ML20203E892
| ML20203E892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/10/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203E864 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-253-C, NUDOCS 9902170334 | |
| Download: ML20203E892 (2) | |
Text
.
NOTATION VOTE i.
i RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-253 - APPLICABILITY OF PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT REQUIREMENTS TO PLANTS UNDERGOING DECOMMISSIONING Approved M
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
O. d, Q,4/m
/-
'l
(__
a SIG TURE L'I'!'
?
w
, I t 'l 9 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes 7' No lM*48EsM8!**
CORRESPONDENCE PDR 99O il 70534 c
i-
)
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-98-253 1 approve the staff's proposal to apply the existing backfit rule on an interim basis to the decommissioning of power plants. I also approve the staff's proposal to develop a new backfit rule, or a new provision in the existing rule, that would apply permanently to plants undergoing decomn. :sloning.
Howevel agree with Commissioner Dicus that the development of the related rule does not call for a tries of workshops. The new backfit provisions'should not be difficult to write, especial, I knowledgeable persons from the relevant parties work together efficiently. If, as i expect, th # new rule will be reasonably straightforward and not resource intensive to draft, we should be able to proceed promptly to propose it.
. More important than having a new backfit rule is resolving the issue of how to make judgments on how quickly to reduce various requirements at a permanently shutdown plant. As I said in my vote on SECY-98-258 (D51-24), this issue is central to various rulemakir.gs planned or under way. We are facing backfit difficulties in decommissioning mainly because this central issue is not yet resolved.
plE h
.