IR 05000220/1998007
| ML17059B959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17059B958 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-98-07, 50-220-98-7, NUDOCS 9804080241 | |
| Download: ML17059B959 (30) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Docket/Report Nos.:
50-220/98-007 License Nos.:
DPR-63 Licensee:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Facility:
Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2 Location:
King of Prussia, PA Date:
March 19, 1998 (In Office Review-Meeting)
Inspectors:
Accompanied By:
Approved by:
Carl Sisco, Operations Engineer John Munro, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard J.
Conte, Chief Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety 98040802@i 980330 PDR ADOCK 05000220 G
I
Re ort Details Backcaround In a series of NRC inspections, the NRC staff identified low testing standards at Nine Mile Point (NMP) in the following areas:
in the licensed operator requalificaiton program (Unit 1, 97-04); an inadequate written examination submittal of a Unit 2 (97-08)(OL); and an inadequate initial licensed operator examination for Unit 1 (98-03)(OL). The Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMP) management attended a meeting in the Regional office on March 19, 1998 to discuss their assessment and root cause determination concerning these areas.
~Findin s
NMPC management presented the results of their root causes, contributing causes and corrective/preventive actions to the staff (Appendix). The NMPC identified root cause for the lack of quality of examination submittals was attributed to change management.
Specifically, NMPC accepted the responsibility for initial license examination development without recognizing the significance of that effort and the need for adequate management controls to ensure a quality exam product.
Contributing causes were also identified.
Corrective actions willinclude a project management approach to the initial exam development process including an independent verification of the final exam product.
In addition, the licensed operator requalification exam banks will be revised to be consistent with NRC expectations as stated in NUREG 1021.
Conclusions The root cause review appears to have been comprehensive and the corrective actions appear to be sound.
The effectiveness of the corrective actions in this area is subject of review in future'inspections or examinations.
'MEETING ATTENDEES Licensee John Mueller, Chief Nuclear Officer Carl Terry, Vice President, NSAS Bob Tessier, Training Manager Jim Reid, General Supervisor, OP, Training Jim Bunton, QA Manager W. David Baker, Licensing Supervisor NRC R. Conte, Chief, Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch (OLHP)
C. Sisco, Operations Engineer, OLHP D. Florek, Senior Operations Engineer, OLHP J. Munro, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
A
APPENDIX NIAGARAMOHAWK POWER CORPORATION MEETING HANDOUTS
Nine MilePoint Nuclear Facility Preventing Recurrence of xamination Denial
P I
Presentation Content
~ Time Line of Related Events
~ Root/Contributing Cause(s)
~ Corrective Actions
~ Preventive Actions
~ Lessons Learned
. 5
Time Line of Related Events
~ May 1997 - Unit 1 LORT Program Inspection Written exams were acceptable, however, the level ofdifficultywas low
~ June 1997 - Unit'2 RO Retake Exam Exam prepared IAWNUREG 1021 rev. 7 &
pilot letter guidance Deficiencies with sample plan and question construction Exam administered 6/6/97
Notes:
Time Line of Related Events
~ October 1997 - Unit 2 LORY Program Inspection Exam report concluded that the program was effective Level ofdifficultyof written exam was good
~ January 1998 - Unit 1 InitialSRO Exam Exam prepared IAWNUREG 1021 rev. 8 (draft)
Deficiencies with written exam Exam postponed to 1/20/98
I
~tM o%
Root Cause
~
Change Management - NMPC accepted the responsibility for initial license examination development without recognizing the significance of that effort and the need for adequate
.
management controls to ensure a quality exam product Significance of responsibility for developing initial exams not recognized in early 1997 1/22/97 voluntary pilot letter Project management controls not implemented
~ q
Contributing Causes
~ Managerial Methods NMPC became overly*involved in the mechanics of exam preparation and under emphasized performance standards with regard to implementing NUREG 1021 rev. 8 (draft)
NMPC relied too much upon NRC examiner
'eedback and comments for completing the 6nal exam
Contributing Causes
~ Managerial Methods (corit.)
NMPC assessed the final product based on a benchmark comparison with other exams,
. focusing on format &construction instead of the necessary process to ensure a quality exam NMPC did not correctly identify the root cause for the Unit 2 RO retake exam problem NMPC did not provide adequate oversight or establish additional expectations regarding a new process for initialexam development
Corrective Actions
~ NMPC met with NRC on 12/3/97 to discuss details of the exam denial and gain a better understanding ofNRC expectations regarding exam development
~ Written exam was modified based on NRC comments from 12/3/97. R'evised exam material was re-submitted on 12/12/97 and met the criteria for a quality exam
gilt
Preventive Actions
~ Establish a process which incorporates the key attributes necessary for development of a quality exam
'
Perform a validation of the revised exam development process to ensure a quality exam product (trial run) prior to the next initial license examination
Preventive Actions
~ Apply this process to all future exams utilizing management 8c project controls similar to those used for other major projects Project manager assigned Project plan developed/resources dedicated Independent verification offinal exam
Preventive Actions
~ The requal exam bank project undertaken as a corrective action to the Unit 1 LORT inspection is providing operations instructors experience in writing exam questions consistent with &%HAG 1021 rev.
8 requirements and NMPC procedures
Lessons Learned
~ Importance of early/comprehensive evaluation when implementing new
~
~
~
~
uubabves
~ Apply project management controls for new initiatives
~ Relationship between change and management oversight Notes: