IR 05000220/1990019
| ML17056A955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1990 |
| From: | Conte R, Todd Fish NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17056A954 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-90-19OL, NUDOCS 9009060094 | |
| Download: ML17056A955 (52) | |
Text
Report No.:
Docket No.:
License No.:
Licensee:
Facility Name:
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-220/90-19 (OL)
50-220 DPR-63.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road Syracuse, New York 13212 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
Examination Dates:
July
18, 1990 NRC Examiners:
T. Fish, Senior Operations Engineer J. Williams, Senior Operations Engineer D. Draper, Examiner, PNL K.
Mikkelsen, Examiner, PNL Chief Examiner:
T.
ish, Senior Operations Engineer Date Approved by:
Richar J.
Conte, Chic
,
B R Section Operat ons Branch, DRS D te
~Summav
See Executive Summary 9009060094 900822 PDR ADOCK 05000220 PDI
p
~
I I
NINE MILE POINT I RE UALIFICATION EXAMINATION JULY 1990 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Written and operating examinations were administered to three crews (one staff crew, two shift crews) consisting of six Reactor Operators (ROs)
and nine Senior Reactor Operators (SROs).
The examinations were graded concurren'tly by the NRC and the facility training staff.
The results of the NRC and the facil-ity grading were identical.
All of the ROs and all of 'the SROs examined passed all portions of the examination.
All three crews that were evaluated performed satisfactorily on the simulator portion of the'examinations.
Operator and program weaknesses were addressed for licensee self-assessment and appropriate corrective action (see section 2).
In addition, section 3 of this report documents three Unresolved items (UNRs).
Item one concerns the rotation of the ROs, item two concerns classifying every failure-to-scram as an Alert, and item three concerns the installation of jumpers to bypass main steam isolation valve closures.
These items requ~ire licensee attention and resolution.
~
~
DETAILS 1.
Introduction During the examination period, the NRC administered requalification exami-nations to 15 licensed operators (6 ROs and 9 SROs).
Ten of the 15 oper-ators belong to two regular plant operating shifts crews (five per shift)
and the remaining five belong to one licensed staff crew.
The 15 oper-ators were divided into 3 crews for the simulator part of the examination.
With one exception, the examiners used the process and criteria described in NUREG 1021,
"Operator Licensing Examiner Standards,"
Revision 5, section ES-601,
"Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations."
The exception was that the requi rement for admi ni stering five common Job Performanc'e Measures was waived.
(see Attachments 4 and 5)
An entrance meeting was held with the licensee on May 16, 1990, in the Region I office.
The purpose of this meeting was to brief the licqnsee
'on the requirements of the requalification program evaluation and to out-line a prospective schedule for the examination.
The licensee personnel
"contacted during the examination are listed in Attachment 1.
2.
Examination Results 2. 1 Individual Examination Results The following is a summary of the individual examination results:
(Examination test items are listed in Attachment 2).
NRC Gradin I
RO I
SRO I
Pass/Fail Pass/Fail TOTAL Pass/Fail Written 6/0 9/0 15/0 Simulator 6/0 9/0 15/0 ( Wal k-Through 6/0 9/0 15/0 Overall 6/0 9/0 15/0
Facilit Gradin RO f
SRO (
TOTAL Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Written 6/0 9/0 15/0 Simul ator 6/0 9/0 15/0 Walk-Through 6/0 9/0 15/0 Overal
6/0 9/0 15/0 There was 100% agreement between facility results (see Attachment 3) and hlRC results.
I 2.2 Generic 0 erator Stren ths Written Examination
" All test items not listed as a weakness were answered correctly by more than 75% of the operators exposed to that test item.
JPM Examination All tasks not listed as a weakness were performed correctly by more than 75% of the operators exposed to that'task.
Simulator Examination
" Teamwork between crew members
- Station Shift Supervisor (SSS)/Assistant Station Shift Supervisor (ASSS) direction and control of the shift.
- Control board manipulations and use of procedures.
2.3 Generic 0 erator Weaknesses Written Examination All test items listed below were answered incorrectly by at least 25% of the operators exposed to that test item.
- Ability to predict plant response to a loss of 24 VDC power.
- Reactor level response to a stuck open relief valve with feedwater pump bl3 controller in manual.
JPM Examination
- No weaknesses noted.
