ML20202B571
| ML20202B571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| COMSECY-98-038, COMSECY-98-38, NUDOCS 9901290122 | |
| Download: ML20202B571 (1) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _
~
.[** %q g*i
.._. ~
.....-r
.m.,
P UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMSECY-98-038 t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4 001 e
o%
L j/
No objection.
December 21, 1998
. MEMORANDUM TO:
4hairman Jackson b
Commissioner Dicus Shirley Ann Ja'ckson Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan
>e*=a+ D gj, g g l
Commissioner Merrifield l
RFLEASED TO THE PDR :
FROM:
William D. Travers M
/h% MJ f
e Executive Director for Operations l7%
g' in M
- +ee+..e+,c s
SUBJECT:
WITS 9700191 and 9800044 - REQUEST FOR SCHEDULE AND MILESTONE CHANGES (Tasking Memo item IV.B)- 10 CFR 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 j
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, 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 concemed that with the present lack of convergence on a broad spectrum of implementation issues, the staff will have substantial difficulties in synthesizing the broad spectrum of views obtained during the comment period, developing a consensus position within the agency, and in drafting the supporting positions necessary to provide a complete rule 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
/g difficult policy issues and yet continue to advance the progress of the rule toward final publication. The staff has developed the following proposal.
[)
On the February 19,1999 date, the staff proposes to provide for Commission consideration a i.. 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 staffs proposal l
9901290122 981221 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 4-9-/ &i2),f?'
g0 M twi g,
I