ML13324A650
| ML13324A650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1985 |
| From: | Collins P KMC, INC. |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13324A649 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.008, RTR-REGGD-01.134, RTR-REGGD-01.149, RTR-REGGD-1.008, RTR-REGGD-1.134, RTR-REGGD-1.149 NUDOCS 8506130507 | |
| Download: ML13324A650 (3) | |
Text
REGION4 I K MC. Inc.
..*EHT NWVI May 6, 1985 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
In a July 17, 1984 letter to Mr. Eisenhut, KMC, on behalf of itself and the utilities that form the Qualifications of Reactor Operators Utility Group, expressed our concern over the imposition by regional officials of new generic requirements in the operator licensing program. These changes involved backfitting new requirements on licensees without following either rulemaking or backfitting procedures. A copy of that letter is enclosed along with a list of the group members. Many of the items in our letter were discussed at an NRC meeting conducted on August 1 and 2, 1984, but were not resolved.
Subsequently, these items were included in the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 55, and associated Regulatory Guides 1.8, 1.134 and 1.149, issued for public comment on November 26, 1984.
One of the concerns we raised involved the apparent attempt by NRC (as expressed by some NRC employees) to limit the number of operator licenses at operating nuclear power facilities by imposing requirements and guidance contained in draft proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 55 and Regulatory Guide 1.8, before NRC could analyze the public comments and realize the impact on the regulated industry.
It is disturbing that there has been an immediately effective imposition of proposed requirements on individuals who had submitted applications that met all existing regulations and guidance, resulting in their applications being denied.
It has recently come to our attention that this backfitting practice is not only continuing, but is escalating and is occuring in several regions. A specific example follows.
A utility submitted applications for renewal of senior operator licenses held by members of their training staff. The applications met all the existing regulations and guidance, including specific guidance provided by the region in a letter to 8506130507 850528 PDR ADO3CK 05000206 V
PDR_
the facility. The applications clearly indicated the individuals had been actively engaged under their licenses for the previous two year period. However, the utility was informed that, effective immediately, the only way to demonstrate "actively engaged" was to spend at least one eight hour shift in the control room per month performing licensed duties. Therefore, these individuals were deemed by the region to have not been engaged in operator duties under their license, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55.31(e), and would have to participate in a special retraining program prior to license renewal.
The eight hour shift is a provision contained in the proposed revision to Regulatory Guide 1.8. Historically, regulatory guides have enumerated but one way to meet regulatory requirements, not the only way.
The imposition of "new requirements" without prior notice, including public comment, is improper. We believe the interpretation by regional personnel that guidance documents are regulations is unwarranted and can have a severe effect on the maintenance of a sufficient number of competent licensed personnel to conduct the safe and efficient operation of nuclear power facilities.
It is totally inappropriate for NRC personnel to impose proposed regulations and guidance upon licensees, particularly when there has been significant public comment on the proposed regulatory changes.
We request that regional personnel who are responsible for the review of applications for operator or senior operator licenses,
including renewal applications, be informed that they should'use the regulations and guidance presently in effect to make their determinations to issue licenses or license renewals.
Sincerely, Paul F. Collins Senior Associate Encl.
QUALIFICATIONS OF REACTOR OPERATORS UTILITY GROUP Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Consumers Power Company Duquesne Light Company Florida Power Corporation Florida Power & Light Company Gulf States Utilities Company Nebraska Public Power District Northeast Utilities Service Company Northern States Power Company Omaha Public Power District Pacific Gas & Electric Company Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Portland General Electric Company Public Service Electric & Gas Company Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation Sacramento Municipal Utility District Southern California Edison Company Toledo Edison Company Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Yankee Atomic Electric Company