ML20102B085
| ML20102B085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Surry |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1983 |
| From: | Cutchin M NRC |
| To: | Neighbors D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20102A920 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090072 | |
| Download: ML20102B085 (2) | |
Text
p; c-=
f M};g _
Mf'G) ply' W%
,~
y y
~
'v August 11, 1983 4
Y-g
. Note to:- Don. Neighbors, Project Manager, Surry 1From:
lMackitu'tc ttorney, Surry
~
SUBJECT:
- 1ROPOSED AMENDMENT T0 TECH SPECS FOR SURRY UNIT 1 kThs[Staf.fproposestto-issue,followinglessthan30daysnotice,an
~'.
' amendment to the:Surry Unit 1-Tech Specs that would revise T.S. 4.17.A
?.to extend thetinterval for vi.sual inspection of snubbers.for 21 days.
iThe extension was' requested by Vepco to allow continued operation of
- Surry Unit 1 until.Surry Unit 2 can be returned to service. The
- amendment-.is claimed by Vepco to be-needed by August 31st.
- As;we1have-discussed,LVepco has not'yet provided adequate justification a
s
- for expedi_ted_~ action on its amendment request.
Vepco has not shown that A
~ 'without the extension Surry Unit 1 will have to be shutdown or that its
~ request for " emergency" action' was; timely.
(I understand that'Vepco is
~
presently preparing aidocument.to' show that its-request:was timely).
' JMoreover, based on my understanding _of the facts,-'since a June 15th
~~
inspection;re'vealedLno inoperable' snubbers and:the_ previous inspection -
- had revealed Scinoperable) snubbers,. T.S. 4.17. A'would not recuire Lsh'utdown forJanotherjinspection until June 15th + 155. days povember 17th).
v TThusFa T.S.> amendment appears zto be unn'ecessary to allow. operation N iuntil September 21st.- ^
51 Finallypunder the "Sholh" rules a_s promulgated there.are~ only two t
Q typesvof circumstances that-warrant the Staff's taking action on;
~
y amendment" requests involving _NSHC'without a.11owing-30 days 1for'public-D
~
commention.its proposed NSHC determinations- " emergency!' circumstances.
- and " exigent". circumstances.:
~
.ejAn " emergency"Lcircumstance is one where a failure to take quick-action' c
twould; result:in shutdownlor-derating :of 'the plant.
In~such circumstances'the: Staff may issue' a : license amendment involving' NSHC
~
. W without! prior notice and o)portunity4for hearing or' public comment.
_, Such circumstances should :e rare.
A. licensee requesting emergency 4 action must, explain whyithe: emergency circumstances occurred.and why
'7 they could not be avoided. lit also'must: demonstrate to the satisfaction 1 (of the Staff'thattitsDrequestiforithe1 amendment was; timely--i.e.,_ not
,~k idelayed Eto create " emergency", circumstances';
L<,
L 2
+
g iAni" exigent"l circumstance.1according to the supplementary information
? published 11n,the; Federal Register with the "Sholly"' rules, isionelother 7 than" an1 emergency;where swift ' action:is' necessary." Thus, an L" exigent"
-k y jcircumstance requires lafdifferent justification; thanEthat' required for2
~~
reman 1" emergency."Threatiof-shutdown.or derating is -justification only
'<y a,,
..se :
,.a_
~ f j &&&QQff:
' PDR FOIA ADATOS4-166 __. P,DR. _.1
'1 m
J
! 7[g I
+-.
J' L*-
- o
_2 for an " emergency" exception under the "Sholly" rules.
A Licensee cannot make. an untimely request for actinn and use the threat of shutdown or
-derating to get relief under the " exigent" circunstances provision of the Sholly rules.
In other words, " exigent" circumstances under the rules are those that for some reason other than a threat of shutdown or derating call for swift action. Examples of " exigent" circumstances are
- provided in the: supplementary information published with the rules.
They. involve; actions that " clearly" improve safety and which if not taken Limmediately while the reactor is already shut down cannot be taken until the: reactor. is. again shutdown. -The proposed TS change for Surry Unit.1 plainly does not involve such an action.
'Surry 1-is. presently operating, and the action to be taken obviously will
- not improve safety.
Clearly, " exigent" circumstances as contemplated by the Sholly rules do not and cannot exist.
If a T.S. change is really
-necessary prior to August 31st, an amendment properly could be granted only under the " emergency" circumstances provision of the rules.
If not
. properly justified by Vepco or not really necessary, swift action is not warranted.
.I am unable to recommend OELD concurrence in the presently proposed action--shortened notice and issuance under the " exigent" circumstances provision of the rule.
6 s
- l