ML20128H621

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 921123-24 Meeting in King of Prussia,Pa Re Positions on Operator Licensing Issues & to Solicit Input
ML20128H621
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom, Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/08/1993
From: Bettenhausen L
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Danni Smith
PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
References
NUDOCS 9302170103
Download: ML20128H621 (15)
v • d • e


Text

-

h$

9 FEB 81993 Dcx;ket Nos.: 50-352; 50-353; 50-277; 50-278 License Nos.: NPF-39; NPF-85; DPR-44; DPR-56 Mr. D. M. Smith, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Philadelphia Electric Conipany Nuclear Group Headquarters Correspondence Control Desk P. O. Box 195 Wayne, PA 19087-0195

Dear Mr. Smith:

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- NRC REGION I ANNUAL TRAINING MANAGERS' CONFERENCE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 23 AND 24,1992 This letter summarizes the conference conducted at the Sheraton Hotel, ' King of Prussia, Pa.,

on Novemb,:r 23 and 24,1992. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Region l's positions on operator licensing issues and solicit input from utility training staffs. A summary of the meeting agenda is enclosed. Significant issues raised by the attendees during the presentations and their resolutions are incorporated into Enclosure 3, Issues Raised. Our headquarters program office concurred in these resolutions. The resolution was delayed until Revision 7 to NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," was issued in order to incorporate final positions into the resolutions.

It is our opinion that this conference was beneficial and an excellent opportunity for open discussion of both group's concerns with the operator licensing process.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact Mr. Richard J. Conte at (215) 337-5210.

Sincerely, , , f I p ucf f

}, . 0/~)& W .e L Lee H. Bettenhausen, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 9302170103 930208-PDR ADOCK'0500o277 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:MTGSUMRY.TMM V PDR

s..

t 4 ,

Mr. D. M. Smith-- 2

-FEB 6 1933

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendecs
2. Meeting Agenda-
3. Issues Raised cc w/encls: >

R. Charles, Chairman, Nuclear Review Board ~

J. W. Durham, Sr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Peach Bottom D. R. Helwig, Vice President - Limerick Generating Station D. B. Miller, Vice President, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station G. Rainey, Vice President, Nuclear Services Department, Peach Bottom C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.

K. P. Powers, Plant Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station A. A. Pulvio, Regulatory Engineer, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station -

G. Cranston, Genetal Manapr, Nuclear Engineering Division, Peach Bottom G. J. Beck, Manager _ Licensing Section G. Madsen, Regulatory Engineer - Limerick Generating Station-J. Stankiewicz, Superintendent - Operator Training (Peach Bottom)

  • Secretary, Nuclear Committee of the Board J. A. Isabella, Director, Generation Projects Department, Atlantic Electric B. W. Gorman, Manager, External Affairs ,

R. McLean, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations D. Poulsen, Secretary of Harford County Council R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition J. H. Walter, Chief Engineer, Public Service Commission of Maryland Public Document' Room (PDR)

Local Public Document. Room (LPDR).

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC. Resident Inspector,-Limerick 1/2 -

NRC Resident Inspector, Peach Bottom 2/3 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2) ,

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY- G:MTGSUMRY.TMM-L d

Mr. D. M. Smith 3 FEB B1993 bec w/encis:

Region 1 Docket Room (with concurrences)

L. lkttenhatisen, DRS U. Wenzinger, DRP C. Anderson, DRP R. Conte, DRS N. Perry, SRI, vankee Rowe V. McCree, OEDO 5

F. Rinaldi, NRit (IJmerick)

J. Shea, NRR (Peach llottom)

OL Pacility Files (4)

DRS l'iles (4)

RI:DRS RI:DRS RI:DRS / OLB:NRR g

Prell/dmg Co Bettent s - Lange g y02,2,93 f,3s3 02,g,e 02,f2,3 Pgg y OPPiC1xL RsCORD cOPv O.m.mSumv.mm

.i

-. ._-__-. _____m _ . __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . ,_

e -

V. .I ENCIDSURE 1 U NRC POWER REAC'IDR OPERATOR LICENSEE MEETING j i

j i

November 23 24,1992 FACILITY ATTENDiil:S /;

i 1

Tom Bunis .;

Beaver Valley Ernie Chatfield Norm Millis  ;

Calvert Cliffs Bill Birney .

