ML20204C644
| ML20204C644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/01/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204C615 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-99-022-C, SECY-99-22-C, NUDOCS 9903230174 | |
| Download: ML20204C644 (2) | |
Text
.. -.. . .. - _ _ - . . -. _ . .. . . .. ..
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHJiEI TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-022 - RULEMAKING TO MODIFY REPORTING )
. REQUIREMENTS FOR POWER REACTORS w/ comments l Approved Disapproved x Abstain i Not Participating COMMENTS:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
[A o SIGNATliRE /
March 1, 1999 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes X No EDR *$0E ES" CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Chairman Jackson's Comments on SECY-99-022 1 join Commissioners Merrifield and Dieus in disapproving the subject paper based on the staff's failure to provide the schedule and plan of action requested by the Commission. As Commissioner Merrifield correctly points out, the agency has a planning, budgeting, and performance measuring process specifically designed for this type of activity, and the process should be exercised in this case.
I would also note that the bases the staff provides for not proceeding more expeditiously with the ]
recommended changes to reporting requirements do not appear to relate to the areas in which the :
changes would occur; that is, it is not clear why staff efforts on 10 CFR 56 59 changes, risk-informing 10 CFR Part 50, and even the changes to reporting requirements in 10 CLR 50.72 amd 50.73 would bear on the ability of the staff to act on changes to reporting requirements in 10 CFR Parts 20 (radiological exposure), 26 (fitness for duty), 72 (independent storage) and 73 (physical security).
Presumably, the staff n embers with cognizance over the areas associated with the recommended changes to reponing requirements (e.g. radiological issues) are not the same as those with cognizance in the areas of activity cited by the staff (e.g. changes to 10 CFR 50.59). In making this comment, I do not mean to suggest that the staff should inunediately embark on the recommended changes described in the naper. Rather, the staff chould determine, on a case-by-case basis, what priority should be assigned to each action, what limitations (resource or otherwise) may impact progress on each action, ,
and plan work on each action based on its own merits and limitations. l l
I l
l 1