ML20102B421

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Fuel Enrichment.Undated Rd Lee Memo to DG Eisenhut Encl.Deletion Cannot Be Called Exigency or Emergency

ML20102B421
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	11/09/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Brian Lee 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 8502090242
Download: ML20102B421 (2)

Text

'

[

November 9, 1983 Note to Bob Lee

SUBJECT:

SH0LLY NOTICE FOR ANO-2 FUEL ENRICHMENT I don't have any problems with you not deleting this whole affair but you cannot call this deletion an exigency or an emergency. We've had this package here since well before August and that assertion is clearly unjus ti fi ed. In fact, your assertion that there were differences in views as to whether or not it involved no significant hazards is a question that says it should have been noticed as a significant hazard. This is a clearly, totally unjustifiable justification for treating it as an exigency. I would suggest that you process it and get it out as a regular notice as soon as possible.

Its going to delay this the least. There is no justification for treating this as an exigency.

(.

oe Scint i

f 8502090242 840518 PDR FOIA ADATOB4-166 PDR 3..

I I '/ h b^ YA jr / brI/

f ac Ytril5

-a

>Oa u* h Sca M c! d k / k ?x x

' c' b I))',,,

/v ;fi a-W" c

..p.. m h,

.-/. s ><< a a >vaz ""'-' w s x

S/h'S l}'" '

E'*

/, ;.a/la/ N

<ik 4 m t

Y'

, g,.,,, (. t gf L-L.

Ah W f N'Y'4f'f "

g, / prs Adi'* ~

~

M g... M //IVs ( /

I /'

'T C.l e. 'r.lfi b^

S $

h t

.- r i

,,,,ggp;l'S.Ruben'y':.sg.+wn6n:A n.. a,..

I" "j' #

p Les

/ /

g[ v p.hn d.tl.

kN /{ ~'$ 0)

J g,,l, 1/,

j

<I BOW kW 'Y h irVC

~

v x.,,4,cet g.

g g-gf' 4

• h From Robert S. L PM for ANO-2 Jr oe t./k n Hv-A itc:.Ja e above subject, MI. sse it u'.-kN~-

pyr.w/mrihje t,;/[1ewi _

ir ShollyNotceforANO-2fuelEnrichment

.Sub

'3..ffr u/o J Scinto of OELD in(Jfated that the While re followiria should be brought to your atte ion :

du j,,-n y n w inRc.4 f}c/fy /0 hb deP iL& w In processine an adn/

d unt which rea ts an inctease in fuel enrichment in

/

the reactor core, the staff (Core Pe fornance Branch) considers the amendment as technically modest in nature and one which the PM can effect, and does not review unless the change in enrichment necessitates any additional changes of the existina safety limits and LCO's. The licensee does perform a 50.59 analysis using approved methodology to ensure that the existing safety limits

-and LCO's would not be violated when operating with the higher enriched fuel.

In fact, the staff considers that a technical specification which specifies an enrichment value is unnecessary and superfluous to the TS's which control the core and spent fuel pool behavior.

Mr. Scinto believes that the staff should review the analysis which supports operation of the plant with higher enriched fuel.

Mr. Scinto asked that this matter be brought to your attention before issuing the attached notice on ANO-2.

l I might add that the licesee requested this change by letter dated August 1, 1983 and we have been trying to get this through the OELD for about two i

i months. The licensee needs this change by November 18, 1983 and we'll have to use a short notice since failure to act would prevent a plant startup.

N.2 f

n.

.