ML20024D384
| ML20024D384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1983 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lewis M LEWIS, M. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024D385 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308040695 | |
| Download: ML20024D384 (5) | |
Text
I s
^
.,& w& w Q K.!: g o n -n nn tv Mxy
~
e g } /J[3.d /h DI.STRIBUTION JUL1gJg
.MTocket file Local PDR ACRS ram
- 3 eading yf]
DElsenhut REMartin JHel temes AHodgdon RAClark PKreutzer (3)
Mr. Marvin I. Lewis OELD 6504 Bradford Terrace NSIC Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 EJordan
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1983 in which you ask a question about the new rule in 10 C.F.R. 550.54 regarding the Applicability of License Conditions and Technical Specifications in an Emergency.
The rule as promulgated reads:
I 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
i (x) A licensee may take reasonable action that departs from a license condition or a technical specification (contained in a license issued under this part) in an emergency when this action is imediately needed to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can l
provide adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent.
(y) Licensee action permitted by paragraph (x) of this section shall be approved, as a minimum, by a licensed senior operator prior to taking the action.
I 50.72 Notification of significant events.
(c)
Each licensee licensed under E 50.21 or i '50.22 shall notify the NRC Operations Center by telephone of emergency circumstances requiring it to take any protective action that departs from a license condition or a technical specification, as permitted by i 50.54(x) of this part. When time permits, the notification shall be made before the pro-tactive action is taken; otherwise, notification shall be made as soon as possible thereafter. The Commission may require written statements from a licensee concerning its actions taken under the provisions of 5 50.54(x) of this part.
8308040695 830719 l
{DRADOCK 05000352 PDR
- "'c ' >
l """ >
DATEf
! Nac ronu aia no scinacu o2do OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- u.s. m ass-4oo.247
_,.m
.m
xf s.
l
.~
4 m--
gy(191983 2
I do not understand your comment that the rule seems to be an attack on the single failure criterion, as the single failure criterion is simply not addressed in the rule. Nor is it addressed at page 15 of the Notice of Final Rule.
You ask whether since "the rule assumes that special circumstances have occurred," doesn't that make those categories of special circumstances litigable? On page 15 of the notice of final rulemaking, which we sent to you and all others who commented on this rule, it was stated that "[t]he Conrnission, in issuing this rule, takes no position whatever as to the merit of any contention involving emergency circumstances that could be postulated at a nuclear facility." Therefore, the issuance of this rule has no effect on the litigability of any contention.
You ask whether the failure of two safety grade solenoids at Limerick would provide a basis for litigating common mode failure of all solenoids. The litigability of contentions concerning the failure of solenoids at Limerick would be determined in the first instance by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding in the Limerick proceeding upon the submission of a conten-tion according to the procedures set out in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.
Thank you for your letter and your earlier comments on the rule when it was issued for public comment.
Sincerely, l
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing cc w/ incoming:
See next page l
l
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES
=>
0R,Bf 3;,DL,
.h;,DL.,
. 0ELO..
. ORM3;DL.
sucmweg,PKreutzer*
Tr, ell /dn APH,*
RClark 7/f/83
. ( !.83 7/ /83 7(4/83 7
04RC FORM 318110 801 N RC M O 240 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
- us. co usa-4*2471
.~.4 u.
,c
_2-I do not understand your comment that the rule seems to be an attack on the single failure criterion, as the single failure criterion is simply not addressed in the rule. Nor is it addressed at page 15 of the Notice of Final Rule.
You ask whether since "the rule assumes that special circumstances have occurred," doesn't that make those categories of special circumstances litigable? On page 15 of the notice of final rulemaking, which we sent to you and all others who commented on this rule, it was stated that "[t]he Comission, in issuing this rule, takes no position whatever as to the merit of any contention involving emergency circumstances that could be postulated at a nuclear facility." Therefore, the issuance of this rule has no effect on the litigability of any contention.
You ask whether the failure of two safety grade solenoids at Limerick would provide a basis for litigating common mode failure of all solenoids. The litigability of contentions concerning the failure of solenoids at Limerick would be determined in the first instance by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding in the Limerick proceeding upon the submission of a contention according to the procedures set out in 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714.
Thank you for your letter and your earlier comments on the rule when it was issued for public comment.
Sincerely, Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Attachment:
Incoming letter cc:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
David Wersan Thomas Y. Au Jacqueline I. Ruttenberg Kathryn S. Lewis Frank R. Romano Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Joseph H. White III Thomas Gerusky Dir. Pa. Emer. Mgmt Agncy Sugarman and Denworth Robert L. Anthony Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Martha W. Bush Atomic Safety & Licensing Board ing and Service Section Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel 0FC
- OLW '
- 0 ELD
_____:____1 ______:____________:0RBe3:DL ORB #3:DL ORB #3:DL NAME :AHodgdon:am : JRutberg
- PKreutzer
- CTrammell
- RAClark DATE'!'77N55"'"!"77'"755~'"!"7/i/55-~~~~!~7/i/55~!~77'~'753'!
h earb -- /w-(t ( v w.e.m
/pa nec,o o
UNITED STATES
! ',,,,,, ',j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,c,y//
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\, -(
JUL 19 1983 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1983 in which you ask a question about the new rule in 10 C.F.R. 550.54 regarding the Applicability of License Conditions and Technical Specifications in an Emergency.
The rule as promulgated reads:
5 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
(x) A licensee may take reasonable action that departs from a license condition or a technical specification (contained in a license issued under this part) in an emergency when this action is immediately needed to protect the public health and safety 'and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is immedi,ately apparent.
~
(y)
Licensee action permitted by paragraph (x) of this section shall be approved, as a minimum, by a licensed senior
~
operator prior to taking the action, c
5 50.72 Notification of significant events.
(c)
Each licensee licensed under i 50.21 or 5 50.22 shall notify the NRC Operations Center by telephone of l
emergency circumstances requiring it to take any protective l
action that departs from a license condition or a technical specification, as permitted by 5 50.54(x) of this part. When time permits, the notification shall be made before the pro-tective action is taken; otherwise, notification shall be made as soon as possible thereafter. The Commission may require written statements from.a licensee concerning its actions taken under the provisions of 5 50.54(x) of this part.
e
=
i l I do not understand your comment that the rule seems to be an attack on the single failure criterion, as the single failure criterion is simply not addressed in the rule. Nor is it addressed at page 15 of the Notice of Final Rule.
You ask whether since "the rule assumes that special circumstances have occurred," doesn't that make those categories of special circumstances litigable? On page 15 of the notice of final rulemaking, which we sent to you and all others who commented on this rule, it was stated that "[t]he Commission, in issuing this rule, takes no. position whatever as to the merit i
of any contention involving emergency circumstances that could be postulated at a nuclear facility." Therefore, the issuance of this rule has no effect on the litigability of any contention.
You ask whether the fail.ure of two safety grade solenoids at Limerick would provide a basis for litigating common mode failure of all solenoids. The litigability of contentions concerning the failure of solenoids at Limerick would be determined in the first instance by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding in the Limerick proceeding upon the submission of a conten-tion according to the procedures set out in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.
Thank you for your letter and your earlier comments on the rule when it was issued for public comment.
Sincerely,
- c. -
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing cc w/ incoming:
See next page l'
, _ - - - _ _ - - - _. -.,