ML20151F144
| ML20151F144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/06/1988 |
| From: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dudley R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807260379 | |
| Download: ML20151F144 (3) | |
Text
__
'o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
1 i
WAsm NGTON, D. C. 20555
%,.....)
July 6, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard Dudley, Technical Assistant Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects FROM:
Daniel Muller, Director Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS My corrrnents on the questions raised in the subjects amendment are as follows:
Q1. Should the program continue as is, be modified, or be abolished?
A1. Yes, See A2, below, no Q2.
If the program is to be modified, exactly what changes are recomended?
A2. Allow the PM's to decide whether or not an amendment will involve significant hazards considerations independent of the review category that may be assigned. This would eliminate specifying all Category 3 reviews as significant hazards when many are not.
(See A4. below)
Q3. What are the perceptions, both pro and con, concerning resource efficiencies and savings?
A3. The PM's perception is that they are being required to do more work and they see no comensurate work improvement in the output of the technical branches. On the other hand, having the PM's do analysis that on within their technical abilities probably results in a overall resources savings.
Q4. Do you have any coments on the statistics?
A4. Of a total of 670 amendments received, 253 were Category III and presumably on each a significant. hazards determination and Environmental Assessment was completed.
In many cases, there was not a significant hazard; but Category III requires such a determination (except for reloads). This inflexibility results in extra work for the PM and is l
misleading to the public.
l l
c 8007260379g%O6
, llq
PDR OHG N
PNV
)
s
]
s.
i July 6, 1988
. 1 QS. What thoughts, both pro and con, do you and your staff have concerning the program overall?
AS. 'See the answers to 1-4, above.
W A/l
,,m e.
Daniel Muller Director Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects cc:
G. Holahan PDIII-2 staff G. Knighton M. Virgilio K. Perkins J. Calvo l
l l
I
\\
. l' l
l l
--,4
.=
.w
' July 6, 1988
- -QS.
What thoughts, both pro and con, do you and your staff have concerning.the program overall? -
AS. See the answers to 1-4, above.
Daniel Muller, Director Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects cc:
G. Holahan PDIII-2 staff
~G. Knighton M. Virgilio K. Perkins 1
J. Calvo DISTRIBUTION:/
Docket file v NRC & Local PDRs PDIII-2 r/f 7/(,/88