, j Bruce Hel.tand -

Tom O'Meara ,

FitzPatrick - Dave Topley .

Gary Fronk Bob Madden Drew Rogers }

t Ginna Robert Carroll . _

Frank Maciuska -

Ron Ruedin .,.

Hope Creek / Salem Art Onicelle. ,

Greg Mecchi Robert Hovey :-

- Vince Polizzi Jim Lloyd Bill Gotti i

Indian Point 2 Frank Inzirillo -

Mark Miller--

Indian Point 3 - - Richard Robenstein- ,

Willism Flynn ' ,

Limerick Jim Kantner- >

" Bob Ruffe

- Vince Cwietniewicz.

Steve Carr j Maine Yankee Jon Kirsch:

Mike Evringham '

Don Stevenson-  :

m i'

_. .c ,

, ,we +

-s < e+e. w r

9 Ei closure 1 3 Susquehanna Art Fitch floward l'almer Jonathan Seck 13ruce Stitt TMI1 Shall Shalikashvill Mark Trump Daryl Wilt Jeff Ik>lts Randy liess Vermont Yankee IM liarms 12rry Amirault Mike Gofekamp lirian Finn Mark Mervine John lierron Sonalysts lirian llangensen General Physics Corp. Jerry Joullian John Galamback NRC - lleadquarters Maryann Iliamonte John Kauffman Dave 12nge

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.___________li______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I4 FA' CLOSURE 2 NRC REGION I OPERATOR 1,1 CENSE EXAMINERS /TRAININO MANAGERS MEETING NOVEMHER 23 24,1992 November 23,1992, Monday Noon - 1:00 PM Registration 1:00 PM Welcome/ Introduction - T. T. Martin Regional Administrator, NRC. R1

- 1:30 PM Keynote Speaker Arthur Orticelle Training Manager, PSIMG -

- 2:00 PM Keynote Speaker - John Kauffman,AEOD' "Iluman Performance in Events" 2:45 PM Summary of Requal Changes to Ihaminer.

Standards - James A. Prell, RI

- 3:15 PM Break

- 3:30 PM Breakout Sessions (4 parallel sessions)

Revision 7 for Requalification Ihaminations 5:00 PM- Adjourn November 24,1992, Tuesday

- 8:00 AM Breakout Sessions (continued) ~

- 9:30 AM Break l '.

N]b 4

EB S1993 Docket Nos.t 50-352* 50-353; 50 277; 50-278  ;

License Nos.: NPF 39; NPF 85; DPR-44; DPR-56 Mr. D. M. Smith, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Philadelphia Electric Company Nuclear Group licadquarters Correspondence Control Desk P. O. Box 195 Wayne, PA 19087-0195

Dear Mr. Smith:

SUIMECT: MEETING

SUMMARY

- NRC REGION 1 ANNUAL TRAINING MANAGERS' CONFERENCE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 23 AND 24,1992 This letter summhrires the conference conducted at the Sheraton Hotel, King of Prussia, Pa.,

on November 23 and 24,1992. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Region l's , .

positions on operator licensing issues and solicit input from utility training staffs. A summary of the meeting agenda is enclosed. Significant issues raised by the attendecs during the presentations and their resolutions are incorporated into Enclosure 3, Issues Raised. Our headquarters program office concurred in these resolutions. The resolution was delayed until '

Revision 7 to NUREG 1021, " Operator Liecasing Examiner Standards," was issued in order to incorporate final positions into the resolutions.

