ML20203B501
| ML20203B501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/01/1985 |
| From: | Arlotto G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Gillespie F NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198A175 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PR-110-MISC AC20-2-17, NUDOCS 8607180225 | |
| Download: ML20203B501 (5) | |
Text
8 RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET TO: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: G. A. Arlotto Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: M ' -
AGREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB y INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING.
IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW i,,;
PACKAGE.
MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.
INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
i f
A. Arlotto
/ M ER, RIRB j
( d DATE 71 225 860714 MISC PDR
~~
e
'we DRAFT RES INDENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE
RES STAFF REVIEW
SUMMARY
SHEET
- 1) Review of the completeness of the Rulemaking Review Package.
- a. The NRC Regulatory Agenda entries for the first three amendments have been updated to reflect their most current status. No Regulatory Agenda entry for the fourth amendment was included in the Rulemaking Review Package.
- b. The rulemaking package as it is currently proposed for publication in the Federal Register was not included in the review package.
- c. The office director's recommendations to the EDO concerning whether and how to continue with the rulemaking were included, except for the fourth amendment.
- d. The results of the sponsoring office review were complete, except for the fourth amendment. -
- e. A copy of the preliminary regulatory analysis was not enclosed.
No' Commission paper or CRGR package was included.
- f. No summary sheets, forms, or other documentation were requested by OEDO or "others" to assist in their review of the rulemaking; therefore, no such items were included in the review package.
- 2) Results of Review by the RES Task Leader.
- a. The rulemaking evaluation addressed the issues of the intended.
rulemaking. However, all of the issues were not addressed in an
" Evaluation of Rulemaking" package but were scattered throughout the rulemaking package,
- b. The necesrity and urgency of the rulemaking are reasonable as presented in the package.
- c. The alternative to rulemaking discussed in the package is that ,
there are no acceptable alternatives to the rulemaking actions proposed.
- d. The issue will be addressed through the rulemaking by the amendment of 10 CFR Part 110 as follows:
(1) By amending $110.8(c) to add new items to the list of reprocessing plant components subject to NRC export licensing controls. This amendment has already been approved and published (Encicsure 3).
l I
l
2 (2) By amending the notification requirement in 5110.50(b)(3) so that it applies not only to Australian origin material and equipment, but also to Canadian origin material and equipment. This amendment was initiated by a request from Canada, to allow them a greater degree of
! control over their nuclear material and equipment. The i
amendment requires the consent of the Canadian Government for a U.S. licensee to export Canadian-origin nuclear material or equipment, unless the license specifically authorizes its export. To date, only
. Australia and Canada have requested this additional control. '
(3) By amending the list of countries in 5110.29 to delete those which have recently ratified the Nuclear Nonpro- p-
- i. liferation Treaty (NPT). This amendment removes special restrictions on the export of nuclear material or equipment to countries which have not ratified the NPT.
(4) By amending $110.23(b) to allow export of americium-241 in industrial process control equipment. This amendment corrects an oversight in the most recent (1/2/85) amendment to Part 110. The current regulation prohibits J export of americium-241 exceeding one curie per shipment or 100 curies per year to countries listed in 5110.29
- unless it is contained in petroleum exploration equipment. Since it was never the intention to prohibit i export of americium-241 for legitimate commercial use, the proposed amendment corrects this oversight.
- This approach seems sound.
- e. Since the proposed amendments are routine in nature and will have 4 minimal impact, no detailed evaluation of their impact on the public, the industry or the NRC was made. This approach seems reasonable.
) f. The NRC resources needed for this rulemaking appear to be minimal.
The scheduling is judged to be reasonable.
- 3) General Connents and Recomendation
- a. The rulemaking package consists of several parts.
. Enclosure 1. Memorandum from Shea to Dircks (5/5/85) with a cover :
note from Peterson (6/4/85).
Enclosure 2. Memorandum from Peterson to Turel (6/18/85).
Enclosure 3. Memorandum from Dircks to Minogue (6/18/85).
Enclosure 4. Proposed amendment to 5110.23(undated). This amendment was received by RES on July 8, 1985.
6
,y , , - - - , , , , , - - . . , y ,-m--p ' - - - + - r.ge -.
t m-q.v--
3 Enclosure 1 discusses the first three amendments. Enclosure 2 presents additional background on the proposed amendments, including a letter from Kay-Ray Inc. concerning the fourth amendment. Enclosure 3 notes that the first amendment has already been aoopted by The Commission, and approves termination of the independent review for this amendment.
- b. The need for this rulemaking has been established. The rulemaking i is consistent with applicable policies and planning guidance and f
is a matter of moderate urgency relative to accomplishing the NRC's mandate.
- c. It is recommended that the rulemaking involving the second, third
~
and fourth amendments should proceed.
k l
t i
d l
1 l
l
,n , , , v - -
e + -