ML20084M850: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:^ | {{#Wiki_filter:^ | ||
z ~. | |||
M.1. LEWIS | |||
$504 BRADFORD TERR. | |||
DEA,, PA.19148 Charles M. Trammel , III Office NRR | DEA,, PA.19148 Charles M. Trammel, III Office NRR SO -II k n$3 Dear oirs omethingabout10CFR50.$&(x)and(y)troublemegreatly. | ||
s These paragraphs seem to be an attack upon the single failure criterion. This problem is even discussed on Page 15 of the Notice of " final rule." | |||
These paragraphs seem to be an attack upon the single failure criterion. This problem is even discussed on Page 15 of the Notice of " final rule." | |||
I would very much appreciate a further airing. | I would very much appreciate a further airing. | ||
Since "the rule assumes that special circumstandes have occurred", d&enn't that make those catagories of specall sircumstances litigable. | Since "the rule assumes that special circumstandes have occurred", d&enn't that make those catagories of specall sircumstances litigable. | ||
For instance 2 safety grade solenoids failed at Limerick. Doesn't that make the issue of common mode failure of all solenoids litigable? | For instance 2 safety grade solenoids failed at Limerick. Doesn't that make the issue of common mode failure of all solenoids litigable? | ||
I would appreciate a speedy reply to this most immediate concern. | I would appreciate a speedy reply to this most immediate concern. | ||
Very truly yours, | Very truly yours, | ||
'q | |||
/ | |||
t I | l Y/',/' '-- &[Qh.,- | ||
I | a | ||
'/ | |||
t I | |||
g"i LEWIS g gg DFORD TERR. | |||
I ptinA, PA.1 i | |||
l | l | ||
\ | \\ | ||
8306020380 830526 PDR ADOCK 05000352 | 8306020380 830526 PDR ADOCK 05000352 1 | ||
H PDR ff0 | |||
- - - _. _,...}} | |||
Latest revision as of 04:18, 14 December 2024
| ML20084M850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1983 |
| From: | Lewis M LEWIS, M. |
| To: | Trammell C NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306020380 | |
| Download: ML20084M850 (2) | |
Text
^
z ~.
M.1. LEWIS
$504 BRADFORD TERR.
DEA,, PA.19148 Charles M. Trammel, III Office NRR SO -II k n$3 Dear oirs omethingabout10CFR50.$&(x)and(y)troublemegreatly.
s These paragraphs seem to be an attack upon the single failure criterion. This problem is even discussed on Page 15 of the Notice of " final rule."
I would very much appreciate a further airing.
Since "the rule assumes that special circumstandes have occurred", d&enn't that make those catagories of specall sircumstances litigable.
For instance 2 safety grade solenoids failed at Limerick. Doesn't that make the issue of common mode failure of all solenoids litigable?
I would appreciate a speedy reply to this most immediate concern.
Very truly yours,
'q
/
l Y/',/' '-- &[Qh.,-
a
'/
t I
g"i LEWIS g gg DFORD TERR.
I ptinA, PA.1 i
l
\\
8306020380 830526 PDR ADOCK 05000352 1
H PDR ff0
- - - _. _,...