
. requalification are planned to be completed in late September 1990.
This leaves the time available in the November 26, 1990 to January 7,
1991 interval open with regards to the type of training to be conducted.
The inspector indicated thai the course plan for that training should emphasize proficiency in non-routine activities.
The inspector noted that it is current practice at other facilities to have an extended interval between some training sessions on simulators of as much as twelve weeks and in some cases longer (quarterly).
Since the, interval of concern is approximately six months, the six week training period appeared to be sufficient, as long as the emphasis remains on
'
proficiency, to aadress the gap in simulator training from January 7, 1991 to April l., 199l.
Simulator U grade Project Schedule E
The inspector examined the current schedule for the SUP to determine if the project will meet the 'goal of supplying the NRC with the required certification per
CFR 55.45)b)(l)(ii) of the simulator on or before March 26, 1991.
The review was conducted by an interview with the SUP manager and a review of the current schedule.
The discussions indicated th'at the licensee's difficulties i'n the initial stages of the SUP"were primarily related to the inadequacy of the existing simulator's documentation, software,,and input/output systems for use in the upgraded simulator.
Thus, additional work was required to bring the upgrade project to it's originally expected "starting point."
The licensee now appears to have resolved these initial difficulties.
The SUP manager reiterated that ANPP does not plan to request a schedule exemption.
At this time it appears that ANPP will meet the certification requirements as a
plant-referenced simulator which will meet the guidance contained in ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, as endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guide l. 149, by the required date of March 26, 1991.
Em lo ee Concerns Various members of the staff had requested to talk to the inspector to discuss their concerns with the course of the project.
The inspector arranged to meet with several employees to receive and solicit comments.
The majority of the comments centered on the following:
o The performance of the vendor has not been satisfactory and, in particular, the vendor has consistently failed to meet
.
milestones,
.
o The quality of work provided by the vendor has not been good.
o The post-certification status of the simulator leads some personnel to fear that further simulator upgrades may be abandoned following certification.
o As a result, the simulator may not be a good training tool in spite of being certified.
Some individuals did express confidence that, despite the apparent problems the project has had to date, the project will deliver a certified simulator and it will be an effective training tool.
The inspector provided these comments to Mr. David Brown, the Simulator Upgrade Project Manager.
Mr. Brown stated that the performance of the vendor from his view was acceptable in light of the difficulties of the short time frame of the pro,iect.
He expressed concern that the staff was under the impression that once certification was complete, that no further work would be done to improve the simulator.
He stated it was not his intent, nor was it the intent of ANPP management to stop work on the upgrade of the simulator once certification-was accomplished.
The inspector concluded that the acceptance testing program scheduled to begin in September 1990 would determine whether or not the simulator was performing adequately.
In addition, this testing should resolve the differences in opinion between the simulator project manager and some of the the SUP staff.
5.
Alle ation concerninq Simulator U orade Project Region V received an allegation concerning the following issues:
o A letter provided from Mr.
W. F.
Conway, APS Executive Vice President, Nuclear, to Mr. J.
B.
Ma'i tin, NRC Region Y,
Regional Administrator, dated May 22, 1990 contained false information.
No specifics were provided with the allegation; the alleger provided a referral to another person.
o The licensee has paid for a milestone completion despite the fact that the milestone had not been completed.
o The Simulator Upgrade Project manager is unqualified and incompetent to manage the Simulator Upgrade Projec The inspector reviewed the letter in question with several persons including the person specifically identified by the alleger as knowledgeable of the letter contents.
That person's review of the letter identified only one item at issue.
The letter stated on page two, second paragraph, that "... because of the limited amount of time available for Project activities, LMSC did not have sufficient simulator time available to adjust its performance of the fidelity scope to compensate for the additional work necessary to perform all of the originally planned software modifications within the schedule parameters of the Simulator Upgrade Project."
., The person the alleger identified as knowledgeable about the letter contents.noted that this was not true, in his opinion, because the vendor was allotted time (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per day) from the signing of the-contract on September 28, 1989 through the point when it. was realized the fidelity scope was unable to be completed as originally envisaged.
The inspector determined that the vendor did not start to utilize the simulator until early January, 1990.
However, although the vendor could have utilized the simulator earlier, the letter was correct in the context that it was later determined that the work could not be accomplished within the time that was available.
The inspector determined that the vendor was paid for the completion of a milestone that was not comp'Ieted.
The licensee does.not dispute this, and it was commonly understood by. the licensee that this was done.
The irspector determined this was an internal contractual matter between the vendor and the licensee and outside the NRC's purview..
The Simulator Upgrade Project manager was interviewed by the inspector.
He had not managed a simulator project before, nor did he have any knowledge of the technical aspects of simulation, but he has had extensive experience within the utility in managing computer projects of similar scope.
He did have oualified personnel to advise him on the technical aspects of simulation.
There are no specified qualifications in the applicable standard, AHSI/ANS 3.5-1985, or in any other applicable standards or regulations to the knowledge of the inspector.
Therefore,
.
the inspector determined that there was no regulatory concern in this issue on the part of the NRC.
Exit Meetin The inspector met July 13, 1990'ith those personnel designated in Paragraph 1 to discuss the results of the inspection.
The inspector provided the facility with the, comments in Paragraphs 2 and 3.
The inspector also relayed the comments of the staff of the 'Simulator Upgrade Project that resulted from extensive interviews conducted during the inspection.
The inspector pointed out that there were substantive, comments that appeared to require resolution prior to the conduct of the acceptance testing program.