(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML23320A1122024-01-18018 January 2024 NRC to Fws, Concurrence with Endangered Species Act Determinations for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Subsequent License Renewal, Issuance of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and Opportunity for Public Comment ML23332A0012023-11-28028 November 2023 Public Summary of November 7 Tribal Consultation Response Letter to the NRC ML23311A2202023-11-20020 November 2023 NRC to Fws, NRC Request for Concurrence with Endangered Species Act Determinations for Comanche Peak License Renewal, Issuance of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and Opportunity for Public Comment (Consultation Code: 2023 ML23333A0092023-10-27027 October 2023 Attachment a - NRC Extension of Comment Period-1 ML23270C0212023-09-27027 September 2023 Concurrence on 30-day FRN for LVS and Form 749 ML23248A4362023-09-0505 September 2023 (09-2023) PRM-50-120 - 6 Month Status Update - Alternative Method for Calculating Embrittlement for Steal Reactor Vessels ML23241A7842023-08-16016 August 2023 Discussion with Texas Historical Commission ML23220A3582023-08-0808 August 2023 Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: PRM-50-121 6-Month Status Update (August 2023) - Voluntary Adoption of Revised Design Basis Accident Dose Criteria ML23191A8762023-06-29029 June 2023 06-29-23 Receipt of Tennessee Final Revisions to Rats Ids 2021-1, and 2021-2 ML23135A0952023-05-15015 May 2023 PRM-50-124 - Petition for Rulemaking on Licensing Safety Analysis for Loss-of-Coolant Accidents - NRC Response Email to Myer ML23135A1582023-05-11011 May 2023 5-11-2023 Receipt of Colorado Proposed Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control, 6 CCR 1007-1, Part 4 (Standards for Protection Against Radiation) ML23109A1092023-04-18018 April 2023 Email to K.Hadden - Questions Regarding GEIS Revisions for Reactor License Renewals ML23089A1972023-03-30030 March 2023 Response to Request for an Extension of the Comment Period of Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses-Environmental Review, Docket Id NRC-2018-0296, 88 Fed. Reg. 13,329 (March 3, 2023) ML23083B3202023-03-21021 March 2023 Nrc/Msst Staff Acknowledge Receipt Email Regarding Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Comment Letter - SB 846 ML23075A1862023-03-16016 March 2023 LTR-23-0009-1 Email to Mary Ajango Letter of 1/9/2023 to the Commission Regarding Extravasations Rulemaking ML22348A0532022-11-30030 November 2022 NRC to National Marine Fisheries Service (Nmfs), Request to Resume Endangered Species Act Consultation for Decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 ML22321A0152022-11-0303 November 2022 Email La Crosse RCI Response Follow-Up ML22350A0122022-11-0101 November 2022 E-mail Forwarding Tmc Iato 11/01/2022 ML22298A0072022-10-24024 October 2022 Receipt of North Carolina Proposed Regulations to 2013-1, 2015-2, 2018-2, 2018-3, 2019-1, 2019-2, 2020-1, 2020-3, 2021-1, and 2021-2 ML22284A0502022-10-0707 October 2022 Acceptance Review: License Amendment Request to Revise License Condition to Eliminate Cyber Security Plan Requirements ML21267A0982022-09-30030 September 2022 Rulemaking: Final Rule: Annotated Public Comments Document: Incorporate by Reference American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Operations and Maintenance Code ML22269A3452022-09-22022 September 2022 Email Objection to Holtec IP2 Master Decommissioning Trust Agreement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Facility Unit 1 and 2, EPID L-2022-LLA-0072 ML22161A3352022-08-17017 August 2022 2022 Communication Log for the American Board of Radiology (Public) ML22161A0412022-07-29029 July 2022 2022 Communication Log for the Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology ML22129A1902022-07-29029 