ML19253C810
| ML19253C810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1979 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-71-7 NUDOCS 7912120162 | |
| Download: ML19253C810 (3) | |
Text
'
/pa af og,0, UNITED STATES
{ y) 3, g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION de-),;E WASHINGTON, D. C. 2055s 3,*- \\
s, m OCT 2 2 579 The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee are copies of a Notice of Denial of Petition for Rule Making to be published in the Federal Register.
By letter dated June 8, 1978, the Subcommittee was provided with copies of PRM 71-7 filed by Mr. Walter P. Peeples, Jr., President, Non Destructive Testing Management Association to amend the Commission's regulations.
The petitioner requested the Commission to (1) remove Appendix E - Quality Assurance Criteria for Shipping Packages for Radioactive Material - from 10 CFR Part 71 and (2) delay the effective date of implementation of Appendix E until a proper hearing could be conducted.
The request is based on the contention that (1) there was inadequate notification and discussion of the proposed rule, (2) implementation of the rule would create an expensive paperwork program, and (3) there exists a lack of uniformity between Agreement State licensees and NRC licensees which results in unfair competition.
The Commission's Executive Director for Operations has denied the petition on the following grounds:
1.
The record shows that coth the proposed rule and the effective rule were published in the Federal Register inviting public ccmments, and the Commission did attempt to notify affected persons.
2.
Requiring that licensees have an effective QA program for packaging and transportation will improve safety.
3.
The paperwork associated with the QA requirements for transportation is not overly expensive or insurmountable.
4.
Differences in the QA requirements for packaging and transportation imposed on NRC and Agreement State licensees are not large and are being eliminated by requesting 00T to upgrade its quality assurance requirements.
1538 345 l6 2 I
79121 20
.,The Honorable John D. Dingell 2
Enclosed also are copies of a letter notifying Mr. Peeples of the denial of
_ petition for rule making PRM 71-7.
Sincer/y, el l
/
/
j
~
Kobert. Minogue, Director
~ Office o Standards Development Enclosures 1.
Federal Register Notice 2.
Letter Walter P. Peeples cc:
Rep. Clarence J. Brown 1531B 346
MAILINdLIST The Honorable Gary Hart, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 cc:
Sen. Alan Simpson The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Rep." Steven Symms cc:
The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 cc:
Rep. Clarence J. Brown The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chairman Subcommittee on Environment Energy and
" Natural Resources Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 cc:
Rep. Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
1538 347 O
[7590-01]
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PETITION A notice of filing of the petition, Docket No. PRM 71-7, was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on June 14, 1978 (43 FR 25749).
Interested persons were invited to submit written comments or suggestions concerning the petition by August 14, 1978. Thirty-nine comments were submitted, including one from the Air Transport Association of America attaching separate comment letters from six airline companies, and including one from Gulf Nuclear Incorporated as a protest under which the description of their quality assurance program was being filed.
Of the thirty-nine comments, thirty-two either indicated support for the petitioners request for removal of appendix E or separately asked for its removal; twenty-eight thought that there was a lack of justification for Appendix E or that the requirements in Appendix E duplicated other require-ments; twenty-seven cited large costs and expensive paperwork with these QA requirements; and fifteen believed the requirements had been forced on the industry without consultation.
Six of the commenters were well-logging licensees who normally ship type A quantities of radioactive material and, thus, are not subject to the QA require-ments of 10 CFR Part 71.
One of these persons suggested that, "...this require-ment could, on occasion, delay the transportation, haridling and manufacture of such sources to final end users... ".
The Commission is not aware of any delays that could occur unless they were due to safety-related aspects of the transportation and, as such, the QA p DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 1538 348 Entire document previously entered 1 to system under:
ANO OS DL(i8 N o.
of pages: