IR 05000315/2004007

IR 05000315-04-007(DRS); IR 05000316-04-007(DRS); 03/01/2004 - 03/05/2004 (on-site) and 03/30/2004 - 06/03/2004 (Periodic in-office Review); D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Licensed Operator Requalification

ML041840512
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	07/02/2004
From:	Pederson C Division of Reactor Safety III
To:	Nazar M American Electric Power Service Corp
References
EA-04-109 IR-04-007
Download: ML041840512 (21)

Text

uly 2, 2004

SUBJECT:

DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000315/2004007(DRS);

05000316/2004007(DRS)

Dear Mr. Nazar:

On June 4, 2004, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a baseline inspection at your Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings which were discussed on June 4, 2004, with you and other members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selected examination of procedures and representative records, observation of activities, and interviews with personnel.

Based on the results of this inspection, one apparent violation involving 10 CFR 50.9 was identified and is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the

"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. On March 24, 2004, your staff provided information to the NRC regarding the medical status of a licensed senior reactor operator (SRO) at your facility. That information indicated the SRO had a pre-existing medical condition since 1996 that was considered a potentially disqualifying condition in accordance with American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-3.4 - 1983, American National Standard Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, and the SRO license should have required the presence of another qualified individual when the SRO was performing licensed duties. On December 28, 1999, your staff provided information to the NRC regarding the medical status of the same individual in an application for renewal of the SROs license and information provided in that renewal application did not describe the individuals pre-existing medical condition from 1996. The individuals license was renewed by the NRC on February 1, 2000, based on the information your staff provided on December 28, 1999. Therefore, the information provided to the NRC on December 28, 1999, was material to an NRC licensing action. The failure to provide accurate and complete information to the NRC regarding a pre-existing medical condition of an SRO is a significant regulatory issue. If the information had been complete and accurate at the time provided, the NRC would have taken a different regulatory position and would not have renewed the license without requiring the presence of another qualified individual when the SRO was performing licensed duties.

The circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, the significance of the issue, and the need for lasting and effective corrective action were discussed with members of your staff at the inspection exit meeting on June 4, 2004. As a result, it may not be necessary to conduct a predecisional enforcement conference in order to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision. In addition, since your facility has not been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last two years, and based on our understanding of your corrective action, a civil penalty may not be warranted in accordance with Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy.

The final decision will be based on your confirming on the license docket that the corrective actions previously described to the staff have been or are being taken.

Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either:

(1) respond to the apparent violation addressed in this inspection report within 30 days of the date of this letter; or (2) request a predecisional enforcement conference. If a conference is held, it will be open for public observation. The NRC will also issue a press release to announce the conference. Please contact Mr. Roger Lanksbury at (630) 829-9631 within seven days of the date of this letter to notify the NRC of your intended response.

If you choose to provide a written response, it should be clearly marked as a "Response to An Apparent Violation in Inspection Report No 05000315/2004007(DRS); 5000316/2004007(DRS);

EA-04-109" and should include for the apparent violation: (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate response is not received within the time specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with its enforcement decision or schedule a predecisional enforcement conference.

In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of the apparent violation described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review. You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA by Roy J. Caniano Acting for/

Cynthia D. Pederson, Director Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 License Nos. DPR-58; DPR-74 Enclosure: Inspection Report 05000315/2004007(DRS);

05000316/2004007(DRS)

w/attachment: Supplemental Information cc w/encl: J. Jensen, Site Vice President M. Finissi, Plant Manager G. White, Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Emergency Management Division MI Department of State Police D. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000315/2004007(DRS); 05000316/2004007(DRS); 03/01/2004 - 03/05/2004 (on-site) and 03/30/2004 - 06/03/2004 (periodic in-office review); D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Licensed Operator Requalification.

This report covers an approximate 3-month period of periodic on-site and in-office review of baseline announced inspection in the area of licensed operator requalification. The inspection was conducted by two regional specialist inspectors. One apparent violation was identified during the inspection. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green,

White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 3, dated July 2000.

A. Inspector-Identified and Self-Revealed Findings

Cornerstone: Mitigating Systems

• To Be Determined (TBD). D. C. Cook management personnel informed NRC Region III by letter dated March 24, 2004, that one senior reactor operator had a pre-existing medical condition (since 1996) that required the presence of another qualified individual (i.e., no solo) when performing licensed duties and requested a no solo license restriction for the individual. The letter from the company physician also described a medication the individual was taking for the medical condition. The medical condition described by the physician was considered a disqualifying condition in accordance with American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-3.4 -

1983, American National Standard Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants. On December 28, 1999, the licensee provided information to the NRC regarding the medical status of the same individual applying for a renewal of the individuals senior reactor operator license with no recommendation for a no solo license. The individuals license was renewed by the NRC on February 1, 2000, based on the information provided by the licensee on December 28, 1999. Again, the medical condition was considered a disqualifying condition in accordance with ANSI/ANS-3.4 - 1983, and should have been reported to the NRC on NRC Form 396 for the renewal of the applicants license requesting a no solo restriction on the individuals license. Therefore, the information provided to the NRC on December 28, 1999, was material to the NRC licensing action. [Note: The information concerning the individuals specific medical condition is considered medical privacy information under 10 CFR 2.390(2)(6) and is not specifically discussed here.]

