ML20009A997
| ML20009A997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000572 |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1981 |
| From: | Greger L, Sreniawski D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009A996 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0572-81-01, 70-572-81-1, NUDOCS 8107140627 | |
| Download: ML20009A997 (2) | |
Text
_-
t o.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENI REGION III Ii heportNo. 70-572/81-01 License No. SNM-567 licensee: Monsanto Research Corporation Facility: Mensanto Research Corporation Dayton Laboratory 1515 Nicholas Road Dayton, Ohio 45407 Meeting:
Telephone conversation between licensee management and Region III representatives on March 11, 1981. n
\\
b/3k/
Report Prepared By:
D. J. Sreniawski, Chief f
Materials Radiation Protecti on Section 2
(
YYV t /5/2/
Approved By:
L. R. Greger, Acting Chief Technical Inspection Branch Summary:
Telephone conversation on March 11, 1981 (Report No. 70-572/81-01)
Subjects Discussed:
The purpose of the communication was to acquaint licensee management with NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program and hcw the licensee's previous inspection history relates to the NRC's new enforcement policy.
Results:
The licensee was informed that during the appraisal period the licensee 's regulatory performance was acceptable and that currently there are no major safety concerns.
i 8107140627 810616
{DRADOCK 07000572 PDR
S DETAILS 1.
Participants Monsanto Research Corporation Robert Schimmel, Facility Manager i
Robert Taylor, Former Production Manager Edward Janrow, Current Production Manager Steve Hoadley, Radiation Safety Officer NRC Region III A. Bert Davis, Deputy Director Charles Norelius, Acting Director, Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection William Fisher, Chief, Technical Inspection Branch Donald Sreniawski, Chief, Radiation Protection Section 2 2.
Discussion a.
The SALP program, including development, basis for evaluation, and purpose was summarized.
b.
The results of the NRC's evaluation of the licensee's performance were discussed, c.
The NRC's new enforcement policy, including plans for implementa-tion, was briefly discussed.
3.
Licensee Comments The licensee commented during the presentation of each of the areas in paragraph 2 and a discussion followed regarding the licensee's concern over differing enforcement policies of the NRC as compared to agreement states.
The licensee stated that a difference in enforcement that affects operating costs can give a competitive advantage to the company that avoids the added expense.
Region III personnel stated that the intent is to make the NRC and agreement state programs equivalent to each other.
t l-
? [
i La-m