ML20236X949
| ML20236X949 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236X952 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-86-03, GL-86-3, NUDOCS 8712100414 | |
| Download: ML20236X949 (12) | |
Text
. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
' l p nyg
~
M k
UNITED STATES
- j'iegg NUCLEAR I4EGULATORY COMMISSION 1l WASHINGTON, D. P. 20555 lj qp J a
yu j 9,,,, /
DEC 0 21987 f.
(
- j Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006 t
Dear Mr. Conner,
Thank you for your letter of November 6,1987, commenting on the staff's internal procedures for processing amendment requests.
The internal procedures set forth in the mesorandum you refer to in your letter were established as part of an effort to utilize the limited resources of the staff more effectively. We believe that these changed procedures can have the benefit of reducing the review effort for amendment reauests, which includes an initial review to determine whether the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration for purposes of determining the nature of the initial notice and a subsequent review of whether the amendment properly ensures adequate safety.
If things in fact turn out as you speculate and there is evidence that these procedures give rise to an untoward increase in unwarranted hearing requests that could strain resources, we would modify our internal procedures again in an effort to use our limited resources more effectively.,
With respect to the three groupings, the first is a traditional screening review to determine whether or not the incoming request contains sufficient i
information to permit initiating a technical review. This is similar in approach, but of course much smaller in scope than the predocketing review of initial license applications. Generic letter 86-03, issued February 10, 1086, stated that amendments would be returned for inadequate "no significant hazardt consideration determinations." This procedure now takes this process one step further. You indicate that it had been common in the past for some staff
~
Project Managers to take the initiative o' contacting applicants to reouest addithnal information. This meant keeping the request in a dormant status pending receipt of such information. The administrative effort involved in tracking the status cf such requests, awaiting the eventual receipt of missing information, and essentially conducting a double review wastes our limited resources. Accordingly for such defective applications the staff will infom the licensee of the deficiencies in the application and will not process the request further. The applicant may of course rectify the deficiencies and refile its amendment request.
This action does not preclude a request for additional infomation once the detailed review commences.
Rather it is an initial screening stat 1ng that the detailed review will not commence until the package is properly presented.
}f~)0 871210 N 14 871202 PDR ESC PDR
'Mo aA._A..Appmaum.
-m--
._____,_.m_m_
__._________,,___.._____.___._m..
E;~
3 Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. The distinction between the second ad third ' categories is straightforward.
If, on review of tie materials submitted w/th the incomina gplication, the t
Project Manager can readily ascertain that the amendment involves no complex safety issues, the Project Manager will ciitegorize the application in the second category and prepare a propoied finding that the action involves no significant hazirds consideration and will proceed to complete the safety review so that the amendment may be issued shortly after the notice period is conWsted. On the other hand, if the Project Manager cannot determine from the licensce's materials that the action does not involve complex or significant safety issues or s:fety considerations, the Project Manager will categorize the 9
application in tt?, third cate.get9, issue a notice of opportunity for prior j
hearing, and arrange for the technical review effort to begin.
Categorization mEy to somm extent depend on the expertise and attitude of the f
Projectlpager assigned to the project; categorization will, however, depend
{
l to a tar greater degree on the quality of the materials submitted by the licensee in sa port of the amendmen+; request. A well prepared submittal by a licensee that clearly and fuUy adhesses the safety aspects affected by the 1
proposed amendnent a.nd that provides e thorough and technically sound evaluation of the effect of the amendment on facility safety can be the most significant I
element in determining whether the appi1 cation will be categorized as catepry 2 or 3.
Q In short, the principal effect of the new procedures will be that licensees who t,elieve that the amendment they propose involves no significant hazards considerations must assure themselves that the application materials are thorough, clear, and provide a technically sound basis for such conclusion, with respect to each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92. After three years of ctQ-by-case discussion and guidance by the staff with respect to the revised
' hcUce provisions of 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92, licensees should understand cr' Ceria utilized by the NRC.
