ML20044F943
| ML20044F943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1993 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Speis T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044F925 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010237 | |
| Download: ML20044F943 (1) | |
Text
,,.
am
~
t-UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAH REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
wAsmus,0w. o.c. messam i
1 7
r
%*****/
April-23, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR: Themis P. Spets Deputy Director for Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
James H. Sniezek i
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research i
SUBJECT:
HOPENFELD 12/23/91 CORRESPONDENCE ENTITLED.
l
" DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION"
Reference:
NRC Manual Chapter 6.2, " Differing Professional Views or Opinions l
l I have been assigned to review certain aspects of the process associated with l
management handling of the subject correspondence. Therefore, please provide me with responses to the following questions.
1.
Was the subject correspondence handled pursuant to the DPV process specified in Handbook 6.2.
2.
Was the subject correspondence reviewed by the RES DPV panel? Was the DPV panel comprised of membership as specified in Handbook 6.2? If not, why not?
3.
Was Mr. Hopenfeld provided with the Decision of the Office Director or designee as specified in Handbook 6.2? If not, why not?
4.
Did Mr. Hopenfeld request pursuant to Handbook 6.2 that the matter be further evaluated as a DP0 because he was not satisfied with the resolution?
5.
Was a summary of the issue and its disposition included in the Weekly Information Report pursuant to Handbook 6.27 If not, why not?
I would appreciate a response to these questions by COB April 27.
[l voth/y 4
J mes H. Sniezek puty Executive Director for Nuclear. Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research-9306010237 930510 P';R-ADOCK 05000344-P PDR '
-