ML20102B330

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package.Ser Must Be Changed & Modified to Indicate What Info Was Received on 831117.Draft 831216 Memo Encl

ML20102B330
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Browns Ferry
Issue date:	12/15/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Dunesia Clark 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 8502090191
Download: ML20102B330 (2)

Text

(

December 15, 1983 Note to' Dick Clark

SUBJECT:

BROWNS FERRY TRANSMITTAL TRIP UNITS (840019&351)

IThere was apparently a change and added information submitted after the notice on November 17 that's mentioned in the SER but there is no description of what E

was submitted on November 17. The SER must be changed and must be modified to explicitly indicate what was received on November 17 and if there was any material that isn't obviously insignificant, you are going to have to discuss why the material received on November 17 doesn't affect the nature of the amendment for which we gave notice and opportunity for hearing on October 28.

.In addition to that, the SER discusses a change which apparently the Staff insisted on in connection with the specifications that the Applicant disagrees

- with and that change was made on November 8.

That again, is something that was not a matter contained in the amendment that was noticed by the Staff.

It strikes me that we have denied the Applicant's request as it came in as we noticed it and we have changed the application from that which was noticed to something else. We're acting on something other than what was noticed. We can

'do that but in that case you don't simply issue an amendment different from the one that was noticed. We can do it either through a partial denial, partial grant or you can renotice the package. You can't simply grant something that you found unacceptable by making an after-the-fact change in the application as' a result of a phone call with the Licensee that he still disagrees with but is willing to accept.

I Joe Scinto ko*g0'y9184051s ADAT 4 166

//A

DRAFT JFS:amb 12/16/83 DEC 101983 M. C."N'HUIS Note to Sam MacKay

SUBJECT:

DRUNSWICK 2 BATTERY TESTING (0 ELD # 340 306)

This tech spec permits either one of two tests. Iti;...e.wohuyhe

'-af testing you discusse.es the sole method of testing the battery. Consequently, the first paragraph of the SER is not accurate.

Second, tification of exigent circumstances also does not discuss why they didn't do

1. 1 ch spec.

I think that tends to be important and y9u may have riuch difficulty in /d *,, W o h jJ b.4, W W,,, M u a u

fer-the applicant not only faile the dummy load test but also failf the actual load test. Did they e actual load test because they were concerned they would fati the % load test as we11M% da,4m3 S,.,/ 4 /.

After you answer these questions, I still disagree that the applicant has acted in a reasonable fashion to avoid the problem he's in; however, if the Director of Licensing thinks that this applicant has acted reasonably, its his call to i

make.

cc:

G. Lainas t

i

//3 W. -

.