NLS2002048, Reply to a Notice of Violation, NRC Letter No. EA-01-298

Reply to a Notice of Violation, NRC Letter No. EA-01-298

ML021090493
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	04/15/2002
From:	Denise Wilson Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC Region 4
References
EA-01-298, NLS2002048 IR-01-012
Download: ML021090493 (6)

Text

H Nebraska Public Power District Nebraska's Energy Leader NLS2002048 April 15, 2002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Subject:

Reply to a Notice of Violation NRC Letter No. EA-01-298 Cooper Nuclear Station, NRC Docket 50-298, DPR-46

Reference:

1. Letter to David L. Wilson (NPPD) from Ellis W. Merschoff(USNRC) dated March 26, 2002, "Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and Notice of Violation (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-298/01-12)"

The purpose of this letter is to provide Nebraska Public Power District's (NPPD) reply to a Notice of Violation in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201. By letter dated March 26, 2002 (Reference 1), the NRC cited NPPD for being in violation of NRC requirements.

The violation is concerned with the implementation of an improper validation process for Cooper Nuclear Station's biennial written examinations conducted between June 20 and July 27, 2000, for which prompt and appropriate corrective actions were not taken when identified in August 2000. Inspection Report 01-12 discussed that the validation process, given the similarity of examination questions from examination to examination, resulted in a compromise of the integrity of the written examination administered by our staff, such that the equitable and consistent administration of the examination was affected.

NPPD recognizes the importance of its responsibilities in the licensed operator requalification examination process and accepts the violation. We have taken prompt action to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 55.49 and to prevent recurrence of this violation. NPPD is prepared to support an early closeout inspection and will coordinate with NRC Region IV to establish an agreeable date.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 402-825-2760 or David F. Kunsemiller at 402-825-5236.

Sincerely, David lson Vice President - Nuclear

/dwv Cooper Nuclear Station P.O. Box 98 /Brownville, NE 68321-0098 .'

Telephone: (402) 825-3811 / Fax: (402) 825-5211 http://www.nppd.com

NLS2002048 Page 2 of 2 Attachment cc: Regional Administrator USNRC - Region IV Senior Project Manager USNRC - NRR Project Directorate IV-1 Senior Resident Inspector USNRC NPG Distribution Records NLS2002048 Page 1 of 3 REPLY TO MARCH 26, 2002, NOTICE OF VIOLATION COOPER NUCLEAR STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-298, LICENSE DPR-46 During NRC inspection activities conducted from October 15 through November 29, 2001, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. The particular violation and NPPD's reply are set forth below:

Restatement of the Violation 10 CFR 55.49 states that "Applicants, licensees, andfacility licensees shall not engage in any activity that compromises the integrity of any application,test, or examination requiredby this part. The integrity of a test or examination is consideredcompromised if any activity, regardlessof intent, affected or, butfor detection, would have affected the equitable and consistent administrationof the test or examination. This includes activities relatedto the preparationand certification of license applicationsand all activities related to the preparation,administration,and gradingof the tests and examinations requiredby thispart." 10 CFR 55.59(a) requires each licensee to pass a comprehensive requalificationwritten examination covering a 24-month requalificationprogram.

Contraryto the above, between June 20 andJuly 27, 2000, the facility licensee compromised the integrity of the requalificationbiennial written examinations requiredby 10 CFR 55.59.

Specifically, thefacility licensee developed weekly requalificationexaminations that were similarto each other, then allowedsome operatorsto validate at least 50 percent of the next weekly examination the day before taking their own examination. This affected the equitable and consistent administrationof the examination.

This violation is associatedwith a white significance determinationprocessfinding (50-298/0112-01).

Admission or Denial if Violation NPPD accepts the violation.

Attachment I NLS2002048 Page 2 of 3 Reason for Violation

Background

An independent contractor prepared seven written examinations using the same set of training objectives to support Cooper Nuclear Station's (CNS) 2000 biennial examination cycle. The examinations were validated using the operating crew in training prior to the week the examinations were administered. The validation occurred the day prior to the operating crew taking their own examination. Crew members validated fifty percent of the following week's examination. Because the examinations consisted of questions using the same objectives, it was determined that an individual may have gained an advantage during the validation process, which would be considered an inequitable administration of the test and meet the definition of compromise as stated in 10 CFR 55.49.

This issue was identified in August 2000 and entered into the corrective action program, however the validation process was not addressed at that time. During the preparation of the 2001 Licensed Operator Requalification examination, once again a question was raised concerning the validation process used for the 2000 Annual Licensed Operator Requalification Written Examination. The issue was re-entered into the corrective action program in July 2001 and a root cause was performed. In December 2001, this evaluation was reopened and reevaluated to address the potential white finding.

Cause for Violation A formal root cause evaluation determined the reason for the violation was weak procedural guidance. The training procedure for the conduct of the Licensed Operator Requalification program did not provide sufficient direction and detail to prohibit exam validation using the method utilized in June of 2000.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved The following corrective steps were taken to correct the conditions that caused the violation. These actions have been completed.

1. Procedural guidance for licensed operator requalification examination development was revised to provide specific guidance on how to conduct an examination validation to ensure that no individual validates the examination that he or she will be taking. The guidance also provides that when using an operating crew, the examination should be validated as a whole and the validation shall only occur after the validating crew has completed their own written examination. In addition, more guidance is now in place to control the content, question order, and objectives used for multiple written examinations.

NLS2002048 Page 3 of 3

2. Training management has communicated lessons learned stressing the appropriate performance standards, accountability, and expectations for corrective action program effectiveness.

3. To provide added assurance that CNS licensed operators are properly qualified by examination, an accelerated 2002 biennial written examination was conducted from January 15 through February 12, 2002. The examination was developed and administered using the new requirements implemented as part of the identified corrective actions. Thirty-six of the thirty seven Licensed Operators that were tested successfully completed the examination. The one individual who failed was successfully remediated prior to return to license duties.

Corrective Steps That Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations Corrective steps to prevent recurrence of the violation and to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 55.49 have been completed as noted above.

Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved NPPD believes it is in full compliance.

ATTACHMENT 3 LIST OF REGULATORY COMMITMENTS Correspondence Number: NLS2002048 The following table identifies those actions committed to by the District in this document.

Any other actions discussed in the submittal represent intended or planned actions by the District. They are described for information only and are not regulatory commitments.

Please notify the NL&S Manager at Cooper Nuclear Station of any questions regarding this document or any associated regulatory commitments.

COMMITTED DATE COMMITMENT OR OUTAGE None.

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 I PROCEDURE 0.42 1 REVISION 10 1 PAGE 12 OF 14