NRC staff resources are too limited to pemit the staff to rewrite indequate "no significant hazards consideration determina-tfons."
Your concern tiat the procedures set ford ( in the memorandum attached to your letter would atwcat to a de facto modification to the provisions of the Commission's regA.tions, is misplaced. The standards for detennining whether an action involves a "significant hazards consideration" remain those set forth l
in 10 CFR S0.92. Similarly,,the provisions governing notices set forth in 10 CFR 66 2.105 and 50.91 are not changed. Your reference to a requirement in 10 CFR 50.91(a)(2)(ii)(A) is also uis61 aced.
650.91(a)(2) relates to noticcs of proposed actions "'or an amendment for which it (the staff) makes a prop ( sed determination that nc significant hazards consideration is involved." Undqr the provisions of 6189(e)(2) o' the Atomic Energy Act, a notice providinc opportunity for public comment on a proposed no significant hazards considera-tions determination is required only for those amendments which the Commission proposes to issue under the provisions of 9189(aM2)(A).
i
)
'i
Mr. Troy R. Conner, Jr., Esq..
These internal processing procedures do not affect the regulatory standards determining whether a proposed. license amendment involves "significant hazards consideration"; rather they relate only to minimizing technical staff resources expended on deficient amendment submittals and on submittals for which the licensee's request does not provide a clear, thorough, convincing evaluation demonstrating that.the proposed amendment in fact satisfies those standards.
'Thank you for your comment on the " flow chart." Please be assured that the advice of the Office of the General Counsel remains an important input to the regulatory actions of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Pegulation.
We are preparing, and expect to issue shortly, a generic letter explaining in more detail specific aspects of this new procedure.
Sincerely, g
Original Signed Bya L
James M. Taylot Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION: (EDD_0032851 eDocket: File:
JMurray ED0'#003285' TMurley/JSniezek EDO r/f FMiraglia 0GC-Bethesda SVa rga NRC PDR JThoma VStello DFPR r/f JTaylor FGillespie TRehm CThomas EBeckjord J81aha DMossburg JScinto SECY
'*SEE-PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PAGE I t !'l \\
.4 0FC- :TA/DRPR
- ARM /PPMB * :D/DRPR *
)
- Ah
- D/D /NRR
- DIPJNRR
..: {..q
_........sh....
NAME :J g/ c
- Tech Ed
- SVa rga
- FNir.
- JSr
. z k
- TMurley
_____.:..__ g.___
fff/ I /87
- 11/c2d/87
- 11/2 /87
- 11/.%//87 DATE:11
'/87
- 11/
/87
- 11/
/87 i
1 0FC :EDU 1
_ _ _ _ _ :...}
q.
NAME: :V. e lo
. __ : y......__..:.____....___:..__....___.:.....__.....:________....:..__....___:...........
DATE : 4/ J /87
~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. /
/
These internal processing procedures do not affect the regu}dtery standards determining whether a proposed license amendment involves significant hazards consideration"; rather'they relate only to minimizing tec nical staff resources expended on deficient amendment submittals and on submi,ttals for.which the licensee's request does got provide a clear, thorough / convincing evaluation demonstrating that the proposed amendment in fact satisfies those standards.
\\
/
Thank you for your comment, on the " flow chart." flease be assured that, f7.Lthoughthere-have-been-meny-changes-at-the-Nuclear-RegtrlatUry-Commission-a
~
'gsince-your timaat the-Atomic-Energy Commissfon., the advice of the Office of theGeneralCounselremains\\animportantinputtotheregulatoryactionsofthe Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
7 We are preparing, and expect oissueshpftly,agenericletterexplaining in more detail specific aspec s of this/new procedure.
But-per your request, gtiti> _lettar_ Aces-advise _you_ofkthe-Staffis-position on-the-poitts-you-have Saised Thn._ internal-procedu
.hanga is-not an_ appropriate 1ubject-for
'j' Commission-rule-making.
/
Sincerely, j' '\\
l
[
/
Victor Stello, Jr.
