ML20148D674
| ML20148D674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/06/1988 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Crutchfield D, Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D501 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-105 NUDOCS 8803240153 | |
| Download: ML20148D674 (2) | |
Text
e
\ %o, UNITED STATES p " ,.-
b' '% NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION g ,.
wAswINGToN. o. C. 20555
\...../ January 6, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects I/II Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects FROM: Frank J. Miraglia Associate Director for Projects
SUBJECT:
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW RESPONSIBILITY On September 4, 1987, a memorandum was issued which described a process for conducting technical reviews of license amendment applications. The purpose of this memorandum is to slightly modify the process to allow the Project Managers some degree of additional flexibility.
The process, as described in the September 4,1987 memorandum, provides for placing incoming amendments in one of three categories. Category I amendments will be sent back to the licensees for insufficient documentation. Category 11 amendments are to be reviewed by the project manager and normally will be noticed with a proposed no significant hazards consideration finding.
Category III amendments will be reviewed by the technical branches and will generally, but not always, be noticed with an opportunity for prior hearing.
The categorization process will remain the same but what is being modified as of the date of this memorandum, is the treatment of the region resources,.
For amendments properly classified as Category II applications, the Project Manager now has the option of sending that amendment to the Region for technical review using the appropriate procedure (i.e., letter from A/D to the Region),
and still retain the Category II classification. This is being done for l several reasons. The main reason is that the trend of incoming applications is that a vast majority are classified as Category II, and this may soon overburden i
the PMs. _This modification provides a relief path. Secondly, the majority of amendment reviews done in the past by the Regions would appropriately be classified as Category II applications.
The Regions may receive work from two sources, i.e., projects and technical.
If an amendment is properly categorized as Category III but the technical review branch, through some prioritization scheme or other mechanism, sends it to the Region for technical review, then that amendment will remain Category
- III and will be appropriately noticed. Any conflict in the demand for review resources from the Region will be resolved by the NRR Assistant Director for that Region.
8803240153 880317 CONTACT:
J. Thoma, DRPR hT 05 PDR Ext. 28285
n.....
...-a Steven A. Varga January 6, 1938 Dennis M. Crutchfield It should also be noted that one of the purposes of forming a Category Il classification was that the NRC should be able to complete our review of those amendments more efficiently. It is not desired for the Region review of Category 11 amendments to dramatically increase the resource needs or review time and, therefore, review schedules must be negotiated carefully.
kr6*Yd Cr LY ' .&
Frank J. iragli '
Associate Director for Projects cc: All ADP Personnel ADT L
i l
.