As noted above, Region III received a letter from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant dated March 24, 2004, requesting a no solo license restriction for the individual.

Region III received another letter from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant dated May 20, 2004, notifying the NRC that the recommendation of the no solo license condition for the individual not be implemented. The letter stated that upon further review of the individuals medical records, the company physician determined that the individual met ANSI/ANS-3.4 - 1983 to work as an operator in a multi-person facility; therefore, no license condition for solo operation was required. The NRCs medical officer again determined on May 26, 2004, that the operator required a no solo restriction to the operators license. Since NRC intervention was required to identify the requirement for the operator to have a no solo restriction, this apparent violation was considered NRC identified.

Because the issue affected the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function, it was evaluated with the traditional enforcement process. The finding was determined to be of low safety significance because the operator had not acted in a solo capacity prior to the license being amended. However, the regulatory significance was important because the incorrect information was provided under a signed statement to the NRC and impacted a licensing decision for the individual. The issue was preliminarily determined to be an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.9. (Section 1R11)

Licensee-Identified Violations

None.

REPORT DETAILS

1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification

.1 Facility Operating History

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the plants operating history from January 2002 through February 2004 to assess whether the Licensed Operator Requalification Training (LORT) program had identified and addressed operator performance deficiencies at the plant.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Licensee Requalification Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors performed a biennial inspection of the licensees LORT program. The inspectors reviewed the annual requalification operating test and biennial written examination material to evaluate general quality, construction, and difficulty level. The operating examination material reviewed consisted of four operating tests, each containing two dynamic simulator scenarios and five job performance measures (JPMs).

The biennial written examinations reviewed consisted of approximately 40 open reference multiple choice questions. The biennial examinations were conducted in February and March 2004. The inspectors reviewed the methodology for developing the examinations, including the LORT program two-year sample plan, probabilistic risk assessment insights, previously identified operator performance deficiencies, and plant modifications. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees program and assessed the level of examination material duplication during the current year annual examinations as compared to the previous years annual examinations.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.3 Licensee Administration of Requalification Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors observed the administration of the requalification operating test to assess the licensees effectiveness in conducting the test and to assess the facility evaluators ability to determine adequate performance using objective, measurable performance standards. The inspectors evaluated the performance of one shift crew in parallel with the facility evaluators during six dynamic simulator scenarios. In addition, the inspectors observed licensee evaluators administer several JPMs to various licensed crew members. The inspectors observed the training staff personnel administer the operating test, including pre-examination briefings, observations of operator performance, and individual and crew evaluations after dynamic scenarios. The inspectors evaluated the ability of the simulator to support the examinations. A specific evaluation of simulator performance was conducted and documented under Section 1R11.7, Conformance With Simulator Requirements Specified in 10 CFR 55.46, of this report. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees overall examination security program.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.4 Licensee Training Feedback System

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors assessed the methods and effectiveness of the licensees processes for revising and maintaining its LORT program up to date, including the use of feedback from plant events and industry experience information. The inspectors reviewed the licensees quality assurance oversight activities, including licensee training department self-assessment reports. The inspectors evaluated the licensees ability to assess the effectiveness of its LORT program and their ability to implement appropriate corrective actions.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.5 Licensee Remedial Training Program

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors assessed the adequacy and effectiveness of the remedial training conducted since the previous annual requalification examinations and the training planned for the current examination cycle to ensure that they addressed weaknesses in licensed operator or crew performance identified during training and plant operations.

The inspectors reviewed remedial training procedures and individual remedial training plans.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.6 Conformance With Operator License Conditions

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the facility and individual operator licensees conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. The inspectors reviewed the facility licensees program for maintaining active operator licenses and to assess compliance with 10 CFR 55.53

(e) and (f). The inspectors reviewed the procedural guidance and the process for tracking on-shift hours for licensed operators and which control room positions were granted credit for maintaining active operator licenses. The inspectors reviewed the facility licensees LORT program to assess compliance with the requalification program requirements as described by 10 CFR 55.59 (c). In addition, the inspectors reviewed ten licensed operators medical records maintained by the facility licensee and assessed compliance with the medical standards delineated in ANSI/ANS 3.4 -1983, American National Standard Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, and with 10 CFR 55.21 and 10 CFR 55.25.

b. Findings

Introduction:

The inspectors identified that licensee management provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the NRC regarding the medical condition of one senior reactor operator. The issue was considered to be of very low safety significance, but was considered to have important regulatory significance because the information was provided to the NRC under a signed statement and resulted in a licensing action that would not have been taken had correct information been provided to the NRC. This issue was preliminarily determined to be an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.9.

