ML20205A666
| ML20205A666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1998 |
| From: | Bergman T NRC |
| To: | Lavie S, Medlin C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205A488 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR12117, RULE-PR-21, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-54 AG12-1-014, AG12-1-14, NUDOCS 9903310041 | |
| Download: ML20205A666 (1) | |
Text
.
l l
l '
From: Thomas Bergman l To: WND2.WNP5(ctm1, rie), SFL 1
._ Date: 10/30/98 8:54am i
Subject. FSAR update and revised source term -Reply I
What I don 1 know, Steve, is whether you believe, for source term, the current requirements and controls are j
sufficient; has the UFSAR been adequate? I think that's Geary's primary concem, you can't assume that the !
UFSAR/50.59 will control what your rule implements. If change control is important, be precise in the rulemaking.
If we determine that, for source term, existing situation is acceptable, then I think we work with OGC to address the issue generically separately from your paper. If you conclude that change control for source term needs to be strengthened, now is the time to do it.
Since it appears I'll be involved in this to some extent, could you please email me (or I can pick up) a copy of the SECY and rulemaking? I am totally in the dark about source term requirements.
l
>n Steve LaVie 10/30/98 08:47am n>
Tom Bergmans note suggests that Geary Mizuno's concem regarding UFSAR up' dating may be valid. RG1.70 and the SRP provide for documentation of the source term and the analyses which are based upon it. The level of UFSAR docurnentation for plants licensed prior to these guidance documents varies greatly.
Given the selective implementation issue and its potential impact on a clear, consistent, logical licensing basis, perhaps it would be wise to require FSAR updating to address the implementation of the revised source term. l l
CC, fma, gsm j i
1 \
l l
1 i
9903310041 990325 PDR PR
,21t 64FR12117 PDR l
Of/
i