ML16272A085: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 10/21/2016 | | issue date = 10/21/2016 | ||
| title = Periodic Review of Regulatory Guide 5.43, Plant Security Force Duties | | title = Periodic Review of Regulatory Guide 5.43, Plant Security Force Duties | ||
| author name = Galloway M | | author name = Galloway M | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NSIR/DSP | | author affiliation = NRC/NSIR/DSP | ||
| addressee name = Thomas B | | addressee name = Thomas B | ||
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DE | | addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DE | ||
| docket = | | docket = | ||
| license number = | | license number = | ||
| contact person = Held | | contact person = Held W | ||
| package number = ML16272A044 | | package number = ML16272A044 | ||
| document type = Regulatory Guide | | document type = Regulatory Guide | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:Regulatory Guide Periodic Review Regulatory Guide Number: 5.43 Revision Number: 0 | ||
5.43 Revision Number: | |||
==Title:== | |||
NSIR/DSP Technical Lead: | Plant Security Force Duties Office: NSIR/DSP Technical Lead: Al Tardiff Recommended Staff Action: Reviewed, issues identified for future consideration | ||
Al Tardiff Recommended Staff Action: Reviewed, issues identified for future consideration | : 1. What are the known technical or regulatory issues with the current version of the Regulatory Guide (RG)? | ||
: 1. What are the known technical or regulatory issues with the current version of the Regulatory Guide (RG)? | |||
This 1975 document is dated in numerous technical and regulatory areas, including references to outdated regulations. | This 1975 document is dated in numerous technical and regulatory areas, including references to outdated regulations. | ||
: 2. What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders of not updating the RG for the known issues, in terms of anticipated numbers of licensing and inspection activities over the next several years? | : 2. What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders of not updating the RG for the known issues, in terms of anticipated numbers of licensing and inspection activities over the next several years? | ||
The staff does not expect any new licensing actions relevant to this guide in the next several years and current licensees may continue to use RG 5.43. The staff does not anticipate any impact on not updating the RG at this point. | The staff does not expect any new licensing actions relevant to this guide in the next several years and current licensees may continue to use RG 5.43. The staff does not anticipate any impact on not updating the RG at this point. | ||
: 3. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources? | : 3. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources? | ||
Approximately 0.2 full-time equivalency (FTE) will be required to complete a revision. | Approximately 0.2 full-time equivalency (FTE) will be required to complete a revision. | ||
: 4. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)? | : 4. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)? | ||
Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration. | Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration. | ||
: 5. Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issues identified during the review. | : 5. Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issues identified during the review. | ||
A decision on the future of the associated Part 73 rulemaking is expected in FY 2017. If the rulemaking continues, this RG will be withdrawn. If the rulemaking is discontinued, the RG will be revised. | |||
A decision on the future of the associated Part 73 rulemaking is expected in FY 2017. If the rulemaking continues, this RG will be withdrawn. If the rulemaking is discontinued, the RG will be revised. | Note: This review was conducted in October 2016 and reflects the staffs plans as of that date. These plans are tentative and subject to change. | ||
Enclosure 3}} | |||
Note: This review was conducted in October 2016 and reflects the | |||
Latest revision as of 12:59, 4 December 2019
| ML16272A085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/21/2016 |
| From: | Galloway M Division of Security Policy |
| To: | Bernard Thomas Division of Engineering |
| Held W | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16272A044 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML16272A085 (1) | |
Text
Regulatory Guide Periodic Review Regulatory Guide Number: 5.43 Revision Number: 0
Title:
Plant Security Force Duties Office: NSIR/DSP Technical Lead: Al Tardiff Recommended Staff Action: Reviewed, issues identified for future consideration
- 1. What are the known technical or regulatory issues with the current version of the Regulatory Guide (RG)?
This 1975 document is dated in numerous technical and regulatory areas, including references to outdated regulations.
- 2. What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders of not updating the RG for the known issues, in terms of anticipated numbers of licensing and inspection activities over the next several years?
The staff does not expect any new licensing actions relevant to this guide in the next several years and current licensees may continue to use RG 5.43. The staff does not anticipate any impact on not updating the RG at this point.
- 3. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources?
Approximately 0.2 full-time equivalency (FTE) will be required to complete a revision.
- 4. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)?
Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration.
- 5. Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issues identified during the review.
A decision on the future of the associated Part 73 rulemaking is expected in FY 2017. If the rulemaking continues, this RG will be withdrawn. If the rulemaking is discontinued, the RG will be revised.
Note: This review was conducted in October 2016 and reflects the staffs plans as of that date. These plans are tentative and subject to change.
Enclosure 3