ML20105C526

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Core Spray Pumps.Questionable Example Should Be Disregarded

ML20105C526
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Brunswick
Issue date:	02/21/1984
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Grotenhuis M 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 8502090440
Download: ML20105C526 (1)

Text

.

February 21, 1984 Note to M. Grotenhuis

SUBJECT:

BRUNSWICK 2 - CORE SPRAY PUMPS (0 ELD #842204)

Marshall, this is a good presentation of what the change is and why its no problem. You should not finish it up with a reliance on a questionable example.

I would get rid of that questionable example. This is one of the rare cases in which I think you can sirap1y add at that point something similar to.-- for the foregoing reasons, the Staff propose to conclude that it involves no significant hazards given the three factors test from the rule.

Its a good analysis and I would go from the description you gave to the three factor-findings.

g oe Scinto 850209044'0 840518 PDR FOIA

' ADATOB4-166 PDR

/f 9' M

~...:.-.:..,-

.,.,:.-,_..,.--,...,........