ML20102B380

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Containment Leak Testing Surveillance

ML20102B380
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Brunswick
Issue date:	11/03/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Lainas G 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 8502090217
Download: ML20102B380 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:h~.._. ); 3 - f November 3,1983 Note to Gus Lainas

SUBJECT:

BRUNSWICK 1 CONTAINMENT LEAK TESTING SURVEILLANCE (DELD#838877) The package is okay but if you remember correctly during our discussions on Salem about why there were no significant hazards involved in changing the overall 40 month testing cycle, you may recall that the containment people kept saying it wasn't important. That was a lot different from the 18 month tests for the penetrations when there were two successive failures, that was something that was really important then and they didn't want it changed. Here we have an amendment in Brunswick allowing the standard + or - 25% to be added to the 18 month testing requirement provided by the Regulation. Ordinarily, I would say the + or - 25% can fit under "approximately" 18 months; (. however, in view of the position taken by the containment people that the 40 months was unim>ortant but the 18 months was very important, I don't see how you can make t11s conclusion but its your conclusion to make. j-Joe Scinto i

i

1.-

r + gg2O 17 840518 ADATOS4-166 PDR -{ ~ ..}}