ML20102B010
Text
,.. f -
l
.a 3 4 is 3.
g--
e n l
a
[
July 27, 1983
_ Note to:
L Joe Scinto, Deputy Director, Hearing Division, OELD From:
Mack Cutchin, Attorney, Hearing Division, OELD E
SUBJECT:
- " EXIGENT" CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFICATION FOR SUSQUEHANNA TS AMENDMENT
~ The' Staff proposes to. issue under the'" exigent" circumstances provision
.of~ the ;"Sholly" rules, an _ amendment to the Susquehanna Unit 1 Tech Specs to 1 increase the main steamLline_ high radiation set point for one month.
tThe' Licensee claims that the-amendment is needed to allow testing (without causing additional reactor trips to resolve a problem that has E
- resulted,in three recent reactor trips on N-16 spikes following condensate demineralizer startup and rapid increases. in feedwater flow.
~
~
- By the Licensee'st own admission _ the last of the three trips occurred on
^. July Sth. -(See attached newspaper articles from a recent Media Monitor.
, It-did not-request the TS change until July 22nd and did not
~ ~ '
Lprovide 'a-basis..for its NSHC -determination.until July 26th.
It did not Lattempt to justify." emergency" circumsta'nces and probably could not.have,
_' since the first two1 trips occurred earlier'than July 5th without any request by Licensee for_ TS relief.
Instead it made;a; request under the 2
'" exigent" circumstances provision of the "Sholly" rules using an," emergency"
~ ircumstances argument -1without the TS change the testing will have to c
- be conducted at less than full power to avoid the risk of additional
. reactor trips,1.e., the _ reactor will have.to be derated.
[
'An J" exigent". circumstance according to the supplementary information-published in' the Federal Register with the "Sholly" rule is one other E
- ~
Ethan aniemergency'where' swift a'ction is necessary.' Thus, under<the trules,an." exigent" circumstance obviously' requires a different. justification (than that required :for an " emergency." Threat.of shutdown or..derating
- "4 Jis -justification:for_ an " emergency" exception'~under the "Sholly" rules -
~,
Eonly~where-a Licensee has made a timely request for action.. Thus,La-p-
-. Licensee cannot make an? untimely ' request for-action and use the -threat of shutdown ~.or' derating to,get _ relief under the " exigent" circumstances -
s
{ provision' ofTthe Sholly1 rules.. In other words,:" exigent" circumstances
~
Eq under the' rules are those that for-some reason other than a threat of -
W-
? shutdown' or derating : call forLswift-action. There;has been no showing.
- i y the Licensee.that such!is the-case.
b Q^ p
^ ~
F Examples"of " exigent" circumstances are provided -in _ the supplementary i linformation published with the rules. They_-involve actions that 2" clearly"'improveisafety and which 'if not taken immediately while
'the-reactor is shut down cannot be'taken until the reactor is again 1
Jshutdown. :- The proposed :TS change for. Sus'quehanna plainly does.not tinvolve such an action.
I ci e 8502090040 ~ 840518 1-PDR FOIA 1
L-ADAT084-166_ _ PDR m
~
'}
- }_ [
4
-)
+.:,, 7. :. - s1
...x
..: ~e..-- 4
~ 1n my view 'neith'er.the Licensee nor the Staff has adequately justified
- either the threat of derating or the necessity for imediate action on
.. the. proposed Susquehanna TS amendment. The amendment should be noticed O
.with-30 days.for comment and hearing requests.
E.' Christenbury cc:.
W. Olmstead
-J. Gray W
1s p 4
e
'l M -
V 4
e d
4 4
es g
r-
. _ _