It is our opinion that this conference was beneficial and an excellent opportunity for open discussion of both group's concerns with the operator licensing process.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact Mr. Richard J. Conte at (215) 337 5210 Sincerely, , ,

/ ucfh/ps N m

gg . $nt u u Lee 11. Bettenhausen, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 9302170103 9302007 PDR ADOCK 05000277 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 0
MTOSUMRY.TMM-V PDR

/

hir D. ht. Smith 2 fG 6E

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees
2. Meeting Agenda
3. Issues Raised cc w/encls:

R. Charles, Chairman, Nuclear Review lloard J. W. Durham, Sr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Peach 110ttom D. R, l{elwig, Vice President - 1.imerick Gcnerating Station D.11. Miller, Vlec Presie Deach llottom Atomic Power Station -

G. Rainey, Vice Presicb ' R tt'er Services Department, Peach llottom C. Schaefer, External Og.sh Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.

K. P. Powers, Plant Manager, l'ench llottom Atomic Power Station A. A. Pulvio, Regulatory Engineer Peach llottom Atomic Power Station G. Cranston, General hianager, Nuclear Engineering Division, Peach llottom G. J. Beck, Manager - Licensing Section G hiadsen, Regulatory Engineer - Limerick Generating Station J. Stankiewicz, Superintendent - Operator Training (Peach llottom)

Secretary, Nuclear Commhtee of the lloard J. A. Isabella, Director, Generation Projects Department, Atlantic Electric

11. W. Gorinan, Manager, External Affairs R. Mclean, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations D. Poulsen, Secretary of 11arford County Council R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition J.11. Walter, Chief Engineer, Public Service Commission of Maryland Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident inspector, Limerick 1/2 NRC Resident Inspector, Peach Bottom 2/3 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2)

OPPICIAL RECORD COPY G:MTGSUMRY TMM

I 4

Mr. D. M. Smith 3 FEB 8 1993 l bec w/cncls:

Region i Docket Room (with concurrences) l L. Bettenhausen, DRS

.j H. Wenzinger, DRP C. Anderson, DRP '

R. Conte, DRS N. Perry, SRI, Yankee Rowe V. McCrec, OEDO F. Rinaldi, NRR (IJmerick)

J. Shea, NRR (Peach Liottom)

OL Pacility Files (4)

DRS Files (4) 1 b

RI:DRS RI:DRS RI:DRS oLB:NRR Prell/dmg

/ 11ctten a% 12nge h g 02/2/93 02/jT95 02/[/W _02/fl93 g)_ oeFiciat Record coey a:uroSuuRv. rum

+ ,

s

% [

ENCLOSURE 1.

1 NRC POWER REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSEE MEETING  :

November 23 24,1992 ,

FACILITY ATTENDEFS Beaver Valley Tom Burns Ernie Chatfield Calvert Cliffs Norm Millis Hill Hirney Dmee Helstand'  !

Tom O'Meara FitzPatrick Dave Topley Gary Fronk Bob Madden 3 Drew Rogers Ginna Roben Carroll Frank Maciuska l Ron Ruedin ,

Hope Creek / Salem Art Onicelle Greg Mecchi .  !

Robert Hovey_

Vince Polizzi Jim.Lloyd

+

Bill Gott : ,

+

Indian Point 2 . Funk Inzirillo Mark Miller Indian Point 3 Richard Robenstein William Flynn ?

Limerick Jim Kantndr .  ;

Bob Ruffe Vince Cwietniewicz -

Steve Carr Maine Yankee .Jon Kirsch-Mike Evringham Don' Stevenson 1

.i,

  • .-- m ,- 4 -~.i1--- c-, r S#..-, ,

4 2 Millstone 1,2 and 3 Brad Ruth and Haddam Neck Rich Spurr Ron Stotts Mike Bray Mike Brown Bob licidecker Nine Mile 1 and 2 Bob Sanaker Bob Smith Rick Slade Randy Selfried Jim Reid Gregg Pitts Oyster Creek Gil Cropper

- Clint Silvers Jay Sims Sam Sowell Jerry Hollingsworth Darrell Wire Mark Heller Joe Kowalski Peach Bottom John Stankiewicz Dermis McClellan Phil Nielsen Paul DiRito Phila. Electric B.S. Bright Chesterbrook Office - Dennis Knepper Pilgrim Paul Gallante Tom Swan Jack Alexander Seabrook ' Bob Hanley _-

