ML20133G361
| ML20133G361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/21/1996 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G353 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-139-C, SECY-96-221-C, NUDOCS 9701160012 | |
| Download: ML20133G361 (3) | |
Text
,
l l
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary l
FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON f
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-221 - SECY-96-139 - STAFF l
REQUIREMENTS - COMGD-94-003 - IMPROVING NRC'S CONTROL OVER, AND LICENSEES' ACCOUNTABILITY FOR, GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY LICENSED DEVICES l
Approved X in part Disapproved X in part Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
A
/
SIGNATURE Release Vote
/ X /
November 21, 1996 DATE Withhold Vote
/
/
l Entered on "AS" Yes X
No 9701160012 961231 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
I CHAIRMAN JACKSON'S COMMENTS ON SECY-96-221 I approve the staff's recommendation to proceed with development j
of an action plan.
At this time, I disapprove the staff's recommendation to conduct a pi3ot program in FY 1998, because SECY-96-221 does not provide the details of the staff's proposed pilot program.
In developing an action plan, the staff may propose pilot programs, and I will consider proposed pilot programs when a detailed action plan is provided to the Commission.
Through this vote, I am not ruling out conducting one or more pilot programs on this issue in FY 1998.
On an accelerated schedule (e.g.,
by the end of February 1997),
the staff should develop an action plan to address the issue of device accountability and control.
This action plan should provide sufficient details to manage and track all actions associated with this issue.
In the action plan, the staff should j
address:
The staf f's position (accepting, rejecting, or accepting in part) on each of the working group's recommendations, and the basis for that position.
The NRC and Agreement State resources needed to implement each working group recommendation (including those that the staff has accepted in part or rejected).
Whether NRC resources are currently budgeted.
If resources are not currently budgeted, then the staff should describe the activities that would have to be reprioritized to carry out the actions.
When each accepted action would be started and completed.
j Any additional recommendations from the staff that were not addressed in the working group report (such as proceeding with or dropping the air gap rule),
including the above information on resources and reprioritization for each staff recommendation.
If the staff suggests a pilot program for any of the issues, the staff should describe the pilot program and how the pilot program will be limited.
The staff should be specific about what the pilot program is expected to accomplish, when it will be started and completed, and what resources will be required.
In the action plan, the staff should include an action to quantify the risks associated with unaccounted-for devices.
Specifically, the staff should plan to proceed with establishing the probabilities associated with devices being lost, devices causing exposure to members of the public, devices entering the metals manufacturing stream, devices being smelted, and other incidents the staff recommends analyzing.
1
t I
i The actions in the staff's action plan should be tied to the primacy of risk, with higher-risk issues receiving higher priorities, faster schedules, and more immediate resources than l
lower-risk issues.
Because it is unlikely that the staff will be able to quantify these risks at the time the action plan is l
provided to the Commission, the staff should base the action plan recommendations on the staff's own general experience with the associated risks.
In the action plan, the staff should include a specific action to develop a rulemaking plan to address these device accountability and control issues, along with a schedule for the rulemaking process.
In the action plan, the staff should state its position on the Agreement State compatibility issue raised by the working group, and make a recommendation on the appropriate level of compatibility for each requirement that the staff recommends adopting.
2
___