ML20059J556
| ML20059J556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1993 |
| From: | Remick F NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-59FR6792 AE62-1-039, AE62-1-39, AE62-1-XX, NUDOCS 9402010070 | |
| Download: ML20059J556 (2) | |
Text
.
,. +
r.
- *
- RELEASED TO N 0:T A T I 0-N V 0 T E :-
~
- fM h
_f RESPONSE SHEET
................e....:;
'T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE. COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER REMICK j
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-285A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON PROPOSED PART 76, " CERTIFICATION OF GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS" s, p/
Jn hd APPROVED X DISAPPROVED X ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
ide af/<u l
)?hsy' 3ac 1
l 2700.3 77
- g 2o g g g;221 w~~
f7
/
SIGNATURE c masseoNDENcE POR RELEASE VOTE
/X/
2/[n 91 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
/
vES Ne
1 l s -
t l
I Comments of Commissioner Remick on SECY-93-285A:
I approve in part and disapprove in part.
In general, I agree with the views expressed by Commissioner de Planque in her vote on SECY-93-285 and SECY-93-285A.
In addition, I continue to hold to the comments in my previous vote on SECY-93-285.
With regard to SECY-93-285A, I agree with Commissioner de Planque that the limit of 10 mg soluble uranium is unduly conservative.
A more appropriate limit would be in the range of 40 to 50 mg soluble uranium as proposed by Commissioner de Planque.
I had previously commented on the backfitting issue in my initial vote on SECY-93-285.
In addition to those comments on this subject, I support the views of Commissioner de Planque, particularly, that the backfit criteria be applied at the time the final rule goes into effect.
1 With regard to the adoption of the quality assurance criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, I am' concerned not so much about the l
l adoption of the Appendix B quality assurance criteria as about how the Appendix B criteria would be implemented.
The staff j
1 should give increased consideration to the feasibility of j
implementing the quality assurance criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, for the gaseous diffusion facilities.
I agree with Commissioner de Planque that the staff should provide a side-by-sideLeomparison of the proposed regulations with the requirements set forth in DOE's transition document.
~
Where there are differences, the staff should provide an explanation for the difference.
I agree with Commissioner de Planque that the cost-benefit analysis need not be provided prior to publication of the draft rule.
Finally, it appears that a few of the comments that I had made in l
my previous vote on SECY-93-285 were not addressed by the staff l
in SECY-93-285A (e.g.,
detectors, approved initial application, l
etc.).
These issues should be addressed in the proposed rule l
package.
1 i
l