ML20102B045
| ML20102B045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Brunswick |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1983 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC |
| To: | Mackay S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20102A920 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090056 | |
| Download: ML20102B045 (1) | |
Text
r-(
December 5, 1983 Note to Sam MacKay
SUBJECT:
BRUNSWICK 2 INTEGRITY (0 ELD #839717)
In the last sentence of the second paragraph of the description of the amend-ment request, I think you would be better off referring to no significant hazards considerations rather than an unreviewed safety question.
I think the sentence should be changed to read "The Licensees has neither stated nor demonstrated that this action does not involve significant hazards con-siderations". You can leave it the way it is, but its much weaker that way.
Unreviewed safety question is not the important issue. The important issue is whether it involves significant hazards considerations.
You can state it either way Sam, but I'm just making a suggestion as to what would make it better but whichever way it is, make sure a copy of the signifi-cant hazards consideration determination paper, is made available in the PDR and in the LPDR.
1 il Joe Scinto D
....,-.-.. 7 - - - - - - - :- -- - - - - ~ - - : 73, ;,-
,- y -- - *- --"*: -~ ~ ~-. 3, ; ;_
..