ML20198E159
| ML20198E159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/04/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198E143 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-232-C, NUDOCS 9812230351 | |
| Download: ML20198E159 (2) | |
Text
- - -. =__ . . - . . . . .- -
.' NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEE_I TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-232 - SEAMAN NUCLEAR'S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO DISTRIBUTE PORTABLE MOISTURE DENSITY GAUGES TO GENERAL LICENSEES Approved Disapproved xx Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached corrments.
Shirley Ann Jackson SIGNATURE November 4, 1998 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes xx No
!"A**!8Ana D Mag 21 CORRESPONDENCE PDR 98'/221,055)
1 3 \
Chairman Jackson's Comments on SECY 98-23J l
l disapprove the staff issuance of the license to Seaman Nuclear at this time. As directed in item 4 of the SRM on SECY 97-273, the Commission expected that the staff would review the i basis for the general'icenses for adequacy with respect to consideration of the consequences ,
for off-site accidents, such as loss of shielding or melting in metal making furnaces. The l Commission expected this basis to be reviewed following completion of the materials risk I assessment study, which is due to the Commission in December. However, in the interim,
- lacking the results of this study on a generic basis, the staff should ensure that the applicants for
! these licenses to distribute generally licensed devices have addressed the conseqt'ences for
! off-site accidents.
l The supplementary information provided by the staff for this particular application does not l Gaar to rigorously demonstrate compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 32.51(a)(2)(iii),
l particularly with regard to the considerations requested by the Commission. As such, the staff j should request that the applicant, as well as other similar applicants, provide a more rigorous demonstration of compliance with this requirement, without any reliance upon the radiological safety training of the generallicensee or notification of the NRC of any loss or damage to the device, as would be expected under a generallicense.
With regard to consultation with the Agreement States of California and North Carolina, to the l l extent that the staff would find such consultation beneficial in reviewing the application, the staff l
should do so. However, the determination of the adequacy of the application rests with the l NRC; therefore, if the staff determines that such consultation is unnecessary, there should be no l requirement to do so.
I f
..