ML20105B863

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Cycle 5 Reload.Justification for Denial Needed

ML20105B863
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Crystal River
Issue date:	09/06/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Hernan R 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 TAC-51342, NUDOCS 8502090261
Download: ML20105B863 (1)

Text

,

September 6,1983 Note to R. Hernan

SUBJECT:

CRYSTAL RIVEL 3 - CYCLE 5 RELOAD (0 ELD # 835 696)

This is a pretty good first try at a notice of denial but it needs to be shrunk. I have marked up the notice to limit it to the information called for by the regulation in connection with notice of denial. It is different than the information provided in the notice of iss'uance of an amendment.

However, there is one portion of this that you need to work on - the middle portion of page 2 which gives the justification for denial. Did we pre-viously inform the licensee of the denial from our prior communication with the licensee. If you use that language, as inadequate as it may be, that's what we did do. If you are going to expand on what we previously told the licensee, to explain it further, you can do that but what you need to explain further is the justification for the dental, not extra language about recognizing that interrupted power, etc.

The denial is very poorly justified. If you were proposing to deny this for the first time, I would disagree that you have provided adequate basis for dental. It is a very simple flat statement that you don't want to grant it.

So either use the words you have already used - and don't try to justify this denial here - or expand it substantially in order to give a reasonable justi-fication for the denial.

s l

oe cinto l

,i l

t 4

t lI

(

8502090261 e40510 l{

$$$T00P-166 PDR l

Al t

-~~

a: - m.-

---

,-~-~----n--m~

,y,