Description:

In February 2004, during the licensee conducted Licensed Operator Medical Records Quick Hit Assessment SA-2004-TRN-021-QH, a review by the current Medical Review Officer (MRO) for D. C. Cook determined that a license restriction was required for a licensed individual for a previously identified medical condition. The licensees MRO determined that the operator in question had a medical condition since 1996 that warranted contacting the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 55.25. [Note: The information concerning the individuals specific medical condition is considered medical privacy information under 10 CFR 2.390(2)(6) and is not specifically discussed here.]

Region III received a letter from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant dated March 24, 2004, requesting a no solo license restriction for the individual who had been licensed at D. C. Cook since August 9, 1989. The letter from the company physician described the individuals medical condition and also described a medication the individual was taking for the medical condition. The medical condition described by the physician was considered a disqualifying condition in accordance with American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-3.4 - 1983, American National Standard Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants. The Region III operator licensing assistant forwarded the operators medical information to NRR for review by the NRCs medical officer. The NRCs medical officer determined that the operator required a no solo restriction to the SRO license. The individuals license was modified accordingly on April 8, 2004.

The individual was initially issued a Reactor Operator (RO) license for the facility on August 9, 1989. On February 1, 1994, the individual was issued a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license. Prior to license renewal (required every 6 years), the licensee sends to the Region an NRC Form 396, Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee, in accordance with 10 CFR 55.21 for each applicant for a license renewal.

The NRC Form 396 certifies, when signed by a senior licensee official, that the applicant has been examined by a doctor and meets the medical standards in ANS/ANSI-3.4 (1983 version for D.C. Cook). The NRC Form 396 for the individuals license renewal was dated December 28, 1999, and did not include a recommendation for a no solo license for the individuals medical condition that had existed since 1996. The individuals license was renewed by the NRC on February 1, 2000, based on the information provided by the licensee on December 28, 1999; therefore, the information provided to the NRC on December 28, 1999, was material to the NRC licensing action.

Again, the medical condition described by the company physician was considered a disqualifying condition in accordance with ANSI/ANS-3.4 - 1983, and should have been reported to the NRC on NRC Form 396 for the renewal of the applicants license requesting a no solo restriction on the individuals license.

As noted above, Region III received a letter from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant dated March 24, 2004, requesting a no solo license restriction for the individual.

Region III received another letter from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant dated May 20, 2004, notifying the NRC that the recommendation of the no solo license condition for the individual not be implemented. The letter stated that upon further review of the individuals medical records, the D. C. Cook MRO determined that the individual met ANSI/ANS-3.4 - 1983 to work as an operator in a multi-person facility; therefore, no license condition for solo operation was required. The NRCs medical officer again determined on May 26, 2004, that the operator required a no solo restriction to the operators license.

Analysis:

Because violations of 10 CFR 50.9 are considered to be violations that potentially impede or impact the regulatory process, they are dispositioned using the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600 instead of the Significance Determination Process (SDP). Using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0612, Appendix B, Issue Dispositioning Screening, the finding was determined to be more than minor because the information associated with the license renewal of the individual was provided to the NRC under a signed statement by the Site Vice President and erroneously impacted an NRC licensing decision. An individual who had a pre-existing medical condition, that at a minimum required a no solo restriction on the individuals license, was issued a license without such a restriction. The inspectors determined that the individual never acted alone in a licensed capacity from the time the initial SRO license was issued until the license was modified to include the no solo restriction. The NRC depends upon the licensee to ensure that medical examinations are performed correctly and that the regulatory requirements and the rigors of the operators duties are carefully explained to the medical personnel that perform these examinations. An operator that cannot perform licensed duties due to a medical condition that might be exacerbated by the stress resulting from a reactor accident scenario could be a significant distraction to the rest of the crew. Therefore, the safety significance of this issue was determined to be more than minor. However, the regulatory significance was greater because the information was material to an NRC licensing decision and an NRC SRO license was issued without the proper medical restriction because incomplete and inaccurate information was provided to the NRC in the application to renew this SROs license.

