ML20037B623
| ML20037B623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000477, 05000478 |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1980 |
| From: | Peterman P Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338F673 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-485 NUDOCS 8010270093 | |
| Download: ML20037B623 (2) | |
Text
-
..r..
m.
Pcrker C. Peterman Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 201/430-6161 Vice Presdent and Comptroller
~
<n O>
April 22, 1980 g
nacEtVED' t g7 J
JAN131982W Mr. William I.
Miller, Chief G 8 %"gy' 'n License Fee Management Branch mc
-Office of Administration U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
g Washington, D.
C.
20555
Dear Mr. Miller:
Re:
Docket Nos. STN 50-477 STN 50-4 78 This will acknowledge receipt of your January 8, 1980 letter and the referenced invoice No. 362-8 0 dated January 23, 1980.
As indicated in these documents, the NRC is endeavoring to collect $737,100 as fees for the review of the Atlantic 1 and 2 Construction Permit Application.
These fees specifically give credit for the application fee of $125,000 that had been paid when the application was filed.
The invoice and your letter have been reviewed by our legal counsel who advise that there is no basis in law for the NRC to seek payment when the application was withdrawn prior to the issuance of any permit and prior to the bestowal of any benefit upon the applicant.
In their opinion, the withdrawal of the application precludes the Commission from completing its review of the project to the extent that a permit could be issued at which future time the fees would then have be-come payable.
The Company, therefore, respectfully declines payment of your invoice.
Very truly yours, m
J, g ' e, ) y ',
?
L
'y
. -l r
^
4 g
30 4, 9 t
,e m.u.
7o /09 700 U i n + ' "-
..-1 t
, _, -, ~ "
""?'
g.gqp f,=, exm Portland General ElectricCompaq
,==
7 C
g1 EC 29 R2 05
~
M t
Ba10.W4hes W:ePresdert Ch d'.2 NJ..
/
DUCtopyjcif CG".XU lr'0MB1R December 24, 1981 PPDfU;ED BULE Mo F8 55fm) i o
g S
Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
g o
ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch YED Washington, DC 20555 1
~
J Q 1 11982 s u
Dear Sir:
{#
ta g
//
TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT
,3 Comments on Proposed Replacement of Provisions N
of Regulatory Guide 8.15, Incorporated by Reference in 10 CFR 20.103 NRC Regulatory Guide 8.15, " Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection",
contains provisions which require an annual review of the cedical status of each user by a physician.
A subsequent letter from Robert B. Minogue, Director, Office of Standards Development for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 14, 1978 stated that the NRC did,not require a physical examination of each respirator user annually; only a review of each user's medical status.
The NRC has proposed that Regulatory Guide 8.15 be incorporated into 10 CFR 20.103.
However, the proposed rule does not include the clarifica-tion of the March 14, 1978 letter stating that physical examinations were not necessarily required in the annual review of medical status.
The proposed rule in its present form would result in significant cost SIg to utilities when annual status reviews by physicians without required TQ physical examinations as outlined in the March 14, 1978 letter would be adequate.
bg.
For this reason, Portland General Electric Company believes that the comments of Mr. Min'ogue's letter should b'e incorporated in the final form
' p[pj)..f g of the rule. This could be accomplished by the following addition to the end of Paragraph C.2:
" Physical examinations would not necessarily be
~
'%}'rndv.
}x _O w-~~ 3lOWO A dcoc M:J tj r.:..l 30 e, gY }ll3,,
121 S W Symen Deet. CW:rd Crep 97?0-3
~.
,.im au. te.w a
s Portland General ElectricCompany Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission December.24, 1981 Page two required as a part of the annual medical status review".
I hope that these comments will be of use in formulating the final rule.
Sincerely, a
n y:-
Bart D. Withers Vice President Nuclear Attachment t
s, t -
[
i
.i I
I i
i f
i I
i
... _,.. ~,. _ _...,,
dects uty vt tna liuclear
' Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Pla:
f Docket 50-344
,,u... License NPF-1
(
In related questions some licensees have asked whether it is necessary for their physicians to make the detennination of medical status for the employees of contractors at the licensees' sites.
