ML20202C948
| ML20202C948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/08/1996 |
| From: | Serpan C NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C086 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR63892, RULE-PR-50 AE26-1-030, AE26-1-30, NUDOCS 9802130082 | |
| Download: ML20202C948 (1) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-______ _______--__-_- _ - -
/9 E' ? & -l From: Charles Sorpan fY
-To:- TWD1.TWP4.ELJ1- N9 6
-Date: _ 2/8/96 4:08Pm
Subject:
50.55a Rulemaking After some fits and starts, we are trying to settle on the approach to be taken for the famous 50.55a ru3emaking.
We are proceeding _ based on Brian Sheron's memo to you, and your agreement with-it (I believe),-
We will retain words that say " 120-month update requirement."
However, all future code changes, except for safety significant, will be voluntary. Thus, upon a licensee's arrival at his 120-month update anniversary, THERE WILL NOTHING TO UPDATE!. So, while_we still say we have a 120-month update requirement, it will indeed be toothless. Any code change we feel to be safety significant will have to be backfitted per your agreement..( I don't know how to cut the cheese between 4 safety-significant change;to be imposed immediately and one to be imposed at the 120-month updata. Thus, I'm saying that any such ss change will be done NOW, and there will be nothing left to uipdate at 120 months.)-
Interestingly, this brings us to a de facto baseline at the ASME-XI 1989-and O&M 1990 level - very nearly what Entergy
. _w anted, except that we will expect the industry to update that L one last time to the 89/90 code, t
Is this really what you wanted, or did you believe that you-wished for/ agreed to the regular old 120-month update wherein lictnsees HUST pick up all code changes once in 120 months, whether administrative or safet3 significant?
Thanks for your consideration, and I await your answer with interest.
CC: LCS1, FCC1, WND2.WNP6.RHW, JRS2 9002130082 900206 PDR PR 50 62FR63692 PDR m Off v4 000 V& .
Q