ML20105C549

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Insp of Inaccessible Tubes.Package Acceptable Except for Wording in Footnote

ML20105C549
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Millstone
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Leech P 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 8502090451
Download: ML20105C549 (1)

Text

-.

(

3 September 30, 1983 l(.,,n.)

Note to Paul Leech i

SUBJECT:

MILLSTONE:2 INSPECTION OF INACCESSIBLE TUBES (OELD # 837 460)

I have no problems with this notice package. You can put it out as is.

- I just want to note that I think that the additional note on the table may cause more problems than it solves. If there are any inaccessible

- tubes other than the ones blocked by the machine, this phrasing of the new footnote looks like we're now telling them they have to inspect an inaccessible tube. I don't think that this is what was intended when we first wrote the package on inspection requirements.

If there are any other inaccessible tubes, that footnote says the) have to inspect them. I don't know how they are going to do that. It make sense for the 12 tubes which are in fact accessible - they just happened to be blocked by the use of the automatic equipment. -I think the reasons given are perfectly okay to accept what the applicant wishes to do.

But because we are going to characterize those kinds of tubes.as

" inaccessible" and because there are circumstances in which we want those 12 or so tubes inspected, we'll have to phrase something to accomplish that. However, the particular phrasing on the particular footnote looks like its going to say that they have to inspect a treely inaccessible tube.

I don't know how they are going to do that.

L I have no trouble with putting out this notice, I just wanted to say that when it comes around to actually amending this tech spec, someone has to give some careful-attention et the wording of the footnote to the table. I think its not worded correctly to accomplish the end that's i

desired.

r

- o O?@Q Joe Scinto -

U g

i? L.' :;

y[:j$ a,. -

v-

w by',.

s; c

s-L

k.... fjs2e4053s g

D4h4-166 N

PDR a

W c--se-4 4

e ed.J s.

eu %

-wbm---

m

-f

• mirgi,qp_e s-,.cw.,gv--eeg.a---.wwa-

-w,1ge-.is..e-w.--pi,

,,---.p.gy-pg-p_ag.*g.my--g--gn-wp--pe--

g 1-ga

- a pp--gy-g9

.gmgi y-.4 9 r