It 1, not necessary that a licensee's physician make the determination.
Licensees can meet the requirement for making the detenninations by obtaining proof from their contractors that the required determinations of medical status have been made.
There is no currently developed standard method for medical surveillance of this type.
As part of the work under a technical assistance contract the NRC has asked the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) to review the problems of medical surveillance of respirator users and assist in the development of more definitive guidance.
The ANSI Z88.2 Coranittee is also reviewing its recoranendations for medical surveillance as a part of the up-dating of the 1969 ANSI standard.
If more specific information on medical requirements can be developed, NRC guidance will be changed as appropriate.
Current NRC guidance, then, requires a determination of medical status (not necessarily a physical examination) as set out in Regulatory Guide 8.15, S C.4.h.
The performances of physical examinations mentioned in 5 '7.4.3 of HUREG-0041, " Manual of Respiratory Protection Against Airborne Radioactive Materials," are suggestions that a licensee's physician might er might not wish to follow.
q AT h
Ts, 0
o
~
/
u e-Rober
. Minogue, Director ei Office of Standards Development u
@3 s
4D.P E
e y
IU[
h i~.
- l. N T. b.
e M
"$ O O
3:
.s z-O 7
3 g
cuo z-z 5 * *.
<m4 u
u 2*
TWE
'2i Edf s
_ u. 4 i O EE
' ~ ~ ~
h) t I
d r
2 me
-w-o+
aw e *=-*** -
'N.. e s %.4 v
sw a, ut o.._. uclear
~
i.i; Trojan Nuclear Plant c^ s 4 Regulstory Commission W u u u Aits
{
t-
-t FJUCLE All it E GULAT ORY COMMissl0N Docket 50-344 N'<<fj E
W AT.W N O10N, D. C, Ma6 License NPF-1
- . N
-l r N:,
3 g....+g A,
March 14, 1978 1
NOTICE TO ALL LICENSEES AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS
SUBJECT:
MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE FOR RESPIRATOR USERS In view of a number of inquiries that we have received, the following infomation is provided on Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC) requirenents for the medical surveillance of respirator users.
The NRC's regulation,10 CFR Part 20, E 20.103(c), pemits licensees to make allowance for the use of respirators provided that the equipment is used as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15.
" Acceptable Practices for Respiratory Protection," t C.4.h., does require for those licensees who make allowance for the use of respirators
... determination prior to assignment. of any individual to tasks requiring i
the use of respirators that such an individual is physically a,ble to perfom the work and use the respiratory protective equipment.
A physician i's to detemine what health and physical conditions are pertinent. The medical status of each respirator user is to be reviewed at least annually."
This NRC requirement is similar~ to that of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR H 1910.134(b)(10)) and to the recomendations of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z88.2, 1969, s 3.7).
The purpose of the requirement is to protect the health of workers who might have to use respirators. The use of a respirator imposes particular physiological demands on the wearer. These demands
.could jeopardize the health or even the life of a user who has special medical problems.
A medical detemination identifies these special problems so that they can be taken into account in providing proper respiratory protection for a worker without endangering his health or life.
For some medical problems the kinds of respirators that may be used might have to be limited.
For more serious medical problems such as those that might lead to inability to breathe, heart " failure," vascular accident, or P
seizure, the use of respirators might be precluded entirely.
i Please note that the NRC's guidance does not require a complete physical i
examination of each respirator user--only an initial medical detemination and an annual review of medical status.
The detemining physician might or might not require a physical examination as a part of his detemination of an individual's medical status.
For example, a physician might decide to make most determinations by reviewing questionnaires or by examination of medical records, and might wish to physically examine only those individuals whose questionnaire or records indicated possible significant heal th, probl ems.
' bp e,
$ 1G.MO 4 %