ML20128N677
| ML20128N677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/27/1995 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC |
| To: | Cant G, Haisfield M NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128N048 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-61FR4306, FRN-61FR43406, FRN-61FR43409, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-51 AF43-2-021, AF43-2-21, NUDOCS 9610170004 | |
| Download: ML20128N677 (2) | |
Text
m O 2.-
From: Stephen H. Lewis
?vR @
(SHL)
To: mfh,jx1,gdc Date: Thursday, July 27, 1995 11:49 am
Subject:
RULEMAKING PLAN-PARTS 2 & 51 OGC has reviewed the Rulemaking Plan " Minor Corrections to Reflect Enforcement !
Changes" and Geoff Cant's e-mail to you with OE's suggested revisions, and offers the following comments:
- 1. In general we think the OE revision repretents improvements to the draft. l In particular, we also believe that your estimate of 0.25 FTE was much too high, i especially so if you narrow the rulemaking as we suggest below. - g/ u e, l
- 2. We do not view the proposed change to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.201 to provide that the ggde staff may dispense with a licensee response to a NOV~where we already have the requisite information to be an initiative that must be undertaken at this time.
Our view is based upon the pendency of a comprehensive revision of Part 2 that is currently under development and which may result in modifications to section 2.201, as well as many other provisions.
We recognize that the SRM on the recent revision to the Enforc ment Policy (June 16,1995) stated that the EDO should amend Part 2 to remove the requirement for a licensee response to a NOV where the staff believes the licensee has already adequately addressed the issue on the docket. Clearly, the Commission has authorized the ED0 to propose this change as part of adminsitrative changes to implement and reflect the revisions to the Enforcement Policy. However, OGC l believes it is preferable to temporarily defer this action to be addressed within '
the comprehensive consideration of restructuring Part 2. This would avoid the potential for two modifications to section 2.201 within a relatively short time period. Additionally, we have consistently advised OE that there is little litigative risk in the staff under the existing section 2.201 wording deciding i on the facts of a particular case that it does not need a formal response from a licensee to a NOV.
- 3. The Plan should be more specific as to the manner in which 10 C.F.R. 5 Sl.20(d) would be amended. Specifically, we recommend that the section be amended to list, as examples, Confirmatory Action Letters, Bulletins, Generic Letters, Notices of Deviation, and Notices of Nonconformance. These are the types of enforcement actions (some " informal") addressed in the 10/26/89 Statement of Considerations on " Clarifying Amendment Relating to Enforcement Activities" as requiring the clarification made to section 51.10(d) at that time.
Once this non-exclusive list of examples of types of enforcement actions not requiring NEPA reviews is added, the purpose of previously referencing 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C is satisfied.
I will continue to serve as the OGC point of contact for this rulemaking. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact me (SHL, 415-1684).
CC: wjo,jrgl,fxc t
9610170004 961009 PDR PR 2 61FR43406 PDR
4/(=/ MY e / fo 3 /7 From: Stephen H. Lewis (SHL) f v'(P) r ,
To: mfh,jx1,gde j _ fJrfievo"'WobMe, Date: Thursday, July 27, 1995 11:49 am / / y'
Subject:
RULEMAKING PLAN-PARTS 2 & 51 / /
/
OGC has reviewed the Rulemaking Plan " Minor Corrections to Reflect Enforcement i
Changes" and Geoff Cant's e-mail to you with OE's suggested revisions, and offers i the following comments: /
- 1. In general we think the OE revision represents improvements to the draft.
j In particular, we also believe that your estimate of 0.25 FTE was much too high, especially so if you narrow the rulemaking as we suggest below.
- 2. We do not view the proposed change to 10 C.F.R.45 2.201 to orovide that the 4 staff may dispense with a licensee response to atNOV)where we already have the
. requisite information to be an initiative that must'be undertaken at this time.
Our view is based upon the pendencysof a comprehensive revision of Part 2 that
. is currently under development'and which may result in modifications to section 2.201, as well as many other provisions.
We recognize that the SRM on the recent revision to the Enforcement Policy (June i 16,1995) stated that the EDO should amend Part 2 to remove the requirement for
- a licensee response to a NOV where the staff believes the licensee has already 3
adequately addressed the issue on the docket. Clearly, the Commission has j authorized the EDO to propose this change as part of adminsitrative changes to
) implement and reflect the revisions to the Enforcement Policy. However, 0GC,
- believes
- it is preferable to temporarily defer this action.to be addressed within the comprehensive.considerat. ion of ~ t restructuring Part 2. This would avoid the potential for two modifications ~ to section.2.201 within a relatively short time
- period. Additionally, -we .have consistently advised OE that there is Elittle
litigative risk in the staff under the existing'section 2.201'. wording deciding ( .
- on the facts of_'a particular case that it does not need a formal response from I 4
allicensee'to a NOV.. - -
l 3. The Plan should 'be'more specific as to the manner in Aich 10 C.F.R. 5 i 51.f0(d) would be amended. Specifically, we recommend that the section be l amended to list, as examples, Confirmatory Action Letters, Bulletins, Generic ;
Letters, Notices of Deviation, and Notices of Nonconformance. These are the l types of enforcement actions (some " informal") addressed in the 10/26/89 l
Statement of Considerations on " Clarifying Amendment Relating to Enforcement i Activities" as requiring the clarification made to section 51.10(d) at that time.
Once this non-exclusive list of examples of types of enforcement actions not requiring NEPA reviews is added, the purpose of previously referencing 10 C.F.R.
- Part 2, Appendix C is satisfied.
I will continue to serve as the OGC point of contact for this rulemaking. If you u have any. questions regarding these comments, contact me (SHL, 415-1684).
CC: wjo,jrg1,fxc m.m wa-ayp M
W M. h.A t...hj yyh! f i
4 3 g, Gph Qg l& \
4 I
.-. ,