Narrative:

Runway confign was land runway 31R and depart runway 31L. Aircraft #1 was an emergency inbound to runway 13R with engine oil qty loss. Aircraft #2 was on runway 31L awaiting departure. In my judgement, aircraft #1 was far enough out for runway 13R (about 8 mi) that I had enough time to depart aircraft #2 and turn sbound to avoid conflict. In my opinion, the alternative of taxiing aircraft #2 down the runway to a taxiway to exit was not viable, in that aircraft #2 might not clear in time for aircraft #1 to land. At no time was separation lost (both radar and visual separation was maintained by me). The departure controller called, concerned about separation between aircraft #1 and #2. I advised that separation would be maintained.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWR LCL CTLR QUESTIONED BY DEP CTL, REGARDING CLRING A B737 FOR TKOF WHEN AN MD80 IS ON AN EMER 8 MI FINAL TO THE OPPOSITE END RWY, IF STANDARD SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED. TWR CTLR ANSWERED THAT SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED.

Narrative: RWY CONFIGN WAS LAND RWY 31R AND DEPART RWY 31L. ACFT #1 WAS AN EMER INBOUND TO RWY 13R WITH ENG OIL QTY LOSS. ACFT #2 WAS ON RWY 31L AWAITING DEP. IN MY JUDGEMENT, ACFT #1 WAS FAR ENOUGH OUT FOR RWY 13R (ABOUT 8 MI) THAT I HAD ENOUGH TIME TO DEPART ACFT #2 AND TURN SBOUND TO AVOID CONFLICT. IN MY OPINION, THE ALTERNATIVE OF TAXIING ACFT #2 DOWN THE RWY TO A TXWY TO EXIT WAS NOT VIABLE, IN THAT ACFT #2 MIGHT NOT CLR IN TIME FOR ACFT #1 TO LAND. AT NO TIME WAS SEPARATION LOST (BOTH RADAR AND VISUAL SEPARATION WAS MAINTAINED BY ME). THE DEP CTLR CALLED, CONCERNED ABOUT SEPARATION BTWN ACFT #1 AND #2. I ADVISED THAT SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.