IR 05000387/2013012

NRC Inspection Report 05000387/2013012 and 05000388/2013012; and Notice of Violation

ML13241A027
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/28/2013
From:	Bill Dean NRC Region 1
To:	Rausch T Susquehanna
Dean, Bill
References
EA-12-216 EA-12-216, IR-13-012
Download: ML13241A027 (9)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ust 28, 2013

SUBJECT:

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000387/2013012 AND 05000388/2013012; AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Rausch:

This letter provides you the NRC enforcement decision for the apparent violations documented in Inspection Report 05000387/2013008 and 05000388/2013008, issued to PPL Susquehanna LLCs (PPLs) Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) on June 17, 2013 (ML13168A020)1.

The apparent violations, associated with licensed reactor operator medical examinations and related NRC reporting requirements, were discussed with SSES representatives at an inspection exit meeting on May 22, 2013, and documented in the subject inspection report. The report also included a cross-cutting aspect assigned to a Green Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) finding associated with one of the apparent violations.

The June 17, 2013, NRC letter transmitting the inspection report also: (1) notified you that two of the apparent violations were being considered for escalated enforcement in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy; (2) noted that the report included the associated Green ROP finding for PPL not implementing effective corrective actions to prevent the recurrence of one of the violations; and (3) provided you with the opportunity to address these apparent violations by either attending a pre-decisional enforcement conference or by providing a written response before we made our final enforcement decision. In a letter dated July 17, 2013 (ML13199A179),

PPL provided a response which acknowledged the violations, but also expressed disagreement with the cross-cutting aspect assigned to the Green ROP finding.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that you provided in your July 17, 2013, letter, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report and in the NRCs June 17, 2013, letter.

Designation in parentheses refers to an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number. Documents referenced in this letter are publicly-available using the accession number in ADAMS. The first violation involved multiple occurrences between August 2007 and June 2012, in which PPL: (a) did not restrict licensed reactor operators from performing licensed duties when they had disqualifying medical conditions; and (b) did not properly notify the NRC after learning of changes in licensed reactor operator medical conditions that involved permanent disabilities/illnesses. Specifically, four licensed reactor operators at SSES developed disqualifying medical conditions that were not properly evaluated by PPL staff. PPL did not restrict the operators from performing licensed duties or obtain NRC approval (by requesting conditioned licenses) for the operators to continue to perform licensed duties. Additionally, the NRC identified eight instances in which PPL did not notify the NRC within 30 days of learning of changes in licensed operator medical conditions that involved permanent disabilities/illnesses.

This resulted in the operators performing licensed operator duties without their licenses being properly amended to add requirements to accommodate the medical conditions (such as requiring an operator to wear prescribed corrective lenses if (s)he did not meet the minimum vision requirements).

The second violation involved PPLs submittal of information to the NRC that was not complete and accurate in all material respects. Specifically, between 2010 and 2011, PPL submitted three licensed operator renewal applications and one initial license application, each of which certified the medical fitness of the applicants and that no restricting license conditions were necessary. However, the applicants, in fact, each had medical conditions that did not meet the minimum standards of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1) and, therefore, required specific license conditions in order to perform licensed activities. Based, in part, on this inaccurate information, the NRC issued the licenses without the required restricting license conditions.

The NRC has concluded that both violations occurred as a result of PPLs failure to: (1) oversee the licensed operator medical examination process; (2) train staff on the applicable NRC requirements; and (3) implement an effective licensed operator medical program that maintained awareness of NRC and industry guidance. Specifically, when PPLs Medical Review Officer (MRO) assumed the position in 2007, he was not provided turnover or training from PPL regarding licensed operator medical requirements. The PPL MRO relied upon exams that were performed by a physician and his staff at a local hospital. Similarly, the physician that performed the exams at the local hospital had not been trained on, nor had knowledge of, the applicable NRC requirements. Accordingly, these violations have been categorized collectively as a SL III problem to emphasize the importance of providing suitable training, oversight, and focus on licensed operator medical requirements.

In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $70,000 is considered for a Severity Level III problem. Because PPL has not been the subject of escalated traditional enforcement action within the last two years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. The NRC has concluded that credit is warranted for PPLs corrective actions. Specifically, PPL: (1) trained the MRO and the site nurse on the specific requirements; (2) revised the site implementing procedure to include requirements for the MRO and nurse to receive annual refresher training and to attend an industry conference; and (3) hired a contract company with specialized knowledge of the NRC requirements in this area, to temporarily oversee its licensed operator medical program.

Therefore, to encourage prompt and comprehensive correction of violations, and in recognition of the absence of previous escalated traditional enforcement action, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, not to propose a civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil penalty. The NRC has concluded that information regarding: (1) the reasons for the violations; (2) the actions planned or already taken to correct the violations and prevent recurrence; and (3) the date when full compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in Inspection Report 05000387/2013008 and 05000388/2013008, the NRC letter dated June 17, 2013, the PPL letter dated July 17, 2013, and in this letter. Therefore, you are not required to respond to this Notice. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice.

The NRC evaluated PPLs disagreement with the Problem Identification and Resolution -

Evaluation P.1(c) cross-cutting aspect (CCA) assigned to the Green ROP finding for the lack of effective corrective actions to prevent the recurrence of this issue following the issuance of similar violations in 2009 and 2011. In part, PPL stated that Human Performance - Decision Making H.1(b) would be a more appropriate CCA, due to PPLs failure to take prompt actions to restrict affected operators from licensed duties. Although the NRC acknowledges that non-conservative decision-making was a factor, we maintain that PPLs failure to appropriately evaluate the issue was the most significant contributing cause.

PPL also indicated that the issue was not indicative of current performance because of improvements to PPLs condition report procedure, which governs the performance of root cause evaluations. While the NRC did not fully agree with the basis provided in your letter, we did consider that NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0612, Power Reactor Inspection Reports, Section 03.15 states that, in some rare or unusual cases, other considerations can be applied to determine if a CCA is reflective of current performance. As one example, a CCA can be considered to not reflect current performance if the performance characteristic has been corrected or eliminated (i.e., the performance deficiency would not likely occur today under similar circumstances due to changes made to licensee programs and processes). The NRC acknowledges that, during the time period between identification of this most recent issue until the inspection exit and ultimate report issuance, PPL made significant process and procedure changes associated with medical examinations and reporting (beyond changes to the referenced condition report procedure) previously described in this letter. As such, the stated performance deficiency (PPLs failure to implement adequate corrective actions to prevent this recurrence) was no longer considered indicative of current performance. As a result, the NRC has concluded that a CCA should not be assigned to the Green finding.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room and in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such information, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information).

The NRC also includes significant enforcement actions on its Web site at (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/).

Sincerely,

/RA/

William M. Dean Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-387; 50-388 License Nos. NPF-14; NPF-22 Enclosure: Notice of Violation cc w/enclosure: Distribution via ListServ