ML20212J279
| ML20212J279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/14/1999 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-99-017-C, SECY-99-17-C, NUDOCS 9906290099 | |
| Download: ML20212J279 (1) | |
Text
,
S
/f"%*g UNITED STAT y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CoMEXM-99-001 n
{
WASHINGTON D.C. 20555
\\*****/
I?D ~ E "' ": 6 RELEASED TO THE PDR COMMISSIONER e
/
April 22. 1999 gg pg l
dato initials j
MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson
.......................a Comissioner Dicus Comissioner Diaz Comissioner Merrifield FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
k.b.s!-
SUBJECT:
RECONSIDERATION OF SECY-99-017 (~ PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 50.55A")
In light of the April 19. 1999 letter from ACRS Chairman Dr. Dana Powers to Dr. William Travers (copy attached). I believe reconsideration of SECY-99-017 is in order.
I Had I had the benefit of ACRS advice when I previously voted. I would have voted with Comissioner Dicus not.to delay the,' ongoing 10 CFR 50.55a rulemaking effort in order to pursue elimination of the 120 month ISI and IST program update requirement. The ACRS has raised fundamental concerns about elimination of the 120 month update requirement, which at a minimum will
)
lengthen the proposed rulemaking.
Since there are significant benefits in the currently drafted rule that, as Comissioner Dicus pointed out. is very close to completion. I believe now that we should finish the current rulemaking and pursue elimination of the 120 month program update requirement in a separate rulemsking, if we pursue it at all.
SECY-99-017 clearly did not capture the possibility that ACRS would oppose this effort.
O SECY. please track.
I approve.
I also believe staff should proceed, without further delay, with final rulemaking that endorses the 1995 Edition of the ASME Code, and
Attachment:
As stated pursue the issue of the 120-month up-date in a separate rulemaking.
cc:
~004 t(4ta JdWQfcus 5//y/99 9906290099 990514 PDR CCrMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR