ML20105C140

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Amend 6 to License DPR-76 Re Implementation Dates Ltr & Exemption Package.Cover Ltr to Licensee Should Reflect Fact That No Contentions or Petitions Received

ML20105C140
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/10/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Knighton 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 8502090323
Download: ML20105C140 (1)

Text

..

!j..'

J f

4 e -:

is November 10, 1983

Q ;

y.....

E fi 3

c'

_j Hote to George Knighton

~

DIABLO CANYON - AMENDMENT 6 IMPLEMENTATION PATES LETTER &

SUBJECT:

EXEMPTION PACKAGE (DELD l's 839-228.-248.-249) i With respect to the amendment package, the cover letter to the licensee should reflect the fact that no contentions or petitions have been received with respect to any of the F.R. notices in' connection with the actions covered. In addition, check immediately before issuing, as to whether or not there have been any comments or petitions with respect to any of the four notices involved in this amenenent. The package does not need to come back to ELD.

1 With respect to the implementation dates letter I don't understand what we're saying in connection with changes l&2. The letter says that it is t

L

'the staff's position that the license conditions for items 1&2 are satis-fied. However, all the letter discusses is incoming mail from the l

licensee. Two particular conditions call for completed coreective actions that perform a certain function. What makes you think the actions have in l~

fact been completely satisfled? If that is what you are going to say, then fix the letter to say something to the effect... since the licensee has i

fully completed the requirements of these conditions in a satisfactory fashion, the license conditions have been met. At least you are able to reach both of these cond5usions. I wouldntt say that you can conclude

- that you have met these requirements.

j l

The exemptions package contains no support for the conclusion that this action will not endanger life and property and is in the best interett.

Yuu apparently assume that changing the date of submission of the updated

' FSAR by 6 months has no affect. I think that assumption should be sub-stantiated by some reasoning in the paper, particularly since this paper suggests that the existing FSAR may not be accurate (the delay is being t

requested on the grounds that the updated FSAR takes into cor: sideration the findings of the IDVP). It looks to me like they are suggesting that' the IDVP is going to indicate that the FSAR is inaccurate as it now stands.

' ; : s,,

l

^

g f. J. -

Joe Scinto f+y Q a 9 7,e Ij,d...

1 9.

t d,-

~ [' 4 3

a.

e.

w s

8502090323 840518 T

-166 PDR P

s

,A

.__.,a..-

.. m m.__

,7

,