Gene St. Pierre Laurits Carlsen

Enclosure 1 3 Susquehanna Art Fitch lloward Palmer Jonathan Seek Ilruce Stitt TMIl Shall Shalikashvill Mark Trump Daryl Wilt Jeff Ik)lts Randy liess Vermont Yankee E41 liarms Larry Amirault Mike Gofckamp lirian Finn Mark Mervine John lierron Sonalysts Brian llangensen General Physics Corp. Jerry Joullian John Galamback NRC - licadquarters Maryann Iliamonte John Kauffman Dave Lange

. I q

- - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

_,__a _ g

i Enclosure 1 '4 .

Operator IJoensing Regiori ! 1.ee Hettenhauwn Rich Conte  ;

i Glenn Meyer Todd Fidt Don Florek l Sam Hansell -[

Carl Sinoo ,

Scott Stewart -

Tracy Walker '

- Herb Williams Paul Disutt ,

Imry Briggs _.

- Joe D' Antonio -

Kerry Ihnen Bill Maler [

t Jim Prell <

Dave Silk .

Rob Temps Virgil Curley o

't I

L

-f  ;

I p

l

-E i

(

W 4 , - -

m - -ae e e f m w m.' m*- e- -w w - + - --yy,-,,,--w-wy g 3 , wi- 7 9a 9

ENCIDSURE 2 NRC REGION 1 OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINERS / TRAINING MANAGERS MEETING NOVEMllER 23 - 24, 1992 Noternt>cr 23, 1992, Monday Noon - 1:00 PM Registration

- 1:00 PM Welcomelintroduction - T. T. Martin Regional Administrator, NRC RI

- 1:30 PM Keynote Speaker - Arthur Orticelle Training Manager, PSE&O

- 2:00 PM Keynote Speaker - John Kauffman, AEOD "lluman Performance in Events *

- 2:45 PM Summary of Requal Changes to Examiner Standards - James A. Prell, RI

- 3:15 PM Hrcak

- 3:30 PM Ilreakout Sessions (4 parallel sessions)

Revision 7 for Requalification Examinations

- 5:00 PM Adjourn November 24,1992, Tuesday

- 8:00 AM Breakout Sessions (continued)

- 9:30 AM lireak j

]

1 o

Enclosure 2 2 November 24,1992, Tumday (con'0 i

! - 9:45 AM Reports of Current Activities:

- Challenges and Changes l

D. Lange, NRC, liOLil l l - Industry Scenario Guidelines-WOG R. licidecker, CYAPCO i l - Training Rule Implementation ,

M. A. Iliamonte, NRC, IIIIEll l l '

l - Rev. 7 for Initial Examinations i

T. Walker, R1 and A. Shiever, IlECO j

- Region I Update i

j L.11ettenhausen, R1

- 12:30 PM Lunch l

- 1:30 PM Report of Ilreakout Sessions 1

2:30 PM Meeting Summation 3:00 PM Adjoum 1

l l

l 1

\

\t

\

s

't..

i y

f Y

4 I

ENCI.OSURE 3 ISSUES RAISED 13 - 601 ADMINISTRATIVE

  • Q: Is there a limit to the number of people that can be put onto die security agreement?

A: No, but the facility and NRC should try to minimize the number of people which have to be added to the security agreement.

  • Q: llow should simulator stand ins be counted for program evaluation purposes?

A: Both the stand ins who are determined to be Satisfactory and those who are found to be Unsatisfactory cre included in the numbers used for determining if a facility has a satisfactory program or not.

  • Q: If the past year's requal program had less than 12 operators so that a program evaluation could not be performed at that time, and this year's requal program has more than 12 operators, do you include last year's count and results in this year's program evaluation?

A: A program evaluation will be performed using only this year's results with 12 or more operators.