Simulator Examination
- Execution of a step in EOP-8'requiring installation of jumpers (see section 3).
- Classification of ATWS events (see section 3).
2.4 Re uglification Pro ram Stren ths
- guality of video and audio recording capability for the simulator.
- In-plant JPMs.
- Written exam questions, using predominately multiple choice fo'rmat.
I (
2.5
.Re uglification Pro ram Weaknesses
~
- A number of JPM questions were either too easy or solicited more than one correct answer.
- Several JPMs had valve. numbering inconsistencies, spelling errors, and other attention-to-detail shortcomings.
- ,Several JPMs had poorly validated steps such that an operator, correctly performing the task per NMP-1 operating procedures, would violate a step of the standard in the JPM.
- Few evaluators asked the SROs any of the
'SRO Only'uestions.
2.6 Re uglification Pro ram Evaluation Results The facility program for licensed operator requalification training met all criteria established in ES-601,
"Administration of NRC Requal-ification Program Evaluation."
The criteria in ES-601 are:
a.
Ninety percent pass/fail decision agreement between NRC and facility grading of the written and operating examinations.
There was 100% agreement on this criterion.
b.
At least 75% of all operators pass the examination.
NRC grading is the only consideration for this criterion.
All operators ( 100%) passed the examinations
I
C.
There shall be no more than one crew failure during the simulator portion of the operating examination, although the failure of one crew MAY cause the program to be considered unsatisfactory.
d.
NRC grading is the only consideration for this criterion.'hree crews were evaluated and all three crews passed the simulator portion of the operating examination.
The program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2),
(3)
and (4), or is based on systems approach to training.
The review of the licensee's procedures for conduct of licensed operator training indicated that the requalification program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2), (3),
and (4) for lectures, on-the-job training, and evaluations.
Additionally, if 3 or more of the following are applicable to a
requalification program, then that program SHALL be determinecf'o be unsatisfactory.
If 1 or 2 of the following the program MAY be determined unsatisfactory.
a.
The same common JPM is missed by at least 50% of the operators.
Since the requirement for using common JPMs was waived, this criteria is not applicable.
t
I b.
The same question about the same common JPM is missed. by at least 50% of the operators.
Since the requirement for using common JPMs was waived, this criteria is not applicable.
The facility failed to train and evaluate operators in all positions permitted by their individual licenses'he facility does not evaluate all the ROs in the lead control room operator position (Chief Shift Operator) during the simulator examinations.
(Section 3.0 of this report discusses this issue in detail).
Failure to train operators for "in-plant" JPMs.
I As reported by the facility, the facility trained operators for
"in-plant" JPMs.
Less than 75% of the operators correctly answered 80% of the common JPM questions.
Since the requirement for using common JPMs was waived, this criteria is 'not applicable.
l
~
I
f.
More than one facility evaluator is determined to be unsatisfac-tory in accordance with the guidance of ES-601.
All facility evaluators were found to be satisfactory Although the facility did not meet all the evaluation criteria listed in ES-601, the NRC has evaluated the results and the. program has been rated overall as satisfactory in accordance with the 'guide-lines of ES-601.
3.0 Examination Related Findin s
During the course of the evaluation, three 'Unresolved (UNR) items were i.dentified.
One item concerns the rotation of ROs.
The examiners observed that, during simulator evaluations, the ROs did not rotate to a different position for subsequent scenarios such as the CSO position (Chief Shift Operator).
Instead, they held the same position throughout the evaluation, from scenario to scenario.
CFR 55.59(a)(2)(ii) requires each operator to demonstrate an understanding of and the ability to accomplish a
i d
5. t).,if ROs do not rotate between positions and, consequently, are not exposed to the different panels where different systems are controlled, it is not apparent that they have met the comprehensive sample as described in 10 CFR 55.59.(a)(2)(ii).
Verification that operators receive a comprehensive sample of required items during the annual operating tests is considered unresolved pending further NRC review.
(UNR 50-220/90-19-01)
A second item concerns classifying every failure of rods to insert as an Alert or higher class of emergency.
During the simulator evaluations, the operators automatically declared an Alert for conditions when most rods had scrammed and power was in the intermediate range or below.
Based on discussions the examiners had with the operations superintendent, it appears that an Alert is declared primarily because it is a simple and quick method to muster additional facility personnel to assist the control room operators in handling any troubleshooting efforts.
