ML20140B149
| ML20140B149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/12/1981 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Bickwit L, Dircks W, Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR27769, REF-10CFR9.7 AB60-2-097, AB60-2-97, AB61-2-97, M810806, NUDOCS 8109110518 | |
| Download: ML20140B149 (3) | |
Text
( g IN RESPONSE REFER'TO M810806 7
/ / 'o,
^
UNITED STATES
. !' n NUCLEAR REGULATORY cot"11SSION L y $ WAS H IN GT ON, 0.C. 2e>55
,o August 12, 1981 O OFFICE OF THE
?
SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director e .g for Operations r ps Leonard Bickwit, Jr., General Couns s -
4/q,$xN Carlton Fammerer, Director, OCA s -
Jose .J Fo chard, Director, OPA I {I[a - - 'c, John htingSecretary d AUC 1819815 FROM: . Hoy y ,, , ,,,,,,
exmss w
SUBJECT:
sN STAFF REQUIREMENTS 81-29, 3:05 P.M., THURSDAY,- AFFIRMATION AUGUST 6 // SESS[ .+ ION 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM,\p, \sk DC OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
I. SECY-81-376 - Physical Security Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing a Formula Quantity of SSNM (Rulemaking Issue)
The Commission, by a vote of 3-2* (Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Ahearne and Roberts spproving),
approved for publication in the Federal Register for comment amendments '_o Parts 50, 70 and 73 as set forth in Alternative 3. The attached separate views of Commissioner Bradford will be included with the proposed rule. Commissioner Gilinsky agrees with these views.
The Commission also approved Commissioner r.ilinsky's regr.est to publish on his own initiative Alternative 2 for comment.. With a cautionary note to the public indicating that Alternative 2 and comments thereon will not form the basis for a final rule.
(EDO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 9/1/81) .
The Commission requested that:
(1) The appropriate Congressional Committees be notified of the Commiscion action. (OCA/NMSS) (SECY Suspense 9/1/81)
(2) A formal request for OM3 review and clearance of the proposed information collection requirements (Encloeure E of the subject paper) be initiated.
(NMSS) (SECY Suspense: 9/,l/ 81)
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
65041, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present."
Commissioner Gilinsky was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his approval of Alternative 2. Had Commissioner Gilinsky been present, he would have affirmed his prior vote. Accordiogly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-1 in favor of Alternative 3.
P109110518 810812 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
6 E
2 (3) A public announcement be prepared and issued when the amendments are filed with the Office of the Federal Register.
/ (SECY Suspense 9/1/81)
II. SECY-81-422 - TMI Related Requirements for Operating Reactors (Adjudicatory Issue)
The Commission, by a vote of 3-1 (Commissioner Bradford approving; Commissioner Gilinsky not present and not participating) disapproved publication of a proposed rule to codify NUREG-073' operating reactor requirements and schedules. (NRR)
III. SECY-81-435 - Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Adjudicatory Issue)
The Commission, by a vote of 3-2** (Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford disapproving), decided not_to take review of the Director's Denial. (OGC) cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commission Staff Offices Public Document Room i
r
- Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
85841 provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present."
Commissioner Gilinsky was not present when this item was affirmed but had previously indicated his disapproval.
Had Commissioner Gilinsky been presente he would have affirmed his prior vote. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-1 not to take review.
r \
0 j
- g SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORD FOR INCLUSION IN THE l
, PROPOSED RULE ON PHYSICAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-POWER REACTOR LICENSEES I am concerned with both the substance and the procedure of this Comission action. Substantively, it is a serious error to contemplate a long-term arrangement under which highly enriched uranium at university reactors might be afforded less protection than the same material elsewhere.
There is nothing about a university environment that is inherently any I safer than the rest of the nation as a location for material than can be l
directly used in the making of nuclear bombs. This material has that extraordinary potential, ud the Commission should be seeking coment on a rule that protects it uniformly, wnerever it might be stolen.
As a procedural matter, this is the first case that I can recall in l which the Comission has declined to seek coment on positions encompassing the full range of views among the Comissioners. Despite staff studies suggesting levels up to 3,000 rem per hour, the only number being proposed for coment is 100 rem pe* hour. While the public is, of course, still free to urge a significantly higher level of protection than that proposed here, the non-power reactor operators are not given notice that this rule-making might end in such a result. It would have been far better to invite comment on a range of possible exposure standards and prctection formats, indicating if necessary a Comission preference as of now for the lower end of the range. This would have avoided the suggestion that a particular
, type of reactor owner is being ur iuly favored and would have preserved the Commission's valuable past p ictice of obtaining comment on the full range of views that exists among the Commissioners in order to get comment from the affected groups on the courses of action that we might follow.
l i
,_-g w