ML20102A959

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package.Lists Deficiencies Found in Package

ML20102A959
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Grand Gulf
Issue date:	07/05/1983
From:	Wagner M NRC
To:	Houston M NRC
Shared Package
ML20102A920	List: ML20102A922 ML20102A925 ML20102A929 ML20102A931 ML20102A933 ML20102A934 ML20102A937 ML20102A939 ML20102A942 ML20102A944 ML20102A946 ML20102A948 ML20102A959 ML20102A961 ML20102A969 ML20102A974 ML20102A981 ML20102A984 ML20102A999 ML20102B001 ML20102B008 ML20102B010 ML20102B032 ML20102B045 ML20102B058 ML20102B060 ML20102B063 ML20102B068 ML20102B080 ML20102B085 ML20102B106 ML20102B112 ML20102B114 ML20102B120 ML20102B122 ML20102B125 ML20102B127 ML20102B139 ML20102B142 ML20102B147 ML20102B156 ML20102B159 ML20102B167 ML20102B177 ML20102B185 ML20102B194 ML20102B196 ML20102B200 ML20102B206 ML20102B211 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090019
Download: ML20102A959 (1)

Text

-.

lW t

July 5, 1983 Note to:

M. Dean Houston From:

Mary E. Wagner

SUBJECT:

' GRAND GULF AMENDMENT PACKAGE I have reviewed the attachment amendments package in Grand Gulf and note the following deficiencies:

1.

NSHC determination:

There is no finding, in the basis for the NSHC, that the three standards of 10 CFR 9 50.92(c) have been met.

'In' addition, there is no discussion of the fact that some of the proposed amendments match the list of examples of amendments not likely to involve SHC.

These examples supplement the standards and should proposed amendments (b) and (d) seem to fall under example (ple, be used by the Staff in making its determinations.

For examii) of the examples of amendments likely to involve NSHC:

""(ii) A change that institutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the technical specificati_ons:

for example, a more stringent surveillance requirement."

If this is the. case, the example should be cited in d NSHC

! determination with a conclusion that items (b) and (your proposed) fall into the same category.

If items (a) and (c) fall within other examples, your

-determination should so state.

For a list of examples, see Attachment 2 to undated Note from D. Eisenhut to All DL Employees, DL Operating Procedure 228, Revised Procedures for Processing Licensing Amendments.

2.

Evaluation of Exigent or EmercJency Circumstances The evaluation should include the fact (if it is one) that these proposed amendments have resulted from licensee's ongoing review of tech L

specs and have just been identified as areas in need of amendment. We must show some reason why these amendments were not requested earlier.

3.

Notice The Notice should 'contain the same discussion and conclusions needed in the initial NSHC determination.

hN')

n i '

C 8502090019 840518 PDR FOIA ADATOS4-166 PDR

~

i

-