July 2022 2022 Communication Log for the American Board of Medical Physics (Public) ML22129A1842022-07-29029 July 2022 2022 Communication Log for the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (Public) ML22129A1772022-07-29029 July 2022 2022 Communication Log for the Canadian College of Physicists in Medicine ML22204A0042022-07-0606 July 2022 Kairos Hermes CP Review - Email from J. Davis to Elizabeth Toombs Cherokee Nation ML22138A4372022-05-17017 May 2022 LTR-22-0141-NMSS Response to Mr. Drew Garner Nuclear Medicine Extravasations ML21280A1022021-12-0606 December 2021 NRC to NMFS, Supplement to Request to Reinitiate Endangered Species Act Consultation for San Onofre Decommissioning ML21307A2882021-11-18018 November 2021 NRC to Fws, Request to Reinitiate Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for Continued Operation of Turkey Point ML21307A1522021-11-0909 November 2021 NRC to Fws, Request for Concurrence with Endangered Species Act Determinations for Point Beach Subsequent License Renewal ML21301A1802021-10-28028 October 2021 NHPA Section 106 Activities for the Hecla Uranium Recovery Durita Site Located in Montrose County, Colorado ML22074A2382021-10-28028 October 2021 Durita LTSP Colorado Shpo Section 106 Results ML21277A3852021-10-0404 October 2021 E-mail Status of Petition for Rulemaking, Advance Tribal Notification of Certain Radioactive Materials Shipments (PRM-37-2) NRC-2021-0051 ML21242A0602021-09-30030 September 2021 NRC to NMFS, Request to Initiate Consultation for SONGS Decommissioning ML21259A0942021-09-13013 September 2021 SUNSI and Proprietary Review Determination Email Regarding Tn CoC 1042 Eos Amendment 3 Revised Responses to Obs 4-5 ML21252A0862021-09-0808 September 2021 Transmittal Email to Crow Butte Resources, Inc., Survey Methodology to Identify Sites of Significance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe ML21252A0882021-09-0808 September 2021 Transmittal Email to Oglala Sioux Tribe Survey Methodology Survey Methodology to Identify Sites of Significance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe for the Crow Butte ISR Facility License Renewal ML21152A1722021-09-0707 September 2021 NRC to Fws, NRC Issuance of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for North Anna Subsequent License Renewal, Opportunity for Public Comment, and Endangered Species Act Determinations ML21245A2092021-08-26026 August 2021 08-26-2021 Receipt of Louisiana Proposed Regulations to Rats Ids 2018-1, 2020-2, and Other Provisions Not Associated with a Rats Id; and Revised Final Regulations to Rats Id 2015-3 ML21201A1152021-07-20020 July 2021 Acknowledgement of Receipt of Isu LRA ML21140A0382021-05-18018 May 2021 NRC to NMFS, Notification of Cessation of Power Operations at IP3 ML21175A0492021-04-28028 April 2021 Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Physical Security, Email from NRC to NEI NRC Comments on Nei'S Summary Table Showing Key Attributes for Eligibility Criteria ML21094A0032021-04-0202 April 2021 SLR - PSR-WI Request for an Additional Public Scoping Meeting ML21082A0492021-03-18018 March 2021 Clarifications to EIS RAIs for Cfff ML21082A0242021-03-12012 March 2021 Reply to Miami Tribe of Oklahoma on Point Beach Nuclear Plant Subsequent License Renewal ML21056A6212021-02-25025 February 2021 Response to Request for Extension of Pt Beach SLR Scoping Comment Period ML21056A6172021-02-18018 February 2021 Email to Psr Providing Pt Beach Document Numbers ML20349A3292020-12-0909 December 2020 Part 20 Petition for Rulemaking Status M Miller 122020 2024-01-18
[Table view]Some use of "" in your query was not closed by a matching "". |
Text
COMMENTS ON INTERIM PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE IMPEP -
SA-107, SA-200, AND SA-201 (STC-19-078)
These comments are all in reference to the SA-201 draft.
