ML20217Q228
| ML20217Q228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/01/1998 |
| From: | Gillen D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Patricia Holahan NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217Q233 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 9805070287 | |
| Download: ML20217Q228 (4) | |
Text
.e
[p@%2% UNITED STATES j
-r g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056H001
% ,# May 1, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Patricia K. Holahan, Acting Chief ,
Rulemaking and Guidance Branch l
. Division of Industrial and j Medical Nuclear Safety, 3* I FROM: .M.
Daniel M. Gillen, Assistant scanen Chief Uranium Recovery Branch !
Division of Waste Management, NMSS '
SUBJECT:
URB /DWM COMMENTS ON THE NMSS DRAFT PROCEDURES !
FOR PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF RULEMAKING PACKAGES (DWM-980068, TASK # 98267)
The Uranium Recovery Branch staff has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments:
I
- 1) It is not clear from the procedures how the process will be handled in the case where another Division in NMSS has the lead for the rulemaking. It appears that the proposed )
procedures would make the Rulemaking and Guidance Branch (RGB/IMNS) staff the Task Leaders for rulemakings, and assign all of the project lead responsibilities to them, l including actually drafting the proposed rule and the Statement of Considerations, and l establishing and monitoring of needed contract support for the rulemaking. DWM has had, and currently has, the lead on the new Part 41 rulemaking for uranium recovery facilities and since DWM has been working with IMNS on Part 41, RSB staff have been providing support to DWM. However, it appears that if the proposed procedures were l applied to the Part 41 effort, those roles would be reversed, which could impact I contractual and other arrangements that are in place for that rulemaking. For
- clarification, RGB should address this situation, either in additional procedures, or perhaps in the cover letter for the proposed procedures, so DWM staff can assess the impacts of any resulting changes to the current process and DWM plans for the l rulemaking.
t l I
l 2) in Appendix A, Part B, Step 5, page 4, " Submittal of Final Rulemaking Plan to the Commission for Approval", it is not clear how, or if, the Agreement States are brought f back into the review / concurrence loop after they comment and their comments are addressed in and for the final ruleplan. The procedure should clearly state if Agreemej States will review the final ruleplan with all the changes made before it goes to the '
Commission for their review.
'b0g'<7
?
CONTACT: -Janet Lambert, NMSS\DWM wil'b, (301)415-6710 9805070287 980501 PDR WASTE 1 -
WPI-5 PDRh~
ggMw:a R ,np *
\
L
i
~
, P. Holahan '
l 3) In Appendix A, Part C, Step 1, page 6, " Branch Review of rule package", item "a", the l draft indicates that the RGB Task Leader will work with the Working Group Members I
(WGMs) from the other offices and divisions to develop the draft rule package. Such input to the rulemaking and the rulemaking process is mentioned in other places as well.
It is not clear if the individual WGM's input is to be submitted as working level material -
l that becomes part of the overall rulemaking package and will be reviewed at a later time by their management during concurrence, or if management review and approvalis l needed before WGM input is provided to the Rulemaking Task Leader. The procedures should clarify when the WGM's management will be expected to have reviewed and
, approved of material submitted by the WGMs.
l L
l-l I
l P. Holahan I
- 3) in Appendix A, Part C, Step 1, page 6, " Branch Review of rule package", item "a", the draft indicates that the RGB Task Leader will work with the Working Group Members (WGMs) from the other offices and divisions to develop the draft rule package. Such input to the rulemaking and the rulemaking process is mentioned in other places as well.
It is not clear if the individual WGM's input is to be submitted as working level material that becomes part of the overall rulemaking package and will be reviewed at a later time by their management during concurrence, or if management review and approval is needed before WGM input is provided to the Rulemaking Task Leader. The procedures should clarify when the WGM's management will be expected to have reviewed and approved of material submitted by the WGMs.
TICKET: DWM-980068 DISTRIBUTION: FILE CENTER PUBLIC NMSS r/f URB r/f CNWRA ACNW CCain DWM r/f DCool MFederline CAbrams MLayton S olo^ h DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \NMSSRULP.WPD OFC URB k h /y 0 NAME JLam DGil DATE 5/l/d8 5/I/98 H OFFICl/iL RECORD COPY
" Time: 5 25 pm NRC -- DWM/NMSS Record: 457 l-DWM/NMSS -- Task Information Yask #: 98267 Document -980068 'D WITS:
Task Accepted: 04/14/98 Tas ue: 05/01/98 Task,Rompleted: / /
Task
Description:
I'0" PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF RULEMAKING PACKAGES Requesting Office: IMNS Requester: D. COOL Committee Mtg #:
Branch: Section: Staff Lead:
Task DWM - CC: JG / MG Concurrence Status: Required: N Priority: 1 ACli}ON: Neb >ud
/ Due to DWM l DhetWs 0# ice: '// 29/9 7
(,,Q cc ', Gw m
' cn Yk l
l
,gf M
~ ? yf ,
p, ,, d i i