ML19280B316
| ML19280B316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/28/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eckert R ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19280B317 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112040086 | |
| Download: ML19280B316 (2) | |
Text
-
g,h -w, g,;;;;n O&ma.%_u OCT 28 8 g\\
T<
fR[],ll!QL "r. Richard V. Eckert, Chaiman 2
3 NOV131937m2 Cornittee en Power Plan Design 3
ConstructOm >:nd Operaticn L,. *' Qu% Z 7101 Wisconvir svenue y
..; 3 Mashington, Ti. C.
20014 V) 7(y'
Dear Mr. Ecke.rt:
Thank you for your letter of September 28th to Chaimr Palladino which hu been referred to ne for reply. We understand that Chaiman Palladino t responding to you on the same subject.
We look forward to the meetings yrra and Chaiman Palladino agreed on to nursue sorte exchange of ideas relative to operator qualifications and operator examina-tions. I have asked Steve Hanauer to be tM MRC point of contact in arranging such meetings.
The four requests you made at the meeting trHb the Coamission on September 16th are under consideration, The f Frst two invche the Operator Qualifications Peer Poview Panel which we are in the prowss of Osublishing.
You request that any rulenaking fn th> trea of operator qualificadons be postponed until the INPO joh/ task analysis r.nd subsequent training guidelines are completed. We Save benn directed to establish the Peer P.eview Panel to review all pertinent caterials, including the AIF proposal, so that the Panel can recommend a future course of action. A decision regarding the rulemaking would depend on the Peer Panel recommendations and subsequent CorxMssion consideration.
Further, your request that the NPC recognire the need for flexioility of time required to implement a new program will also be addressed by the Peer Review Panel. With respect to implementation, the Panci is charged to review all aspects. of the operator qualifications question including issues, such as:
timing, grandfathering, career paths, and availability of educational programs.
Thr; third request, review of license examinations based on the results of the INPO job / task aalystA appears to be a long tem question since the job / task analysis date w111 not be available until late next suruer. However, q 6$
Further,' DHFS has contruted Dr. Havauer's staif has been in contact trf th Mr. Tucker nith regard to st.kedJMng a rmiting to dirzuss thSs issue in late November.
with M Ridge National Laboratories to provide technica.1 rasistance. to makc f/
th current examination process more rescurce-efficient ard to study the poblera g
. d ' ! 'f of examination validity.
I'
(,I ',/ /
-}s
.s ' <
p
... ~ _
,4 y
I' "t'
m >:= m
~. * "
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AsE exu.
^
haaraw.uc
@l,
.qf$1% ' -
c l'r. Richard M. Eckert Your final request, sch.?dalinei a meetirg with the Cormiissioners in approximately six months, can be handled direc.tly with the Secretary's Office. By that time the inittai Peer Panel rec.owiendations vill have been presented to the Com-nist,1ories 5.
Thus this would appear to be a good time to exchange views.
Again., thank yev for your letter and the presentation of September 16.
I hope we can contToun to work together on these difficult problems.
Ilarold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTPltWTION :
' Centr,t)- fil es L@ Rndin[,
H. Denton E. Case J. Au s ', i n V. St ei t ti PPA 1 D. Eisenhut R. Mattson T. Murl ey B. Snyder R. Vollmer S. Hanauer J. Kramer D. Vassalio J. Persensky SECY F,1. -2128 ( 3 )
P. Brandenburg - 10931 S. Cavanaugh 10931 M..). Filippone M
g
'I
(
(. /
-. -- s
~.
I,QB7 JHFS L@/ DHFS 1
D/'tdf y ; [
fm \\}
<,,,,c, p
...~ m y JPerj,e uly:
DYa ssallo 5Nanaih E ar{
, - KQ,,iton f-
.10/20 81..... l.', J s>;/U n],
.,1083.1,
, lo 01,
""I. 70.QO/Jt.
/
1 oc r ca w.;,4,,,mc n m o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY J
- " " " " - = "
Dircks p T '"'%'
Co rnell
,, g o,
UNITED STATES l
?
Rehm O
y
) y.,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.Denton W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 Stello g-ap ED0 R/F
%,, V
/
... +
October 23, 1981 CHt.t R M A N Mr. Richard M. Eckert Chairman AIF Committee on fluclear Plant Design, Construction and Operation Public Service Electric & Gas 80 Park Place fiewark, flew Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Eckert:
We wish to thank you and your colleagues for the presentation you gave the Commission September 16.
The discussion of the task analysis and the plans for future work in this area showed the strong industry ccm-mitment to develop a technical basis for operator qualification.
We will give the results of this analysis and your recommendations full consideration in our future development of operator qualification re-quirements.
As we discussed at the meeting, the Commission has directed the staff to form a peer review panel composed of representatives from outside fiRC.
This panel is to review the various proposals regarding operator qualifications, to conduct workshops, and to develop a r' c-e ommended course of action.
This program is expected to take some months
^
and should be consistent with your schedule. We invite the industry to present its plans and views directly to the peer panel.
I should like to emphasize one point in order to clear up industry uncertainty that I know exists. The Commission believes that any new requirements for upgrading operator qualification should be oriented primarily to the future -- that is, to people not yet in the program --
and that allowances should be made for qualified people already licensed.
Sincerely, Q
(0 f &~yc.,
g2.YD M
fiunzio J. Palla ino g