Paragraph III.B. - page 5 of the pdf Since it is likely not appropriate for all Agreement States to submit proposed amendments to the NRC at the same time these amendments are presented for public comment, that particular sentence could be caveated with depending on the administrative rulemaking requirements and timeline the Agreement State or State seeking an Agreement must follow. It might be more time efficient (important when a State is trying to meet an adoption date) to determine, prior to beginning the rulemaking process, items that would require substantive changes due to NRCs review versus determining this during the public comment period. Discovering substantive issues at this point in the timeline puts a stop to the rulemaking process, and the State must begin the rulemaking process againor otherwise proceed with adopting the proposed rules as final, including those in need of substantive changes. This sort of adoption is usually not desirable. We rarely receive substantive comments from the public during our 30-day public comment period.
Besides time efficiency, senior ADH management usually wishes to review proposed rules already vetted by the NRC prior to being presented to the public.
Instead of, or in addition to, adding the qualifier, another option would be to say, Such requests are often submitted at the same time they are published for public comment.
Paragraph V.A.3. - page 9 of the pdf If 15% of the proposed rule reviews may take longer than 60 days, then I suggest recommending to the States that submittal should occur 120 days prior to the date that comments are needed. We have found that it is best to consider the greatest number of days that a particular step in the lengthy rulemaking process could take when determining how soon to begin drafting new rule language in order to meet the adoption deadline. If the State were to only consider 60 days, they may come up short concerning their rulemaking timeline.
Paragraph A.4. - page 11 of the pdf I am a little confused as to the statement that says Agreement States should only submit LBRs for review that are intended to substitute for NRC rules. I am remembering some license conditions (an example of an LBR) that became license conditions because they are not included in NRC regulations (i.e., leak test requirements). I see the last sentence that says, An Agreement State should not add/implement any license conditions that have not been reviewed by the NRC. This seems to contradict the initial statement that NRC would only review LBRs that are intended to substitute for NRC rules.
February 28, 2020
2 Paragraph B.1. - page 11 of the pdf If using Microsoft Word Track Changes in a rule draft is optional, there should be no issue. Senior ADH management asks our programs to not use this sort of change tracking due to problems experienced. Developing two totally separate drafts would be very labor intensive and therefore impossible. ADH prefers the line-in/line-out format as previously used.
Paragraph C. - page 12 of the pdf If a proposed rule review is allowed up to 120 days to be performed, I recommend not using sixty-day review period. Perhaps sixty-day could just be removed from the sentence.
Paragraph D. - page 13 of the pdf Reviews being assigned within two business days of receipt of a complete State package seems to contradict page 3 of the pdf (paragraph II.D.2.) that says packages that have been determined to be complete should be assigned to the reviewer within three days of the acceptance review.
Paragraph G.2. - page 16 of the pdf Conducting reviews for technical completeness of incoming State transmittals within three calendar days of the receipt of a review request seems to contradict page 3 of the pdf (paragraph II.D.1.) that says the acceptance review of incoming packages should be completed within three days of receipt.
Appendix A,Section I It may be clearer to say in the last sentence of the first paragraph that These differences do not need to be identified as significant or commented on. I am assuming the reviewer would mark the Difference column as Yes since we have titled the section Differences That are Not Significant and mark the Significant column as No. In other words, the sentences saying do not need to be identified does not mean to mark No in the Difference column.
Appendix A,Section I and II.A.
Paragraph II.A. discusses Compatibility Category A and B regulations and what State/NRC differences would be considered significant/incompatible. There are instances with Compatibility Category B regulations where the language adopted by the State is not exact because the requirement necessitated substituting Agreement State for Commission or adding U.S. NRC to or equivalent regulations of the U.S. NRC or an Agreement State. Examples include 10 CFR 71.17(b) and 10 CFR 32.51(a). The discussion in II.A. in comparison to these examples would seem to indicate that these differences were significant. Perhaps II.A. could be clarified.
In Section I, it may be helpful to discuss the difference having to do with my above comment that would not be considered significant.
Question 15 of the Frequently Asked Questions In some instances, Agreement States should not use the SSRs for changes to NRC regulations that occurred before the SSR approval date either. For example, SSR Part T.
February 28, 2020