ML20202C840
| ML20202C840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1997 |
| From: | Norris W NRC |
| To: | Cherny F NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C086 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR63892, RULE-PR-50 AE26-1-023, AE26-1-23, NUDOCS 9802130041 | |
| Download: ML20202C840 (1) | |
Text
ps?tri September 11, igg 7 ne NOTE To: Frank Chemy FROM: Wally Norris i SUBECT: - CRGR MEETING ON 50.55a Following is a list of the outstanding issues identified by the CRGR in the package.
(1) A summary section needs to be written which explains the implementation schedule for each piece of the Code including limitations and modifications, such as what are we i
endorsing, what are we not endorsing, what are taking exception to. (No'rris)
(2) - An exact 6 month implementation schedule should be placed in the rule for Appendix Vill and the HPSI issue; l.e., how to mold new UT with the existing ISI scheduled (Norris).
~(3) The generic letter backfit for the HPSI needs to be in rule, but articulated in a different manner (Mizuno). Compliance arguments for App Vill and HPSI need work (Mizuno).
(4) App Vill generic letter public comments summary needs to be added to package, as well as language that we are dropping GL (Hermann).
~
(5) GL g6 05 commitments; types of test!ng, frequency, and long-term commitments need to clearly stated in SOC (Scarbrough).
g (6) SOC and rule language need to be developed for pipe clamps and reconciliation of replacement items (Norris).
(7) Limitations and modifications in rule need to be reordered based on implementation and-backfit type.
l
.(8)_ . The SOC should clearly state that the backfit rationale (reg anal) is always placed in the PDR for public consumption.
-(g) . SOC discussion of interpretations does not have a bottom line.-
(10) Page 2 of documented evaluation '- the backfit language is too strong: makes it sound like an adequate protection issue, cc: A. Murphy 9802130041 980206 PDR PR-50 62FR63892 PDR kWA2/$0U($ - S l