ML20105C469
| ML20105C469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Monticello |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1983 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC |
| To: | Nicolaras H NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20102A920 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090421 | |
| Download: ML20105C469 (1) | |
Text
.
....=_
4
+
September 30,1983 1
Note to Helen Nicolaras
SUBJECT:
MONTICELLO EXPANDED RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM (OELD # 837693)
This package is okay for the notice that you want to give but in looking at it. I noticed one thing that may cause you a headache that you should think about in connection with ever issuing this one - if you get around to issuing the requested amendment. The requested amendment has some
. language in it in terms of the operations review comittee does not have to review the.various health physics / radiation protection kinds of things for "non-safety related" done by the health physics people. That, in
' view of the great to do that's going around on " safety related", "non-safety related" and "important to safety" these days, the use of the term "non-safety related" in this context of a radiation protection plan for Part-20 peeposes may be completely inappropriate. I think you don't want to use this magic word of "non-safety related" in this tech spec. You
{'-
probabi) want a better word that relates to Part 20-type of radiation pmtection-type safety, not the Part 100. Appendix A seismic-type dis-cussion considerations that go into the current flap over the word " safety related" and "non-safety related" that's going around. So I think, when it comes around to fssuing it, you probably want to find a better word for the actual tech spec itself, than "non-safety related".
Ooxe
/Goe Scinto i
e s
']
[j, '
m 9
(
1 Bg2pg21840518 ADATOS4-166 PDR
[
-