ML19308B724
| ML19308B724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Medeiros M NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308B699 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-131, TASK-TF, TASK-TMR SECY-70-330E, NUDOCS 8001160798 | |
| Download: ML19308B724 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE: NO. 1 PIMORANDUM FOR:
R. B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development SED 1 ? M70 FROM:
M. S. Medeiros, Jr.
Reactor Systems Standards Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL VIEWS CONCERNING REACTOR OPERATOR QUALIFICATION The views expressed in your September 12, 1979 memo to H. R. Denton are those I hold except for the following:
1.
Unlike your memo, I have difficulty recognizing the SECY paper recommendations as merely or mostly first steps - - - that more detailed, substantive, and complete work is underway.
I accept as accurate the statement on the first page of the SECY paper that the recommendations made are the result of a detailed review.
Consequently, I view the SECY paper as seriously deficient for failing to address fundamental issues identified by your memo, especially items 1, 2, 3, and 4, and I do not see in the SECY paper the commitment to identify those measures and redirections that will be needed if the upgrading program is to have meaningful and lasting results.
2.
While I agree with the SD observation that our upgrading effort should incorporate public review', and the work of national consensus standards committee ANS-3, I see.ittle evidence to date suggesting that ANS-3 is interested in tackling the fundamental issues identified in the SD memo as necessary to upgrade operator training in a meaningful way.
Therefore, since I view this subject an urgent one requiring prompt action, I would start immediately, in house, to define, in detail, what is needed to assure ourselves and the public that the operators really understand the plants they are operating.
3.
The idea of deputizing u ility people as NRC part-time examiners called
" Check Senior Operators", as proposed in the SECY paper, is a fundamental error that should not be allowed to take root even under the circumstances mentioned in the SD memo.
It is difficult enough for a Government field employee to represent the Government to industry instead of vice versa; recognizing human nature, it is unrealistic to expect a utility employee, being paid by the utility, to properly represent the Government's interests.
In fact, we would probably be better off with the resulting lesser number of bona fide government examiners; at~ least, we then would not create an opportunity to be lulled into false conclusions.
8001160
[
teswa.mi.n -
r3,
. To:
R. B. Minague 2-J 4.
Similarly, while I am in agreement with the basic idea expressed in item 10 of the SD memo, use of utility people as proposed would do little to correct an existing basic deficiency which is to depend almost entirely upon the utility industry to set training standards and verify their performance as we now do.
W%
l.
M. S. Medeiros, Jr.
O e
e e
S r
,