ML20080S477
| ML20080S477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000199 |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1983 |
| From: | Kane R MANHATTAN COLLEGE, RIVERDALE, NY |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080S468 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310180380 | |
| Download: ML20080S477 (2) | |
Text
-
s o
Man.. ha%sn MANHATTAN COLLEGE PARKWAY MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RIVERDALE NEW YORK 10471 (212) 920-0145 August 5,1983 Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406
Subject:
Inspection No. 50-199/83-01
Dear Mr. Starostecki:
This letter is in response to your letter of July 11, 1983 which forwarded the results of the June 6-8, 1983 safety inspection conducted by Mr. W. W. Kinney of your office. The July 11, 1983 letter noted one violation, a Severity Level IV violation pertaining to implementation of our operator requalification program.
In accordance with the statement regarding extension of the response time, in Appendix A of the July 11, 1983 letter, we respectfully request a three week extension in response time for a more complete reply.
The request is made because (1) general unavailability of facility and clerical staff during the months of July and August on our campus (2) changes in personnel, in particular, a change in the position of Chief Reactor Supervisor on July 1, 1983 (as noted in the inspection report) and (3)a backlog in our clerical work because of other inspections and license renewal work that had begun prior to the unannounced inspection in June.
l The extension will still enable us to have an operator re-qualification program in effect prior to resumption of reactor operation. We also will be able to provide you with a written status report concerning implementation of our operator requalification program three weeks prior to resumption of reactor operation. If we receive no written or telephone response (212)-920-0145 indicating that our request has been refused, we will assume that the' three week extension is acceptable. As of the date of this letter, the requalification program is only in draft form. Our complete reply will also provide a response to some other suggestions made in the inspection report.
8310180300 031007 DR ADOCK 0500G179 PDR
t 2
We note that page 4 of the Inspection Report states in item 9, paragraph 2 that the " Operator Licensing Branch did not approve the operator requalification program submitted by the licensee in a letter dated July 7, 1975. " While the Inspection Report statement may be technically correct as far as it goes on this point and is correct w?th regard to failure by the facility to implement a program, we believe that there is an omission in the report that is pertinent to the violation.
As noted by the inspector in his July 6,1983 telephone conversation with the writer, no record exists that the Operating Licensing Branch ever responded to our July 7, 1975 letter.
Therefore there is no proof that our operator requalification was ever approved or disapproved.
- 1. am sure that if we had received a response to our letter, a program would have been implemented.
We regret that no followup occurred on this either by your office or our facility, Unfortunately personnel changes on the Reactor Administrator level occurred here at the time our original requalification progia.m was submitted. We presume that similar circumstances may have existed in your office as well.
Yours truly, l%O Dr. Ronald S. Kane Chairman, Mechanical Engineering Dept.
Reactor Adnunistrator i
RSK/w
>