ML20206R912
| ML20206R912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | Larson C NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| IEB-85-053, IEB-85-53, NUDOCS 8607070249 | |
| Download: ML20206R912 (2) | |
Text
Dn18 Northem States Power Company J
414 Nicollet Mall Charles E. Larson Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Vice President Telephone (612) 330-6081 Nuclear Generation June 30, 1986 Mr. James G. Keppler Administrator, Region III United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler,
On July 12, 1985, the Naclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued IE In-fonnation Notice No. 85-53 regarding the performance of NRC-licensed individuals while on duty. The notice stated that the playing of radios can potentially distract personnel and advised utilities to take action "to ensure the highest standards of control room standards". On August 19, 1985, Northern States Power Company's (NSP) Senior Vice President, D.E. Gilberts, suggested that a non-distracting alternative to the re-moval of radios was controlled background music.
On September 10, 1985, William J. Dircks, NRC's Executive Director for Operations stated:
"We concluded at that time that, on a long tenn basis, the playing of radios or music could potentially have a signifi-cant negative effect on the attentiveness of operators and their ability to closely monitor plant status."
l Accordingly, NSP removed the radios from its nuclear plant control rooms.
On November 4,1985, local Union No.160 of the International Brother-l hood of Electrical Workers requested arbitration pursuant to its current i
collective bargaining agreement with NSP over the issue of the removal of the radio from the Monticello Nuclear Plant Control Room. The arbi-tration is scheduled for July 10-11, 1986.
I understand that earlier this year Mr. Gilberts invited the participa-tion of the NRC in the forthcoming arbitration. We believe that the NRC is the most logical party to explain the rationale for the NRC position on the removal of radios from the control rooms.
It is our understanding that the NRC prefers not to be a participant in this arbitration case.
It will be more difficult for NSP to explain and justify the radio removal without the participation of the NRC. The arbitrator will not have the benefit of the NRC's analysis in arriving at his decision in this matter.
.7 3
8607070249 860630 p
PDR ADOCK 0500 3
g a
_1_
50 - L G f,
'f/
i
$W JE 11986 1
. t.
1 NRC participation in this arbitration would make for a more complete and more meaningful consideration of the issue. The NRC should re-consider their current position concerning their participation in this arbitration.
The absence of the NRC as a participant in this case may result in a decision which will be contrary to the position of the NRC. We will make every effort in this arbitration, with or without the NRC;.
however, the final decision will be up to the arbitrator.
If the ar-bitrator rules that the radios be returned to the control rooms, we will then determine if we will pursue negotiations with the Union for the removal of the radios.
Yours truly, A
C.E. Larson Vice President j
Nuclear Generation CEL/jjb c:
D.E. Gilberts L.R. Eliason W.A. Shamla E.L. Watzl J.F. Sjoholm 2-U