ML20024D394
| ML20024D394 | |
| 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 8308040706 | |
| Download: ML20024D394 (1) | |
Text
._,
ff ktf
.{f
!~
aS$N5l50 4
l J.M. Taylor (3)
DISTRIBUTION gy8 %
ACRS Docket File CTrammell Local PDR Gray File ORB #3 Rdg REMartin D.Eisenhut Mr. Marvin I. Lewis AHodgdon JHeltemes 6504 Bradford Terrace RAClark Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 PKreutzer (3)
OELD
Dear Mr. Lewis:
NSIC EL Jordan This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1983 in which you asked a question about the new rule in 10 CFR 50.54 (x) and (y) regarding the applicability of license conditions and technical specifications in an emergency.
You asked that, since "the rule assumes that special circumstances have occurred," doesn't that make those categories of special circumstances litigable?
On page 15 of the notice of final rulemaking, which we sent to you and all others who commented on this rule, it was stated that "[t]he Com-mission, in issuing this rule, takes no position whatever as to the merit of any contention involving energency circumstances that could be postu-lated at a nuclear facility." Therefore, the issuance of this rule has t
no effect on the litigability of any contention.
1 Thank you for your letter and your earlier coments on the rule when it was issued for public comment.
Sincerely, i
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing 8308040706 830719 PDR ADOCK 05000 A
/
<= A W
"'c' >. 0Ra#3 DL...
L.....
. 0 ELD..
.0.RB#h 0L....
r""""'>..PN,Krent7,er.
elhdd
.RAClark......
S.un..:$.\\. /.83........
$.e/.u..........e f..../.ea.............................................................}
' wac ronu ais iio.soisacu o24o '
oltFICIAL RECORD COPY
- u.s. opo issa-4oo-247 L-
~ _..
.,. ~ -
..m
e
.q.... - 4..
'M BPIJ'.'. CC 75.F..
~
V
$ m.k. US Charles M. Trannel, III Cffice NRB 30 = SS L S$3 Mu'h; Comething about 10CFR 50.5+ (x) ami (y) trouble :ne greatly.
These ;e.ragraphs seem to be an attack upon the single failure cri+4rion. T51s
,< ~
problem is even discus:ed on Page 15 cf the Notice of " final rule."
I would very much appreciate a further airing.
Since "the rule assumes that special circumstandes,have occurred", d&esn't that s.
- 7. 3.. ~
=-
make those catagories of specall sircumstances litigable.
~
For instance 2 safety grade solenoids faileli at Limerick. Doesn't that =ake the f.ssue of cc:nmen mode failure of al solenoids 1.itjgable?
I would ap;reciate a speedy reply to this most irasdiate concern.
Verf truly yours.
,'l
/
lQhg
~~
~./ <. _.Q l'
r
-5.:.
M.,i. LC M 4 g EWLTJCE[,;},[q' g gf,PA. o --
~.
t
.I 1
.~
I O
9306020330 830526 POR ADOCK 05COC352 H
POR I
/
L--
- -..