However, by declaring an Alert, local, state, and federal agencies are notified, who in turn usually dispatch their representatives to respond to the Alert condition.
These authorities would be mobilized for situations that-do not genuinely require assistance from outside NMP-1.
The declaration of an Alert or higher for any failure of rods to inser t is considered unresolved pending further NRC review.
(UNR 50-220/90-19-02)
The third item concerns installing jumpers in order to bypass a Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) closure.
Specifically, EOP-S,
"Emergency RPV Depressurization,"
step 2.4 directs bypassing '...
any low-low RPV water level MSIV isolation...'y installing four jumpers.
During the simulator portion of the exam, two crews performed this step differently, even though each crew was dealing with very similar plant conditions.
One crew
a
installed the jumpers even though water level was several feet above the low-low isolation setpoint.
A second crew deliberately chose not to install the jumpers precisely because water level was several feet above the isolation setpoint.
Consequently, there was an inconsistent execution of step 2.4 between the t'wo crews.
Additionally, based on discussi'ons with operations personnel, there appears to be an inconsistent interpre-tation of what the words in step 2.4 mean.
That is, do the operators install the jumpers, regardless of water level (high or low), or do they install the jumpers only when the low-low level condition actually exists (UNR SO-220/90-19-03).
The licensee's letter of July 30, 1990 (see Attachment 3) also addresses these outstanding issues but without specific resolution.
These three items remain unresolved pending further NRC review.
An exit meeting was held at the conclusion of the examinations on July 18, 1990.
The personnel in attendance are indicated in Attachment 1.
~The preliminary NRC results of the examination were presented.
Examination preparation and administration were discussed along with the results of the facility administered examinations.
Attachments:
1.
Persons Contacted 2.
Requalification Examination Test Items 3.
Licensee Results, Licensee's Letter to NRC, dated July 30, 1990 4.
Licensee's.Letter to NRC, dated June 5,
1990 5.
NRC Letter to Licensee, dated July 2, 1990
4 ~
~
~
Attachment
Persons Contacted 1.
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration Notes S. Burton, Facility Instructor G. Corbin, Simulator Supervisor ',
K. Dahlberg,'tation Superintendent, Unit
S.
Domago, Assistant Operations. Superintendent, Unit
M. Dooley, Regulatory Compliance J. Firlit, General Superintendent-Nuclear Generation G; Holthouse, Facility Instructor M. Meier, Senior. Facility Instructor J. Parrish, Station Shift Supervisor R. Randall, Operations Superintendent, Unit
A. Rivers, Superintendent Training, Nuclear P.
Ryan, General Physics Corporation R. Sanaker, Operations Training Supervisor R. Seifried, Assistant Superintendent Training D. Straka, Regulatory Compliance
3
2
1,
1
2 1, 2,
1
3 1, 2,
3
3
2
1, 2,
3 2.
Nuclear Re viator Commission D. Draper, Examiner (PNL)
T. Fish, Senior Operations Engineer R. Gallo, Chief, Operations Branch,DRS K. Mikkelsen, Examiner (PNL)
T. Walker, Senior Operations Engineer J. Williams, Senior Operations Engineer R.
Temps, Resident Inspector
1
3
2
1, 2,
2 Notes ( 1)
Attended meeting in Region I Office, May 16, 1990 (2)
Attended entrance meeting at NMP-1, July 9, 1990 (3)
Attended exit meeting at NMP-1, July 18, 1990
~
Attachment
Re uglification Examination Test Items 1.
Simulator Scenarios 01-REQ-009-1DY-1-09 01-REQ-009-1DY-1-02 01-REQ-009-1DY-1-04 01-REQ-009-1DY-1-06 01-REQ-009-1DY-1-01 01-REQ-009-1DY-l-l 1 01-REQ-009-1DY-1-05 2.
JPM's 01-REQ-P J E-200-1-10 01-REQ-P JE-200-1-32 01-REQ-P J E-211-1-02 01-REQ-P J E-207-1-05 01-REQ-P J E-208-1-01 01-REQ-.P JE-200-1-36 01-REQ-P J E-264-1-01 01-REQ-P JE-259-1-08 01-REQ-S J E-200-1-04 01-REQ-S JE-200-1-12 01-REQ-S JE-200-1-23 01-REQ-S JE-201-1-04 01-REQ-S JE-202-1-02 01-REQ-S J E-218-1-01 01-REQ-S JE-207-1-04 01-REQ-S JE-209-1-02 01-R EQ-S J E-200-1-05 01-REQ-S JE-207-1-03 3.
