ML20137Q889: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 19: Line 19:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_
{{#Wiki_filter:_
i gn Rio                               UNITED STATES
i gn Rio UNITED STATES
        #            [o,,             NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                         g         I 4
[o,,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555                                 ^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
g
g 4
  !~} 5               ij                                                                       [' p,    '
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
U %,             ,/                                     WN 2 1982         ,
[' p,
                                                                                , S.e, ,7 ;B';>
^
                                                                                    ,ely         i e ,'
!~} 5 ij U %,
i i                                                                              ,p  D'     & ,l$
,/
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard E. Cunningham, Director                           h Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety FROM:             L. I. Cobb, Director Division of Fuel Facilities, Materials and Safeguards
WN 2 1982
, S.e,,7
;B';>
i
,ely i e,'
D'
,l$
i
,p MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard E. Cunningham, Director h
Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety FROM:
L. I. Cobb, Director Division of Fuel Facilities, Materials and Safeguards


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 35 We have some reservations regarding the proposed revision of the rule and the justification as it is written.
PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 35 We have some reservations regarding the proposed revision of the rule and the justification as it is written.
For example, (1) we question the statement about a reduction in regulatory and administrative burden on the industry in the face of such a prescriptive rule; (2) It seems inconsistent to say that "... safety technology is now fully developed and safety requirements are 'well defined ...", and then incorporate all these details into the regulations; (3) We don't understand the use of an automated management information system (MIS) as a justification for the rule change.
For example, (1) we question the statement about a reduction in regulatory and administrative burden on the industry in the face of such a prescriptive rule; (2) It seems inconsistent to say that "... safety technology is now fully developed and safety requirements are 'well defined...", and then incorporate all these details into the regulations; (3) We don't understand the use of an automated management information system (MIS) as a justification for the rule change.
U            -0ther specific comments are noted on the enclosed marked-up copy of the draft revision. We will be glad to meet with you and discuss them at greater length.
-0ther specific comments are noted on the enclosed marked-up copy of the draft U
revision. We will be glad to meet with you and discuss them at greater length.
L. I. Cobb, Director Division of Fuel Facilities, Materials and Safeguards
L. I. Cobb, Director Division of Fuel Facilities, Materials and Safeguards


==Enclosure:==
==Enclosure:==
As stated CONTACT:   H. Karagiannis 49-27910 1
As stated CONTACT:
                                                                                                    'I['7
H. Karagiannis 49-27910
'I['7 1
{'
{'
y l             h(f]L W                                 l g d S[v x;/ we Q                                                  v.
y l h(f]L W l
c                 ,
Q g d S[vv.
1 g                tjc s
x;/ we s 1
ggp,/Y' 8509230305 050906                                                               O PDR   PR                                               /%         -
c tjc
35 50FR30616       PDR                                 /
: ggp, g
                                                                                          )
/Y' 8509230305 050906 O
PDR PR
/%
35 50FR30616 PDR
/
)
(/}}
(/}}

Latest revision as of 23:22, 11 December 2024

Discusses Proposed Rev to 10CFR35.Statement Re Reduction in Regulatory & Administrative Burden on Industry & Use of Automated Mgt Info Sys as Justification for Rule Change Questioned
ML20137Q889
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/02/1982
From: Cobb L
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: Cunningham R
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20136D915 List: ... further results
References
FRN-50FR30616, RULE-PR-35 AA73-1, NUDOCS 8509230305
Download: ML20137Q889 (1)


Text

_

i gn Rio UNITED STATES

[o,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

g 4

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

[' p,

^

!~} 5 ij U %,

,/

WN 2 1982

, S.e,,7

B';>

i

,ely i e,'

D'

,l$

i

,p MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard E. Cunningham, Director h

Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety FROM:

L. I. Cobb, Director Division of Fuel Facilities, Materials and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 35 We have some reservations regarding the proposed revision of the rule and the justification as it is written.

For example, (1) we question the statement about a reduction in regulatory and administrative burden on the industry in the face of such a prescriptive rule; (2) It seems inconsistent to say that "... safety technology is now fully developed and safety requirements are 'well defined...", and then incorporate all these details into the regulations; (3) We don't understand the use of an automated management information system (MIS) as a justification for the rule change.

-0ther specific comments are noted on the enclosed marked-up copy of the draft U

revision. We will be glad to meet with you and discuss them at greater length.

L. I. Cobb, Director Division of Fuel Facilities, Materials and Safeguards

Enclosure:

As stated CONTACT:

H. Karagiannis 49-27910

'I['7 1

{'

y l h(f]L W l

Q g d S[vv.

x;/ we s 1

c tjc

ggp, g

/Y' 8509230305 050906 O

PDR PR

/%

35 50FR30616 PDR

/

)

(/