  • Q: When there are less than 12 operators left to be examined within the six year cycle, will program evaluations continue to be conducted?

A: Yes, the NRC intends to continue program evaluations, and the Region will work with the facility to design an examination that can be used for a program evaluation.

  • Q: The guidance related to JPM sequestering in order to prevent compromising the walkthrough exam has been removed in Revision 7. Why was this done?

A: Since a minimum number of common JPMs are no longer mandated, sequestering of the operators is not as big a concern. It is the chief examiner's responsibility to assure that adequate security is provided to prevent exam compromise. This is achieved through several methods; using a number of different JPMs so that duplication of JPMs between operators does not exist or 1

l

f Enclosure 3 2 is random, using a modified form of sequestering by having the second crew report for work just prior to the first crew completing their JPMs, or some other mutually agreed upon scheme between the chief examiner and the facility.

e Q: The examiner standards need to address what is meant by " die most recent cycle" with regards to using simulator scenarios for training purposes. Does the most recent cycle refer to the previous six week training cycle or the previous 24 month requal cycle?

A: The most recent training cycle has been defined in ES-601 as diat continuous period of dme (not to exceed 24 months) within which the facility conducts its operator requalification program.

ES . 603 WALK-TIIROUGIl e Q: Is there a minimum number of " faulted" JPMs which the facility must have in its JPM bank?

A: No - however, the facility is expected to have son e faulted JPMs in their JPM bank to select from for the examination.

  • Q: Does the NRC expect that a minimum of one of the five JPMs given to each operator be a faulted JPM7 A: No - The NRC expects that the examination for each operator be 'an appropriate balance among the items listed in Part 55.45(a), so that tasks contained in normal, abnormal and emergency procedures are evaluated, it is up to the examination team to determine whether altemate-path JPMs will be used to accomplish this goal.
  • Q: Are shutdown / low power JPMs required to be administered on each exam?

A: 'Ihe JPMs selected for each examination should reflect the sample plan for the -

requalification cycle, plus selected topics from outside the sample plan (not to exceed 20% of the examination). Shutdown / low power JPMs may be used but are not required for each examination.

l

  • Q: Is each operator reoWred to perform at least one shutdown / low power JPM7 l A: No - bet there should be enough shutdown / low power JPMs administered l during the examination so that the NRC is assured that the operators have been trained to respond to events while in these modes of operation.

I

Enclosure 3 3

  • Q:

What is the NRC's intent of having time critical JPMs which are based on maximum acceptable times established by subject matter experts at the facility?

  • A: Time critical JPMs established by subject matter experts have been deleted from the approved version of Revision 7. Time critical JPMs should be based solely on regulatory requirements or facility commitments with the NRC.
  • llecause the amount of time allotted for performing the JPMs has remained the Q:

same between Rev 6 and Rev. 7 while the number of JPMs and the number of prescripted questions have been reduced or eliminated respectfully, does this imply that longer JPMs are now required?

A: No

  • Q: Are there any minimum time requirements that a JPM takes to perform?

A: No - the facility will determine the technical basis for the JPM validated time.

FS - 604 SIMULATOR

  • Q: If the operating crew does not normally rotate crew members among the various licensed positions, are they required to rotate these operators during the dynamic simulator?

A: The crew should be tested as they operate and train. Accordingly, if an RO splits his operating time between positions, the RO should rotate during the exam. However, an SRO or an RO need not rotate to address a position infrequently held.

  • Q: How should licensed STAS be rotated into the crew to which they are assigned for requalincation purposes?

A: The STA is not recognized as a

  • licensed" crew psition for purposes of requalification examinations. Each licensed operator must participate in two scenarios in a licensed crew position to complete the requirements for requalification. Rotation will be required for licensed operators who participate in scenarios as STAS.
  • Q: What is the minimum number of scenarios in which each individual must be tested?

A: Two i

Enclosure 3 4 What is the minimum remediation required for someone in a crew which has

  • Q:

failed but who has not been identified as having any problems?

A: The facility decides what, if any, remediation is required for that individual.

