ML17305A277
| ML17305A277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1989 |
| From: | Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305A278 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910180052 | |
| Download: ML17305A277 (6) | |
Text
~gS REGS,Mp
~4 Cy O
I 0
/4,
.0
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V 1450 MARIA LANE,SU ITE 210 WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94596 SEP 2 9 1988 Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 Mr.
W. F.
Conway Executive Vice President Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O.
Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034
Dear Mr. Conway:
Subject:
Replacement Examination Report for August 22 through August 29, 1989.
On August 22 through August 29, 1989,.the NRC administered examinations to employees of y'our company who had applied for licenses to operate your Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3.
At the conclusion of the examination, the examination questions and preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed examination report.
Seven of the candidates passed the examination and two of the candidates failed.
Two significant concerns were identified by the examiners during the administration of the simulator and walkthrough portions of the examination.
The first concern was an observation that some operators did not refer to plant operating procedures during performance of some routine and off normal plant evolutions on the simulator.
This observation was discussed with licensee representatives during the exit meeting.
A licensee representative stated that the use of, or reference to, plant procedures for normal or regularly performed manipulations was not required, thus endorsing this approach to the conduct of plant operations.
Your practice and stated position in this regard are of concern from a regulatory perspective and, equally important, a management perspective.
Your recent performance history demonstrates situations wherein, even when using or referencing procedures, problem situations arose due to lack of a disciplined approach to strict compliance.
For example, this-was the case in the recent Unit 2 problems encountered in flashing the generator field, shifting the local nuclear instrument voltage meter to the control range, and conducting and documenting valve lineups.
These situations provide additional evidence of a need for improvement in, and a disciplined approach to, referencing,
- using, and following procedures.
It is strongly recommended that ANPP review its policy for the use and reference of procedures and reinforce these policies with the operators to ensure that the plant is operated in accordance with these procedures.
Please provide us with the results of, your analysis of this situation within 30 days.
The second concern continues to be the fidelity of the facility plant specific simulator.
The previously observed problem of simulator fidelity was again noted in the preparation 'and administration of the operator replacement examination.
H'i f"
The simulator scenarios for this replacement examination were run by the NRC and facility examination teams as a test, prior to the examinations.
Even though the scenarios were tested in advance, the simulator created situations during the examination which were not seen during the advance
- tests, and which could not be reproduced after the simulator examination was completed.
Examples of the anomalous-events are discussed in the Examination Report, Enclosure 1 and Simulation Facility Report, Enclosure 4.
The effect of these anomalies are difficult to evaluate, place the operator in an unrealistic examination condition a'nd could result in negative training.
ANPP committed on August 18,'989 'to define specifically the extent of the simulator's lack, of fidelity, and to develop a specific action plan to correct this, by October 1, 1989.
Therefore, no further response to this concern is required at this time.
Your October 1,
1989 response will be reviewed,
- however, in light of the latest simulator fidelity findings by the examiners.
I In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission regulations, a copy of this letter and Enclosures (1) through (4) will be placed in the Public Document Room.
Enclosure (5) is Personal Privacy Information and will be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 9.80a.
Should your staff have any questions concerning this examination, please contact L. Hiller at 415-943-3869 or M. Royack of my staff at 415-943-3790.
Sincerely,
/7 R.
mmerman, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
Enclosures:
1.
Examination Report No. 50-528/OL-89-01 w/attachments A
and B
2.
Examination (SRO) and Answer Key 3.
Facility Comment Letter 4.
Simulation Facility Fidelity Report 5.
Power Plant Examination Results Summary
If
- cc w/enclosures (1), (2), (3) and (4):
W. Fernow, Training Manager PVNGS cc w/enclosures (1) a'nd (4) only:
J. Martin,'RV B. Faulkenberry, RV R.
Zimmerman, RV A. Chaffee, RV D. Kirsch, RV L. Miller, RV S. Richards, RV W. Ang, RV M. Royack, RV D. Pereira, RV T. Sundsmo, RV R. Cross, RV (2 copies)
G. Wright, NRR/OLB N.. Hunemuller, NRR/OLB H. Davis, NPR/PD V
T. Chan, NRR/PD V
T. Polich, SRI cc w/enclosure (5) only:
J. Lanning, NRR/LOLB cc w/enclosures (1), (w/o attachments A and B) {2),. {3) and (4).
RV/3 k ES /
NO Y
/
Y
/
NO S /
NO YES /
NO.
U S jR ST COPY ]
YES /
NO YES /
N FS
/
NO
]
DTO R
YE
/
NC Zimmerman gr7-Richards 9/v5/89 9/'P/8~
Chaffee 9/g @89 Pereira S
dsmo Royack Nille Kirsch 9+ 89 9/gy/89 9Q/89 9/pi 89 9p/$ 80
Il