ML20056F481
| ML20056F481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/23/1993 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Draper R, Reynolds N, Stenger D WINSTON & STRAWN |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056F482 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308270303 | |
| Download: ML20056F481 (4) | |
Text
.
fM Cy
] ))trs,J CFik
,p na i
E UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
i(
(
f e#
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!@ 001 j
July 23, 1993 i
I Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds, f
Mr. Daniel F. Stenger, and l
Mr. Robert L. Draper
]
Winston & Strawn 1
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502 i
Gentlemen:
(
Thank you for your letter.of May 26, 1993, to Mr. James M. Taylor submitted on l
behalf of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group. Your letter identifies a concern about potential delays in license amendment-approval that you believe results from the use of so called " Category 3" notices.
l 1
Category 3 notices are discussed in memoranda from Mr. Frank J. Miraglia dated i
September 4, 1987, and January 6, 1988. These memoranda are referenced in your letter. Those memoranda identify three situations relating to NRC review l
of license amendment requests-
-j Category 1 involves those requests where the licensee's submittal is
{
technically-inadequate to support the request.
For these cases, a letter is sent to the licensee explaining the deficiencies that need to i
be corrected before resubmittal.
J Category 2 involves those requests which on their face contain sufficient information to conclude that the requested amendment involves t
no significant hazards consideration-(NSHC). These are noticed in the NRC's biweekly Federal Reaister notice. These notices provide an i
opportunity for hearing to persons whose interests may be affected and I
contain a proposed NRC staff NSHC determination providing an opportunity j
for the public to comment on the proposed NSHC determination.
i Category 3 involves ^those requests that require an assessment more in-depth than needed for Category 2 or additional information in order to conclude whether the requested amendment involves a significant hazards consideration. - Category 3 cases are noticed individually in the Federal t
Reaister, providing an opportunity for persons whose interests.may be affected to request a hearing on-the requested license amendment; but a
they do not contain an NRC proposed.NSHC determination..
]
In the' cases of a Category 3 notice, if no hearing is requested concerning the proposed amendment, the NRC may issue the requested amendment at the-expiration of the_30-day notice period,_without making a determination concerning whether or not the application involves a significant hazards consideration, if NRC determines that the proposed amendment satisfies applicable NRC r g4,,
augw"9 Qgyf r
y nou 188"Eggngggp 1
PDR'
Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds, -
Mr. Daniel F. Ster.ger, and Mr. Robert L. Draper If a hearing is requested in connection with an application for which a Category 3 rotice was issued, and if the NRC staff subsequently reaches a preliminary determination that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, it may issue a proposed NSHC determination for public comment. After the comment period, if it reaches a final conclusion that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration and that the proposed amendment satisfies applicable NRC requirements, the NRC may issue the requested amendment.
In this case, any hearing on the license amendment will be completed after the amendment has been issued.
Your letter indicates your belief that the notice of proposed NSHC determination, the second notice in the case of a Category 3 notice, may lead to unnecessary delay in the issuance of the requc ted license amendment.
Category 3 notices were developed by the staff for use in those cases in which the applicant's submittal containing the applicant's reasons for believing that the requested amendment involves NSHC requires a more in-depth technical review by NRC than the usual case, or needs additional information to support the proaosed NSHC determination.
In such cases, the preliminary NSHC determiration may require an extended period of interchange with the iicensee tefore f he staff can publish a proposed NSHC determination.
Recognizing that if no he aring is requested on a requested amendment, a proposed NSHC determination has no practical effect, the NRC staff developed Category 3 notices to make more efficient use of NRC technical staff resources and to minimize -ielay at the outset of NRC's review in the publication of the required rotice offering an opportunity for hearing.
In the large majority of cases in which a Category 3 notice has been used, no hearing reylest was received and the staff issued the requested amendment without further delay upon determining that the proposed amendment satisfied applicable NPC requirements.
In these cases, the use of a Category 3 notice eliminates unnecessary delay at the outset of the license amendment process, by publishing the notice of receipt of the application and offering an i
opportunity for hearing without first undertaking the more in-depth review needed or engaging in obtaining additional information from the licensee.
For those cases in which there was a hearing request, the elimination of delay at the outset would offset the delay that resulted from publishing a proposed NSHC determination later in the process.
To the extent that you suggest that the NRC staff use the licensee's proposed NSHC determination, that is current staff practice except in those cases in which the staff cannot accept the applicant's proposed NSHC determination without additional technical evaluation. To the extent that you suggest that the NRC should publish the licensee's proposed NSHC determination when it has not been accepted by the staff, we do not believe that such a procedure satisfies the proposed NSHC notice of Section 189 of the Atomic Enerav Act.
i l
Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds,. Mr. Daniel F. Stenger, and Mr. Robert !. Draper i
)
While we believe that the Category 3 process is not inconsistent with applicable NRC regulations, your letter highlights the need for greater clarity in the regulations on the matter of Category 3 notices. This is a matter that will be put on the NRC's rulemaking agenda along with other suggestions for improving or clarifying the license amendment process.
Sincerely, ORIGIN!ib!GfDI4 {V
- f. [\\/li(ayh3 ~
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION Central File w/ incoming NRC PDR w/ incoming EDO #0008954 JTaylor JSniezek HThompson JBlaha JScinto, 0GC TMurley/FMiraglia JPartlow PDI-2 Reading w/ incoming SVarga/JCalvo MBoyle OPA OCA NRR Mail Room (ED0#0008954 w/ incoming) (12G-18)
Partlow's Secretary (12G-18)
CNorsworthy LMitchell SDembek w/ incoming M0'Brien w/ incoming
- Previously Concurred t[ct 0FFICE PMh2/h PDI-2/PM PDI-2/D.
TECH ED*
OGC I
t[$brik SDembek:rb MBoyle ((dh JMain JScintowf NAME B
DATE
/\\h93 1 /}3/93 1 / $/93 n 07/07/93 d / ld/9[
OFFICE DRPE/ADHK DRPE/
NRR/ADPy N,
[
I hMubk NAME JCalvo M ai JPartlow B
DATE 7 /M/93 h/h93
//lh/93
[ 7 /f//93 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY lif DOCUMENT NAME:
GT8954
(/2/
f;
'o UNITED STATES
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g g
a wAsHaworow.o. c.2oses EDO Principal Correspondence Control i
A.,...../
FROM:
DUE:
EDO CONTROL: 0008954
{
DOC DT: 05/26/93
~
FINAL REPLY:
j't j grj g g,j,3 v i
s Nicholas S. Reynolds, Daniel F. Stenger,
/v
'Robart L. Draper
' Counsel to Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group 3
l TO:
James M. Taylor FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO:
1 DESC:
ROUTING:
5 NRC POLICY FOR PROCESSING LICENSE AMENDMENT Taylor APPLICATIONS Sniezek Thompson i
DATE: 05/27/93 Blaha' Scinto, OGC
-l ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
j NRR Murley-j i
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION
- l
~
-l 1
1 i
h
/
i i
t i
.)
l
~-
Y
+r,m--v
. -, - - =
.,_s.,
=r
,,,...., _,,