ML19340C877
| ML19340C877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1980 |
| From: | Conte R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Neely D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012180045 | |
| Download: ML19340C877 (2) | |
Text
~
.s DISTRIBUTION TMI Program Office /HQ t /f NRR r/f TMI Site r/f n
n 'h k i '
L NOV 3 90
@ tral File _
site Operations File
\\) b O
R. Cente e
PEPOPRIDUM FCR:
D. Neely Team Leader, Unit 1 Health Physics D
Evaluation, Region I 3
4 THRU:
A. N. Fasano, Chief, Site Operations Sectient.
?
TMI Program Office M
e R. J. Conte, Senior Resident Inspector, TMI@g. -
.[.
FRCM:
Site Operations Section, TMI Progran 0ffice $
m
SUBJECT:
UNIT 1 HEALTH PHYSICS EVALUATION 5
~
Based on cur discussions over the past several weeks, it is the under-standing of the onsite staff that the subject evaluation is to be issued under Docket Number 50-289 only. We are familiar with the findings of the evaluation and we concur with you that a majority of these findings are the responsioility of the THI-2 radiological controls department.
Since many of these findings apply to THI-2, particularly in the areas of respiratory protection, dosimetry and radwaste shipments, we are concerned about not identifying them to the management of TMI-2.
It would be non-productive for the onsite radiation specialists to reverify findings that have already been proven to be the responsibility of TMI-2.
It is not understood how we as the NRC could ignore attributing these findings to TMI-2 management when they are a licensee also. Considering TMI-2 as providing contract services does r.ot appear to be a valid The use of the Unit 2 docket nurrber on your report is a viable reason.
cption which I understand has, by decision, been eliminated. Another option is to maintain separation of unit inspection reports but clearly address the cormionality of the subject findings as was done by Fr. Stello I
for the 50-320/79-10 inspection report.
In the cover letter dated October 25, 1979, to Petropolitan Edison, he applied the TMI-2 accident noncompliance items to TMI-1. He stated: "Because of the similarity of i
Units 1 and 2 and cormonality of canagement of the two units, corrective action taken in response to this letter and its ent:losures nust be equally applicable to Units 1 and 2."
l In conclusion, I recomrend that the Unit 1 Health Physics evaluation be issued under Occket Numbers 50-289 and 50-32L with a cover letter having a paragraph as follows:
"Further, we are con:erned that many deficiencies noted in this report apply to the Radiation P-otection Program of the TMI-2 radiological controls department. Therefore, in ycur response please address 1@rovements made or planned ir the TMI-2 Radiation Protection Program for each of the findings idtntified as a result of the Unit 1 review. For these iterts that yetut. ate are not aonlicable to.
orrict Unit 2, a specific justification should accorpany such evaluations.
l p-
-c h
.._... _.... b.
1.
1 a
3yggn-c..
NOV 3 1950 D. Ileely 2
A :nanagement position in this area is requested.
-,A,L -
R. J. Conte Senior Resident Inspector, TMI-2 Site Operations Se.ction TMI Program Office cc:
- 3. H. Grier J. T. Collins D. R. Haverkamp G. H. Smith M. M. Shanbaky
't
_TMI..:_P0,_ /
TMI:P0 TMI:PO OFFICE >
5"""'**
R
/.lmp..
.)k..a o Jh.. col }jDS _
-.10l..? l.80........1QL.$$f.80.....
10/..l,./. 8.. 3.....
NAC Form 3188 (4-79) NRCM 0240 av..........=,....e......cs:
..>.-a.>e.