Written Exam 2000290504R-11,
2000160401-01,
2150050101-06, 05, 04,
2000330401-01 2590010101-02 2000130401-01 200070501-03, 04, 01,. 02 2000090504R-12, 02, 05, 01, 03, 04,
200031050-01 2000270501-02 2000340401-01 3430250303R-01 3449030403-01
I I
Attachment
3529020105-02 3410180303-12 3440240303-01, 03,
2000110401-01 2000460401-01 2459200401-01 2040020101-10 2000360401-01 2000290401-02 3419080103-01 2230110204R-01 2789010501-01 2000060401-01 2000230501-01 2000120401-04 3440190303-03,
3440280303-01 01-REQ-009-IST-1-26-01 through
01-REQ-009-IST-1-06-01 through
01-REQ-009-IST-1-27-01 through
01-REQ-009-IST-1-19-01 through
~
~
Attachment
Licensee Results Letter dated Jul
1990
W NIASAQA U PAQHAWK NMP-70406 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION /P.O. BOX 32 LYCOMING, NEW YORK 13093/TELEPHONE (315) 343-2110 AzzAg-tMcvT
July 30, 1990 Hr. Timothy Hartin Regional Administrator ATTN: Hr. Robert H. Gallo Branch Chief United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Hr. Hartin:
A Licensed Operator Requalification Examination was ]ointly administered at Nine Mile Point Unit One by the USNRC and the facility staff during the weeks of July
and July 16, 1990.
Based upon the results of this examination, a
program evaluation was conducted by the Training Department.
The summary of the evaluation is attached.
Also attached are some materials specifically requested by Hr.
Todd Fish, the Chief Examiner for this examination.
Sincerely, oseph F. Firlit Vice President - Nuclear Generation JFF/MAH/kab Attachments (2)
lP
~
t
LISEO OPERATOR REQOAL PROGRAM SELF-EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
During the weeks of July 9 and July 16, 1990, NRC monitored Requalification Examinations that were administered at Nine Mile Point Unit One.
Fifteen individuals, comprising two control room crews and one staff crew, were examined.
Results and open items are as follows:
All three control room teams were satisfactory Nine out of nine SROs passed the simulator evaluation Six out of six ROs passed the simulator evaluation All fifteen operators passed the walkthrough evaluation All fifteen operators passed the written examination All Program Evaluation Criteria were satisfied Licensed Operator Requalification is being conducted satisfactorily Rotation of ROs at the Control Room panels needs to be evaluated by Operations Department Classification criteria for an ATMS as an ALERT needs to be evaluated by Emergency Planning Department The NMPC position on when to
"Bypass the Lo-Lo-Lo MSIV Closure" when executing EOP-8 needs to be evaluated by the Operations Department-1 July 1990
~
~
1.
EXAHINATION RESULTS l
'I
~.
RO PASS/FAIL SRO PASS/FAIL TOTAL PASS/FAIL Simulator Walk-through Written Overall 6/0 6/0 6/0 6/0 9/0 9/0 9/0 9/0 15/0 15/0 15/0 15/0 Attachment 1 gives the grades, by candidate, for each section of the exam.
2.
PROGRAH EVALUATION The Nine Hile Point Unit One Requalification Program compares to the criteria of ES-601 as follows:
a
~
b.
c
~
d.
e.
g.
h.
100% of the operators passed the examination.
This exceeds the 75%
required by C.3.b.(l)(b).
The program meets the requirements of 10CFR55.59(c)(2),
(3),
and (4)
as required by C.3.b.( 1)(d).
The requirement for common JPHs was not in effect for this evaluation so the requirements of criteria C.3.b.(2)(a),
(b),
and (e)
were not applicable (See Attachment 2).
SROs are trained and evaluated in the RO and SRO positions.
By use of JPHs as a training and evaluation tool, SROs are trained and evaluated in panel operations as required by C.3.b.(2)(c).
All operators were trained and evaluated on
"in-plant" JPHs as requiied by C.3.b.(2)(d).
