ML20202B550
| ML20202B550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1998 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, Merrifield J, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9901290112 | |
| Download: ML20202B550 (3) | |
Text
._
p [p%
REQUESTliB VJ gp M h M 7 A
UNITED STATE 3
~
s j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMSECY-98-038 WASHINGTON, D.c. 2066H001
(*****/
December 21, 1998 RELEASED TO THE PDR
/b459 0M MEMORANDUM TO:
Chairman Jackson
/ atG '
initM j!
C Commissioner Dieus
...o................. m Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan i
Commissioner Merrifield M[
j FROM:
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
WITS 9700191 and 9800044 - REQUEST FOR SCHEDULE AND MILESTONE CHANGES (Tasking Memo item IV.B)- 10 CFR l
50.59 RULEMAKING In an SRM dated September 25,1998, the Commission directed the staff to solicit public comment on a number of issues related to implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, and established a February 19,1999 date for the submittal of a final rule on 10 CFR 50.59. The comment period for the proposed rule closes December 21,1998.
The staff currently has 3 comment packages from non-utility individuals on the staff proposals. It does not expect to receive the bulk of the comment letters from the industry or public interest groups untillate in the comment period. From a published article in inside NRC on December 7, I
1998, NEl is quoted as saying that the industry comments are voluminous and that they are planning to provide over 50 pages of comments, including comments on 14 options related to the margin of safety question alone. The present comments do not show convergence to any preferred option.
The staff is concamed that with the present lack of convergence on a broad spectrum of implementation issees, the staff will have substantial difficulties in synthesizing the broad f
spectrum of views obiained during the comment period, developing a consensus position within
/
the agency, and in drafteg the supporting positions necessary to provide a comotete rule l
package by the February date. The staff has spent considerable time evaluating what it could provide the Commission that would permit the Commission to participate early in the resolution of d]p difficult policy issues and yet continue to advance the progress of the rule toward final publication. The staff has developed the following proposal.
1 i
On the February 19,1999 date, the staff proposes to provide for Commission consideration a l
Commission paper containing proposed final rule language, a summary of the significant policy issues arising from the comments, and the staff's proposed resolution of the issues. It will not be a complete rule package because it will not contain a final regulatory analysis, a statement of considerations, or specific implementation guidance. We believe that the staff's proposal 9901290112 981221 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 2?0013 g yn9,57 x o/M4 (apa,
9,
(
,b 4
The Commission,
permits the Commission to begin early deliberation on the difficult policy issues that must be decided in order to issue a final rule and to provide the staff with Commission instructions about its proposals before extensive staff resources are expended justifying regulatory positions that may not have Commission endorsement. The staff's proposed revisions to the established schedule is attached to this memorandum.
The staff's proposed schedule will also permit valuable coordination with the Regional Offices, j
the Office of Enforcement, the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (on conforming changes to Part 72) and the Office of the General Counsel. This paper would be provided to the ACRS and other Offices for information in parallel with your review.
Following Commission feedback, the sta'f would then complete the final rulemaking package.
This approach would result in the final rule being more representative of Commission positions, and would allow for more effective review by other offices and the review committees on implementation of these views.
If this request is approved, the tasking memorandum status for item IV.B would be revised to show submittal of the first paper (on the comments), on February 19,1999, with a new milestone for the final rub package to be submitted in late April (assuming Commission feedback in early March).
Tne staff is available to brief the Commission or Commissioner technical assistants on this revised schedule proposal. SECY please track.
Attachment:
Proposed Milestones and Schedule for Final rule cc:
SECY OGC OCIO OCFO OlG
~
^<
i y
SCHEDULE AND HILESTONES FOR FINAL RULE ON 10 CFR 50.59
)
s i
I December 21 End of comment period '
Begin comment review and preparation of final package week of January 25 Draft package (comment resciution and recommended rule language Including recommendation on scope) circulated for concurrence to l
l NMSS, Regional offices, NRR divisions, OGC, ADM February 5 (first) Paper due to NRR mailroom l
February 12 Paper due to EDO
)
February 19 First Paper due to Commission March 3-5 Regulatory information Conference early March Receive Commission feedback March 15 Final rule package issued for ACRS and CRGR review and to other offices / regions for comment late March ACRS subcommittee late March CRGR meeting early April ACRS full committee mid-late April Final rule package to Commission OTHER RELATED MEETINGS AND MILESTONES l
December 15 Draft report on risk-informed options for 50.59 l
l January 19 Workshop on options for risk-informed 10 CFR 50.59 January Commission meeting (s) on tasking memo topics i
4 ATTACHMENT I
.