ML20137R227
Text
- i
. ne Ele l APR 11 E84 NEtt0RAi!DtiM FOR: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM: Richard E. Cunninghan, Director ~
Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
SUBJECT:
PROGRESS REPORT ON 10 CFR PART 35 This is in response to your nenorandun of December 20, 1983 that asked for a nonthly progress report on 10 CFR Part 35. The revision is on schedule.
The package was distributed on February 13, 1984 to MRC staff and the Agreenent States for connent on technical and policy natters. Coonents were due turch 30, 1984. Most have responded, and the renainder have been asked to get their connents in promptly. . An information collection supporting statenent for OF8 has been prepared and is being reviewed.
The Cost Antlysis Group of the Connittee to Revieu Generic Pequirements has reviewed the P.egulatory Analysis and their connents were resolved.
During the period Itarch 9 through'!iarch 23, tir. ?!cElroy visited the five regions to discuss the revision of Part 35 with the staff. He opened each discussion with a description of the Coaaissioners' instructions on how to nodify the package and how the drafting conanittee responded to the instructions. Except for ninor details, the regions all agree with the technical content of the regulatory text.
The draft Federal Register notice also describes a proposed licensing system. - nT2 appliconc woulu subnit safety procedures for NRC review.
The purpose of HRC review would be to provide assurance that the applicant was capable of operating a safe progran and was connitted to safety. After receiving his license, the licensee would be free to nodify those day-to-day procedures, within the limitations of the regulation, after following an internal review and approval process described in the regulation. The licensee would not have to notify flRC of such nodifications.
850923040El 85(PPD 6 PDR PR 35 50FR30616 PDR
~~ . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . - ~ ~ . ~ . . . . - . . .
~* ... . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . -...- - . -
- .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ . ~ - . - . . . . . ~ . .
--- - - nerir1al EWCORD COPY
APR 1179g4 John G. Davis At our neeting on April 5, 1984, it was brought to your attention that sone regions and nany Agreenent States disagree with this licensing approach. Consistent with your three instructions to ne at our neeting,-
the staff has been directed to retain the licensing nethod described in the Statenent of Considerations. The staff has also been directed to indicate in the staff paper to the Connissioners that this control nechanism is sinilar to NRC's nethod of regulating reactors by using technical specifications. The staff has also been directed to revise the Federal Register notice to fully describe both licensing nethods '
that have been considered, the one described above and one in which the licensee is required, as a condition of his license, to conduct his day-to-day progran in strict accord with the procedures subnitted in support of the application. The description of both will be followed by a burden and benefit analysis and a request for public conment on both licensing nothods.
Original E' r! bY Richard E. Cunningham Richard E. Cunninghan, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Itaterial Safety DISTRIBUTION NLMcEl roy VLMiller RECunninghan DMausshardt FC Central File FCML r/f NMSS r/f Yb J@
/A
._ M. )$_$ $.</
. m e 7 b
o" m ..ay {}gy/.p.J. . . . gpn Jg ;........ggnan,g;)....v.nyn,gghem__
i
-+ ............ .........u.. .............
.........g .... ............. ............. ..... ......
%C FORM 318 (10 80) NaCM O240 0FFICI AL RECORD COPY