/
Executive Director
/
for Operations DISTRIBUTION: (ED0-003285)'
Docket File JMurray EDO #003285 TMurley/JSniezek g
ED0 r/f FMiraglia OGC-Bethesda SVarga i
NRC PDR JThoma VStello DRPR r/f JTaylor FGillespie TRehm CThomas EBeckjord
.JBlaha efy yM g 3 g)
DMossburg
-JScinto
,c
- SEE PRE US CONCURRENCE PAGE I
/h,1 0FC :TA/DRPR
- ARM /PPMB * :D/DRPR ^
- 00 (A/
- ADP
- D/DIR/NRR
- DIR/NRR
..___.___..__b_.....___......___.____________._ ______ __._____...____.______-____.._____
NAME$JTh____._c
$TechEd
$SVarga
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : _h_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
$JSniezek
$TMurley l
DATE :11/7D/87
- 11/
/87
- 11/
/87
- 11/7.4/87
- 11/
/87
- 11/
/87
- 11/
/87
)
0FC :EDO NAME : VStello i
j j
DATE :11/
/87 1
J 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
__J
+
e Document Name:
DUP EDO 003285 Requestor's ID:
CLAYTON Author's Name:
THOMA.
.1 Document Comments:
Ltr to' Troy B. Conner, Jr., Attorney, from Stello i
l i
1 l
i l
l J
o Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq..
The distinction between the second and third categories is straightforward.
If, on review of the materials submitted with the incoming application, the Project Manager can readily ascertain that the amendment involves no complex safety issues, the Project Manager will categorize the application in the second category and prepare a proposed finding that the action involves no significant hazards consideration and will proceed to complete the safety review so that the amendment may be issued shortly after the notice period is completed.
On the other hand, if the Project Manager cannot determine from the licensee's materials that the action does not involve complex or significant safety issues or safety considerations, the Project Manager will categorize the application in the third category, issue a notice of opportunity for prior hearing, and arrange for the technical review effort to begin.
Categorization may to some extent depend on the expertise and attitude of the Project Manager assigned to the project; categorization will, however, depend to a far greater degree on the quality of the materials submitted by the licensee in support of the amendment request.
A well prepared submittal by a licensee that clearly and fully addresses the safety aspects affected by the proposed amendment and that provides a thorough and technically sound evaluation of the effect of the amendment on facility safety can be the most sigrHficant element in determining whether the application will be categorized as category 2 or 3.
In short, the principal effect of the new procedures will be that licensees who believe that the amendment they propose involves no significant hazards considerations must assure themselves that the application materials are thorough, clear, and provida a technically sound basis for such conclusion, with respect to each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92.
After three years of case-by-case discussion and guidance by the staff with respect to the revised Notice provisions of 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92, licensees should understand criteria utilized by the NRC.
NRC staff resources are too limited to permit the staff to rewrite inadequate "no significant hazards consideration determina-tions," and this was explained to the licensees in Generic Lotter 86-03 issued February 10, 1986.
Your concern that the procedures set forth in the memorandum attached to your letter would ainount to a de facto raodification to the provisions of the Commission's regulations, is misplaced.
The standards for determining whether an action involves a "significant hazards consideration" remain those set forth in 10 CFR 50.92.
Similarly, tbs provisions governing notices sat forth in 10 CFR SS 2.105 and 50.91 are y c changed.
Your reference to a requirement in 10 CFR 50.91(a)(2)(ii)(A) is aso misplaced.
S50.91(a)(2) relates to notices of proposed actions "for an amendment for which it (the staff) makes a proposed i
determination that no significant hazards consideration is involved." Under the provisions of S 189(a)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, a notice providing opportunity for public comment on a proposed no significant hazards considera-tions determination is required only for those amendments which the Commission j
proposes to issue under the provisions of S 189(a)(2)(A).
]
Mr. Troy B. _ Conner,:Jr., Esq.