All facility evaluators performed in a
satisfactory manner as required by C.3.b.(2)(f).
All control room crews were satisfactory, satisfying the requirements of O.l.c.(2)(c)4.
All operators passed the walkthrough exam satisfying the requirement of 0.2.c.( 2)(b)(2).
All operators passed the written exam, satisfying the requirements of 0.3.c.(2)(b).
-2 July 1990
3.
SIMULATOR EVALUATION The following deficiencies were noted during the simulator portion of the examination.
These deficiencies will be addressed during future requalification training.
a
~
b.
C.
d.
e.
Follow-up communications and repeat backs Inconsistent use of procedures Inconsistent emergency classification for ATWS Use of jumpers to bypass MSIV closure per EOP-8 Entry into EOP-6 when directed by EAP-2 Use of SOP-3 to drive rods manually In addition, some areas for improvement in the development of dynamic simulator scenarios were noted.
These are as follows:
~
The number of events in each scenario needs to be evaluated
~
Identification of critical tasks needs to be consistent 4.
WALK-THROUGH EVALUATION The following deFiciencies were noted during the conduct oF plant and simulator JPMs.
These deficiencies wi 1 1 be addressed during future requal ification training.
a.
b.
C.
Two operators had difficulty transFerring torus water to the waste collector tank Two operators had difFiculty transferring gll Battery Board loads to gl2 Battery Board Two operators had difficulty shifting RBCLC Heat Exchangers Some operators did not perform steps in the sequence outlined in the procedure-3 July 1990
~
~
In addi tion severa eas'or improvement in t
development and administration of JPHs were noted.
These are as follows:
Increased attention to detail is necessary in developing and reviewing JPMs and follow-up questions Some Follow-up questions were too broad for a concise answer or were too easy A better validation process is necessary to ensure a
JPH matches all procedures More
"SRO Only" questions are needed for JPHs 5.
WRITTEN EXAMINATION The Following is a
summary of the generic deficiencies noted from the grading oF the written examinations.
These deficiencies will be addressed during future requalification training.
a.
Plant Operations STATIC EXAM QUESTION g
~
~
~
1ST-1-06-04 RELATIVE TOPIC Water Level response when ERV stuck open with Feedwater Pump gl3 in manual Response of reactor pressure and turbine control valve position to stuck open ERV Five conditions necessary to cause AOS to initiate
~
1ST-1-06-06 Adequate core cooling conditions in various plant
~
~
1S1'-1-26-07
~
1ST-1-26-08 Cause of tripped reactor recirc pumps Actions to be taken to restore power to tripped OW cooling fans Actions to be taken based on current power to flow relationship b.
Limits and Controls EXAM QUESTION g 2150050101-05 2000090504R-05 RELATIVE TOPIC Reason for Rod Block on SRH 12 when SRH 12 cannot be withdrawn and greater than 100,000 cps Recognition of EOP entry conditions from list oF plant parameters-4 July 1990
J
In addition some ar For improvement in the dev ment of written examinations were note
.
These are as follows:
~
Some multiple choice question distractors were too obvious Continued work towards an all multiple choice exam bank is required-5 July 1990
~
g
ATTACHMENT 17 PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - FOR POWER PLANT REQ UALIFICATION RESULTS CONTINUATIQ N S HE ET FaclHty:
NINE hIILE POINT UNIT II1 E~am Date:
WEEK OF JULY 9 1990 Name B SHIFT STAFF Docket Grader Written JPMs Score NRC Quest.
Simul.
Written Opera ting Results / Initiols CQ O
'V FAC 97, 4 NRC FAC NRC FAC 99. 6 NRC FAC 93. 6 NRC
80 100 100 100 100
87 P
/MAM P
/hIAM P
/MAM P
/hIAM P
/MAM P
/hIAM P
/hfAM P
/hIAM FAC NRC FAC NRC FAC NRC FAC
100
P
/hIAM P
/MAM PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - FOR hTThCIIHENT 17 PRIVACY ACT INFORMATlON FOR POWER PLANT REQ UALIFICATION RESULTS CONTINUATION S HE ET Faalllty:
NINE hlILE POINT UNIT II1 E)corn Date'ame A SHIFT 55-Score Docket Orader Written JPMs Quest.
