ML20102B389

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package,Re Frequency of Turbine Overspeed Protection Values

ML20102B389
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Saint Lucie
Issue date:	12/20/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Sells D 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 8502090222
Download: ML20102B389 (1)

Text

-_.

(

December 20, 1983

~

Note to Don Sells

SUBJECT:

STLUCE2FREQUENCYOFTURBINEOVERSPEEDPROTECTIONVALUES(840296)

I have a lot of questions about this package.

First, at the bottom of page 2, you say this economic impact, although not a safety consideration, was factored into the staff action.

In what manner? It's not enough to say it was factored in. How was it factored in? What did you do with it? How did you weigh it?

How did you assess it in reaching a conclusion that its alright to do this on a safety basis?

On page 3, I don't understand the conditions. Are those conditions proposed by Florida Power & Light in its June 6 and June 28 submittals? If not, it seems to me that you are denying the application as submitted and in fact imposing conditions. That's okay with me but this is not the correct form to do that.

The licensee has another right to a hearing on those imposed conditions. So

.you grant in part and deny in part, issue a notice in part, granting but in part denying so that the part that denies them grants them a right to a hearing under 2.108. Now if you are not denying it in part and they were not contained in that original proposal, you can't get the licensee to agree to it now

(~-

because you seem to be changing the package that was proposed. You have to renotice it. You have to do something about these conditions.

I don't under-stand them and I don't understand the basis for imposing them.

oe Scinto cc:

L. Chandler W.Paton

?Dkh9fEEE84051g ADATOB4-gs0 PDR ll

w. -. -.-

.-