  • Q: Do all members of a failed crew need to undergo an NRC reexamination before their license is renewed?

A: Yes

  • Q: For large operating crews, do those members of the crew, who were not participating in a particular scenario because of simulatr>r crew size restrictions, have to be reexamined by the NRC if the sitnulator exam crew falls?
  • A: No. Ilowever, each licensed operator must be a member of a simulator exam crew that successfully completes two dynamic simulator r,cenarios.
  • Q: For an operator who has been identified as having possible weaknesses during the simulator exam, guidance is needed as to how extensive the follow up evaluation should be, who should conduct this evaluation, when should tids evaluation be conducted, and what the impact on stress is, while the evaluation process is being determined.

A: The purpose of the follow-up evaluation is to determine the scope and breath of the operator's deficiency demonstrated durh.g the scenario. If an examiner observes an individual who demonstates significant deficiencies performing a critical task, the NRC examiner and the facility evaluator will discuss those deficiencies at the completion of the scenario. The facility evaluator or NRC examiner will then ask follow up question (s) to detennine the uuse of the performance deficiencies. Following the conduct of both scenarios, if the examination team detennines that additional follow-up performance evaluation is necessary to make a pass or fall decision, the examination team will agree upon a time to conduct the appropriate additional scenario or JPM.

  • Q: When should the follow-up scenario or JPM be given for reevaluation purposes?

A: If an examiner observes an operator demonstrate significant deficiencies performing a critical task, but cannot assess the deficiency due to a lack of perfonnance information, the examination team has the option to conduct a follow up JPM or an additional scenario to obtain additional perfonnance information. The examination team should use the time in between scenarios-to conduct individual follow-up questioning concerning deficient operator l

L l

L

e Enclosure 3 5 performance. The examination team should wait until the crew has completed the scenario set before deciding whether an additional scenario or JPM will be necessary. The information obtained from the follow up questions may provide a sufficient basis to detennine whether the operator passes or falls the examination without having to conduct an additional scenado or JPM. The exandnation team should consider the stress on the affected crew and the other crew = participating in the examination when conducting follow-up questioning, JF n . r scenarios.

  • Q: Is i. necessary that all the quantitative criteria of Rev 7 for scenarios be met?

A: No - these criteria are only guidelines. Nonetheless, the facility should im able to justify acceptability if not meeting them, o Q: Since Combustion Engineering type plants only have one EOP contingency procedure, are they required to enter this procedure at least once during each scenario set?

A: It is our intention to observe each crew conduct operations using the procedures or actions listed in Part D. of Attachment 3 to ES404. CE procedures that essentially perform the same function as those listed for Westinghouse (Optimal Reccvery Procedures or Functional Recovery Procedures) and are not listed f;r Combustion Engineering, may be proposed by the facility for use in the examination to meet this guideline.

  • Q: Is it allowable to count E-0 in meeting the EOP criterion?

A: No. ES404 Attachment 3 states that E-0 will not be counted in the overall EOP total.

e Q: What is gained by requiring the use of low power scenarios versus scenarios at 100 percent power?

A: The NRC has identified a number of high risk events that have occurred at facilities during low power operations. The NRC considers that operators who are properly informed and who understand the problems that could arise during low power operations are essential in reducing risks associated with these activities. Through comprehensive training programs, operators can ga'm such knowledge and understanding, thus increasing the level of safe operation at nuclear plants. The level of knowledge and abilities are qualitatively measured by a comprehensive examination. It should be noted that low power scenarios are not reaulted on each examination, rather, the scenarios should be included in the dynamic simulator bank and shculd be available for selection during the examination.

- - - . - . _ _ . ~ - . _

f Enclosure 3 6

  • Q: Are low }mwer scenarios required to be made a part of the facility's scenario bank?

A: Low power operations should be included in either the facility's scenario bank or JPM bank or both.

  • This answer has been revised or updated from the answer prescated at the conference, frequently to reflect the specifics of the approved Revision 7.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20128H621&oldid=2894565"