Slmul, P/F Results / Inltlals Wrltton Operating FAC NRC FAC NRC 100
90 100 100
P /MAM P /h]AM P /MAM P /MAM FAC 80. 4
71 P /MAM P /MAM FAC gg. g NRC FAC gg
100 P /hlAM P /lfAM P /hN1 P /I FAC PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - FOR I
io
ATTACIIMENT 17 PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - FOR POWER PLANT REQUALlFICATlON RESULTS CONTlNUATlON SHEET FacllltY:
NINE MILE POINT UNIT Itl Exam Date:
i7EEK OF JULY 16, 1990 Name B SHIFT Docket 55-Grader Written Scare Results / Initials P/F Written Operating JPMs Quest.
Simul.
FAC 95.7 100
FAC 95.7 100 100 n
FAC NRC FAC NRC FAC NRC FAC NRC FAC NRC FAC 88. 1 97. 6 92. 9
90
95
85 V/MAII I/MAM P/MAM P/MAM P/I IAM w re ID Ch I
Vl O O
o CO nO PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - FOR 0 E
Attachment 4.
Licensee Letter to NRC Dated June
1990
C
.C, ~
c'a te
<1 V'IAGARA NMP-63272 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION /P.O. BOX 32 LYCOMING, NEW YORK 13093/TELEPHONE (315) 343-2110 Azpp, c
June 5,
l990 Hr. Timothy Martin Reg1onal Administrator ATTN: Mr. Robert Gallo 8ranch Chief United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I
475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Hr. Gallo:
Ouring the meet1ng on May 16, 1990 we discussed the advantages of wa1ving the requirement for coeIIon JPHs as described in Rev.
5 of ES-601.
It was po1nted out that Rev.
6 of ES-601 w1ll not have this requ1rement.
This opt1on has been reviewed for 1mpact on the Operators and it was determined that there would be no negative 1mpact.
In fact, this change should not even be noticed s1nce the Operators will not know which JPHs they are doing 1n advance.
Also, the same number of JPMs can st1ll be used.
Me have discussed this with our Lead Examiner and he has approved using this option.
This opt1on would be beneficial to us and the NRC Exam1ning Team 1n a couple of ways.
~
Makes scheduling JPHs easier
~
Hakes exam secur1ty compromise less 11kely Therefore, we request.that the requirement for colon JPHs, as stated in NUREG 1021, Rev..
5, ES-601 be waived for the July 1990 Requal1fication Program Evaluation.
Sincerely, JLW/kab
REGION I==
475 ALLENDALEROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYI.VANIA19406 g+TA~MENT Z guy 02 1S90 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. James L. Willis General Superintendent Nuclear Generation 301 Plainfield Road Syracuse, New York 13212 Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 5,
1990, requesting that the requirement for common Job Performance Measures (JPMs)
be waived for the July
. 1990 Unit One Requalification Program Evaluation.
We agree that we will adopt the measure from Revision 6'o the Examiner Standards (ES) which does not utilize common JPMs.
Accordingly, the program will not be held accountable to the criteria established in C.3.b.(2)(a),
C.3.b.(2)(b)
and C.3.b.(2)(e) of ES-601, Revision 5.
If you have questions regarding this agreement, please contact Richard Conte at (215) 337-5049.
Robert M.
Ga o, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety cc w/encl:
C.
Mangan, Senior Vice President W. Hansen, Manager, Corporate guality Assurance M. Colomb, Unit 2 Superintendent, Operations C.
Beckham, Manager, Nuclear (}uality Assurance Operations R. Abbott, Unit 2 Station Superintendent J. Perry, Vice President, guality Assurance K. Dahlberg, Unit 1 Station Superintendent R. Randall, Unit 1 Superintendent, Operations J. Willis, General Station Superintendent C. Terry, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Licensing J.
Warden, New York Consumer Protection Branch, T. Conner, Jr.,
Esquire G. Wilson, Senior Attorney J.
Keib, Esquire Director, Power Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York State of New York, Department of Law Public Document Room (PDR)
e',
ss
l a
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
cc w/encl cont'd:
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of New York, SLO Designee bcc w/encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
R. Bellamy, DRSS J. Linville, DRP D. Limroth, DRP G. Meyer, DRP J. Caldwell, EOO R. Martin, NRR T. Fish, ORS R. Gallo, DRS R. Conte, ORS ORS Files (3)
a
~P)