Enforcement:

Section 50.9 of 10 CFR required that information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. Section 55.23 of 10 CFR required, in part, that an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall complete and sign Form NRC - 396, "Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee." Form NRC - 396, when signed by an authorized representative of the facility licensee, certifies that a physician conducted a medical examination of the applicant (as required in 10 CFR 55.21), and that the guidance contained in American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-3.4 - 1983, Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, was followed in conducting the examination and making the determination of medical qualification. ANSI/ANS-3.4 - 1983, Section 5.3.2(1), provided, in part, that certain medical conditions preclude solo operation of a nuclear power plant. On December 28, 1999, the licensee submitted to the NRC a Form NRC - 396, an application for renewal of a Senior Reactor Operator license, that was not complete and accurate in all material respects. Specifically, the NRC Form - 396 certified that the applicant met the medical requirements of ANSI/ANS-3.4 - 1983. During December 1996, the applicant developed a permanent physical condition which did not meet the minimum standards of ANSI/ANS-3.4 - 1983, Section 5.3.2(1) and precluded the applicant from solo operation. This information was material to the NRC because the NRC relied on Form 396 to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 to operate the controls of a nuclear power plant. Since NRC intervention was required to identify the requirement for the operator to have a no solo restriction, this apparent violation was considered NRC identified.

The apparent violation (AV 05000315/2004007-01; AV 05000316/2004007-01) was determined to be of very low safety significance, but was of significant regulatory concern because an incorrect licensing action was taken based on the information that was provided by the licensee.

The licensee took the following corrective actions, which were considered to be prompt and comprehensive:

The licensee prevented activation of the individuals license from inactive to active status (in accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(f)) until the medical issue associated with the license was resolved with the NRC.

The medical records of all licensed operators were reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable standards. No other issues were identified.

6 A self-assessment of all licensed operator medical records will be performed every two years.

The administrative procedure governing the medical record reporting process will be changed to ensure the NRC is notified when a potentially disqualifying medical condition is identified.

.7 Conformance With Simulator Requirements Specified in 10 CFR 55.46

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors assessed the adequacy of the licensees simulation facility (simulator) for use in operator licensing examinations and for satisfying experience requirements as prescribed in 10 CFR 55.46, Simulation Facilities. The inspectors also reviewed a sample of simulator performance test records (i.e., transient tests, scenario test and discrepancy resolution validation test), simulator discrepancy and modification records, and the process for ensuring continued assurance of simulator fidelity in accordance with 10 CFR 55.46. The inspectors reviewed and evaluated the discrepancy process to ensure that simulator fidelity was maintained. Open simulator discrepancies were reviewed for importance relative to the impact on 10 CFR 55.45 and 55.59 operator actions as well as on nuclear and thermal hydraulic operating characteristics. The inspectors conducted interviews with members of the licensees simulator staff about the configuration control process and completed the IP 71111.11, Appendix C, checklist to evaluate whether or not the licensees plant-referenced simulator was operating adequately as required by 10 CFR 55.46

(c) and (d).

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.8 Written Examination and Operating Test Results

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the pass/fail results of individual written tests, operating tests, and simulator operating tests (required to be given per 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2))

administered by the licensee during calendar year 2004. This represents one sample.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution

1. Biennial Sample Review

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed several licensee training department self-assessment reports.

The licensees self-assessments reviewed the licensed operator training program for approximately 12 months prior to this inspection activity. The self-assessments were reviewed to ensure that any issues identified during the self-assessment were appropriately evaluated, prioritized, and controlled.

b. Findings

There were no findings of significance.

4OA6 Meetings

.1 Exit Meetings

The inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. M. Nazar and other members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on June 4, 2004. The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.

.2 Interim Exit Meetings

An interim exit meeting was conducted for:

• Biennial Operator Requalification Program Inspection with Mr. M. Nazar on March 5, 2004.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

J. Jensen, Site Vice President

M. Nazar, Senior Vice President, Chief Nuclear Officer

R. Brown, Programs Assurance

M. Finissi, Plant Manager

I. Fleetwood, Training Instructor

D. Frie, LOR Training Instructor

R. Gillespie, Operations Director

R. Jervey, Regulatory Compliance

J. Newmiller, Regulatory Compliance

B. Nichols, LORT Supervisor

A. Robertson, Shift Manager

R. Sieber, Operations Training Supervisor

R. Strasser, Shift Manager

T. Vriezma, Simulator Supervisor

T. Woods, Compliance Supervisor

J. Zwolinski, Director of Design Engineering and Regulatory Affairs

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

05000315/200407-01 AV Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Information to the

05000316/200407-01 NRC Which Impacted A Licensing Decision. (Section 1R11)

Closed

None.

Discussed

None.

Attachment