ML20105C108
| ML20105C108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Sequoyah |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1984 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC |
| To: | Stahl C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20102A920 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090315 | |
| Download: ML20105C108 (1) | |
Text
g February 6, 1984
. Note to Carl Stahl-
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH - INSTALLATION Oc POST ACCIDENT SAMPLING SYSTEM (0 ELD!841431)
Carl, I don't have any problem with noticing this for a prior hearing but I do have some problemswith the language on page 2.
You don't need, in this Federal Register Notice, anything more than the first sentence of the first paragraph on page 2 which indicates :that -the Licensee determined that this matter involved an'unreviewed safety question. You can keep the second sentence which explains
.why he. felt.that it-involved an unreviewed safety question. However, the next
.two-sentences relating to postulated breaks which have been previously analyzed don't make any sense. - I don't understand why they are there, nor do I under-
~ tand what their function is in a notice for prior opportunity for hearing.
s Whatiare you trying to tell the guy who receives the notice about this package?
Are you trying to tell him that you don't agree with the Licensee? If you don't agree with the Licensee'then you shouldn't notice it for prior hearing.
.If you delete the second two sentences in the first paragraph on page 2 of the
~
notice, its okay and it doesn't have to come back to ELD but if for some reason you want to keep them in, then we need to discuss it.
I just don't understand their function and I do have a problem if they stay in this notice.
pprJoeScinto
'cc: R.Perlis v
L
(
f 4
t 8502090315 840518
\\
( ADATOS4-166 1
--n-
.,-.-,m.,-,
w-
, _,,..,,., _,,,,,