ML20128M221
| ML20128M221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/19/1984 |
| From: | Triner E NRC OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (ORM) |
| To: | Tse A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B584 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-50FR13797, RULE-PR-19, RULE-PR-39 AB35-1, NUDOCS 8505310608 | |
| Download: ML20128M221 (1) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i Agg s** *'*%
UNITED STATES g)
(. h*,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
\\...../
JUU 91984 o
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Anthony N. Tse j
Transportation and Material Risk Branch 4
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
FROM:
Edwin G. Triner, Director l
Division of Budget and Analysis Office of Resource Management l
SUBJECT:
CAG REVIEW 0F PROPOSED NEW RULE 10 CFR 39 ON WELL-LOGGING OPERATIONS Attached, as you requested, are the Cost Analysis Group's (CAG's) review comments on your proposed new rule 10 CFR 39 on well-logging I
operations.
If you have any questions regarding these coments, please l
ccntact John Clark, of my staff on extension X29868.
Separately from our cost analysis review, we note that in Section 3.1 r
of the regulatory analysis you state that the current rules applying to l
well-logging or the " status quo" are " unacceptable". Since the current rules have been in effect for some time you are implying here that NRC's rules regarding well-logging operation have been unacceptable for some years.
You make enough points in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 to show that your I
proposed alternative is su)erior to the status quo, but we think it might be inappropriate to tenn t1ese present NRC practices as l
" unacceptable".
M*
f Edwin G. Triner, Director Division of Budget and Analysis i
Office of Resource Management
Attachment:
As stated
- !!5 Agas assao l
D PDR
'