ML20046A998
| ML20046A998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1993 |
| From: | De Planque E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308020246 | |
| Download: ML20046A998 (2) | |
Text
,
RELEASEDTOTHE PDR N0TATI0N V0TE[
7/f(/g3 (p
j w
e
" " * " " " " * " "4* " " ":
RESPONSE SHEET T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COWiISSION FROM:
C0l44ISSIONER DE PLANQUE
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-124 - FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR CLEANUP 0F ACCIDENTS FOR ALL MATERIALS LICENSEES WITH POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTAL CONTAMINATION i
APPROVED DISAPPROVED X(w/commentrABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0144ENTS:
See attached comments.
i 1
g eog g Q 18 C,
f /, /,[1._gg CORRESPONDENCE PDR
~
SIGNATURE //
RELEASE VOTE
/xx
/
June 18, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
t ENTERED ON "AS" YES NO
[7 ij xx 1&b137 4
Commissioner de Planque's Comments on SECY-93-124 Before approving the staff's recommended course of action, I
would like responses to the following questions:
1.
The SECY, paper presents some good arguments why rulemaking is not necessary.
Was this information provided to GAO before they issued their report (93-90) in April 1993?
If not, was the SECY paper specifically designed to be responsive to the issues raised in the 1985 GAO report?
il l 2.
According to the staff, in 1985, most of the local, stato and federal comments supported the rulemaking.
In 1992, the views of selected states that were contacted by the staff were described as not opposing the rule, and in 1993, another group of states said that they would support termination of the rulemaking.
Were these views obtained from different states, representatives, or organizations, or did the positions of particular states change?
Please discuss in more detail.
I 1
j 1
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _