ML20105C952

Provides Results of Review of NSHC Package Re Automatic Air Dump Sys.Acceptable Operation Not Demonstrated

ML20105C952
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	03/12/1984
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Rooney V 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 8502090553
Download: ML20105C952 (1)

Text

-

March 12, 1984 Note to Vern Rooney

^

SUBJECT:

VERMONT YANKEE - AUTOMATIC AIR DUMP SYSTEM (0 ELD # 842 888)

Vern, you are using the example on a restriction on operation because accept-

'able operation has not been demonstrated. That is the wrong example to use for this situation.

That is the situation that applies when a condition is put into the original initial operating license and we are getting rid of that. This was not a condition imposed on the original operating license for Vermont Yankee.

So that is the wrong example to use, I don't think that there is a good example useful for this kind of a change.

I think you have to go

- (-

through.each of the three criteria and explain why it fits each of the three criteria; that is, probability and the consequences of accidents, probability of a new accident or infringing on a safety margin.

oe Scinto l

8502090553 840518 t

PDR FCIA ADAT084-166 PDR e

3