ML20105C535

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Monitoring & Insp of Svc Water Intake Structure

ML20105C535
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Summer
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Stahl K 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 8502090444
Download: ML20105C535 (1)

Text

.-

P 4

4 September 30,1983 N

Note to Karl Stahl SUSJECT: SuitiER 1 MONITORING & INSPECTION OF SERVICE WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE (OELD i 837 459)

This package needs some work.

1.

The staff position that the applicant's proposal is not accept-able sounds to me like you're sho4 ting this thing down right off the bat.

We can no longer have the situation where the staff talks to the licensee and have the licensee accept the staff position. We're suppose to do a Sholly decision not on our modification of the licensee's proposal but on the licensee's proposal as it comes in the door. Unless the licensee 6

modifies his pmposal to include these staff recomendations - and 3u give notice of. the modified proposal - you have to do your Sholly notice

[

on the basis of the amendment coming in the door. It looks to me like you're saying the amendment coming in the door is unacceptable. Do some-thing about that. Get it modified or notice it is a significant hazards since we find it unacceptable.. Or deny it.

2.

I assume you will get them to modify this proposal and will want to come back to notice it as amended. If so, then you'll still have

. problems with this package. Itsjust a lot of assertions on no significant

- hazards. The no significant hazards finding has to give some explanation j

.of the basis for our conclusion as to why it does not involve a significant L

increase, etc.. You need to do some more work on this.

I Oaie Joe Scinto s

4-w]

l t :. 4-I s

L

+

8502090444 840518 i PDR FOIA l'

ADATO84-166 PDR l

~

($

.Eg-

'g

+gy,-as

.c-.

w+.g,m.,-.g,-,,,ww.-

-,.,wegwp,,.