Licenced Operators Medical Qualification Problem

Licenced Operators Medical qualification problem.

You see how long it takes to come to terms with these problems beginning in 2007 in both Susquehanna and Pilgrim.

Why did these come out on this time...

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION – NRC IP 92701 FOLLOWUP INSPECTION REPORT 

Submitted by NUCBIZ on June 18, 2013 - 15:31

Since 2008, PPL has been issued three Severity Level (SL) IV violations and one SL III violation related to the medical qualifications of its licensed reactor operators. As a result of these, and other licensed operator reporting issues (some licensee-identified), PPL staff completed a detailed evaluation of these repetitive problems, PPL staff reviewed the medical records of all of its licensed operators and, as a result, on July 20, 2012, submitted ten medical updates to the NRC. Four of the ten updates involved permanent changes in medical conditions that had not been previously submitted within the required 30 days. The other six submittals involved conditions that PPL initially stated were being provided to the NRC “for information only.” However, the NRC independently identified (i.e., as a result of reviews conducted by the NRC contract physicians) that three of these six “Information Only” submittals actually involved operators with permanent changes in medical conditions. These medical conditions did not meet the minimum standards to conduct licensed activities and, therefore, the affected operators should have been removed from licensed activities or conditions added to their licenses before being permitted to continue watch standing. In addition, in December 2012, PPL submitted updates to the NRC for three other individuals that had medical conditions (sleep apnea) that had not been reported in a timely manner as required. Based on questioning of the Medical Review Officer (MRO) and examining physician, NRC inspectors in consultation with NRC contract physicians determined that the individuals did not have the requisite knowledge of the 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."

I think because there is knowingly no consequences over these issues...it happened.

This usually occurs because the utilities get behind in generating licences...then they can't afford to lose any.  

PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION – NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT NO.1-2012-013 AND NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000293/2011005 

The first apparent violation being considered for escalated enforcement involved multiple examples occurring at various times from March 2008 through October 11, 2011, of PNPS licensed operators not meeting certain medical prerequisites for performing NRC-licensed operator activities, and the licensed operators engaging in NRC-licensed activities without ENO obtaining prior NRC approval, as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 55.33. Specifically, in one example, a licensed reactor operator, during a medical exam on December 1, 2010, had a blood pressure reading that exceeded the limit specified in ANSI/ANS 3.4-1983, “Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” which is the standard to which PNPS certified it conducts its medical exams. The NRC inspectors determined that the Pilgrim Medical Examiner (ME) who conducted the exam was not knowledgeable of the ANSI standard or the minimum acceptable criteria contained therein. As a result, in spite of the RO’s high blood pressure reading, the ME determined the operator to be medically qualified to continue to conduct licensed activities based on his own medical opinion, although the ME did not document a basis for this determination. The ME also failed to notify the facility licensee of the RO’s medical condition. Therefore, the facility licensee did not obtain from the NRC a conditional license for the RO indicating that, in order to continue to conduct licensed activities, the RO must take medication as prescribed to meet the minimum medical requirements.
The NRC also identified examples involving five licensed operators (3 ROs and 2 senior reactor operators (SROs)) who, at various times from March 2008 through October 11, 2011, were not administered stamina tests as part of their required biennial exams and, therefore, did not receive complete biennial exams. The stamina test should have been conducted to assure the operators met the ANSI/ANS 3.4-1983 respiratory and cardiovascular requirements that licensed operators respectively have the capacity and reserve to perform strenuous physical exertion in emergencies and have a tolerance to postural changes and capacity for exertion during emergencies. However, the NRC inspectors identified that the ME did not administer thestamina tests to these licensed operators at the time of their biennial examinations because of various ailments and disabilities reported to him by the operators at the time of the exams. The ME did not document the basis for these decisions or notify the facility licensee of the operators’conditions.