ML20134F345
| ML20134F345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/17/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134F337 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-96-248-C, NUDOCS 9702070384 | |
| Download: ML20134F345 (2) | |
Text
_ _ - . . _ ._ ___ _
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary l
FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-248 - PROPOSED RULE ON CHANGES TO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, 10 CFR PART 73 Approved in part Disapproved in part Abstain Not Participating Reques't Discussion l COMMENT 9:
See attached comments.
I
)
l l
l O kW
( v SIGNATURE Release Vote /X / January 17, 1997 DATE Withhold Vote / /
1 l
Entered on "AS" Yes No l
l !
l t
9702070384 970129 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
. l l
l
! Chairman Jackson's Comments on SECY-96-248 l
I approve the staffs request to publish the proposed rule subject to the following l comments.
I agree with Commissioners Dieus and McGaffigan that there is no definitive basis to lengthen the re-approval period of the vital area access list to annually. The staff should modify the proposed rule to require quarterly re-approval. However, it is not clear that separating the update and re-approval requirements and changing the re-approval periodicity necessarily provides any real benefit. It is my understanding that, presently, at least some licensees are accomplishing the update and re-approval as one action. The staff should include a question in the proposed rule for comment regarding the benefits of separating the update and re-approval requiremerits.
I concur with Commissioner Dicus' comment to add the third sentence of Paragraph 73.55(d)(7)(i)(A).
Overall, these changes represent a good effort to remove regulatory burdens which have marginal safety benefits.
l l
l l
i