Conner &'Wetterhahn, P.C.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Conner,
Thank you for your letter of Novesber 6,1987, commenting on the staff's internal procedures for processing amendment requests.
l The internal prc,cedures set forth in the memorandum you refer to in your letter were established as part of an effort to utilize the limited resources of the technical staff more effectively, so that those resources could be focused on significant safety issue'.
We believe that these changed procedures can have s
the benefit of reducing double review of amendment requests - an initial review to determine whether the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration for purposes of determining the nature'of the initial notice and a subsequent review of whether the amendment properly ensures adequate safety.
If things in fact turn out as you speculate they could and there is evidence that these procedures give rise to an untoward increase in unwarranted hearing requests which could strain resources, we would not hesitate to modify our internal procedures again in an effort to use our limited resources more effectively.
With respect to the three groupings, the first is simply a traditional screening review to determine whether or not the incoming request contains sufficient information to permit initiating a technical review.
This is similar in approach, but of course much smaller in scope than the predocketing rev'ew of initial license applications.
You indicate that it had been common in ne past for some staff Project Managers to take the initiative of contacting apilicants to request additional information.
This meant keeping the request in a dormant status pending receipt of such information.
The administrative effort involved
~
in tracking the status of such requests, awaiting the eventual receipt of missing information, and essentially conducting a double review wastes our limited resources.
Accordingly for such defective applications the staff will inform the licensea of the deficiencies in the application and will not process
-the request further.
The applicant may of course rectify the deficiencies and refile its amendment request.
This action does not preclude a request for additional infonnation once the detailed review commences.
Rather it is an initial screen _ing stating that the detailed review will not commence until the package is properly presented.
p L
____________________o
s" Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. These internal processing procedures do not affect the regulatory standards determining whether a proposed license amendment involves "significant hazards consideration;" rather they relate only to miniraizing technical staff resources expended on deficient amendment submittals and on submittals for which the licensef s request does not provide a clear, thorough, convincing evaluation demonstrating that the proposed amendment in fact satisfies those standards.
Thank you for your comment on the " flow chart." Please be assured that, although there have been many t.hanges at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since your time at the Atomic Eneray Commission, the advice of the Office of the General Counsel remains an important input to the regulatory actions of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
We are preparing, and expect to issue shortly, a generic letter which explains in mure detail specific aspects of this new procedure.
But per your request, this letter does advise you of the Staff's position on the points you have raised.
The internal procedural change is not an appropriate subject for Commission rule making.
Sincerely, t
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations i
DISTRIBUTION: (EDO-003285)
Docket File JMurray EDO #003285 TMurley/JSniezek ED0 r/f FMiraglia 0GC-Bethesda SVarga NRC PDR JThoma VStello DRPR r/f JTaylor FGillespie TRehm CThomas EBeckjord JBlaha DMossburg JScinto SECY l
OFC :TA/DRPR
- ARM /PP B
- D/DRP
- OGC
- ADP
- D/DIR/NRR
- DIR/NRR l
i
$__f!
IS___!!!___b_______*____________________$f_"!_9)!!___f._"!!!!.____!"."_")$
DATE$11/@/87
$11/M/87
$11/d/87
$11/
/87
$11/
/87
$11/
/87
$11/
/87 l
OFC
- E00 4
l NAME :VStello I
DATE :11/
/87 1
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
i
. s 8
4 Document Name:
- ED0-003285 Requestor's ID:
' CLAYTON.
Author's Name:
.j THOMA
.J i
Document Comments:
' Ltr to Troy B. Conner., Jr., Attorney, from Stello I
f l
I
L 4
Mr. -Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Conner.& Wetterhahn, P.C.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006 i
Dear Mr. Conner,
I Thank you for your letter of November 6,1987, providing comments on the staff's' internal procedures for processing amendment requests.
As indicated in the staff memorandum to which your letter refers the internal procedures set forth in that memorandum were established as par of an effort to more effectively utilize the limited resources of the tech cal staff so that those resources.could be focused on significant safety
- sues.
We believe that these procedures can have the benefit of reducing doub e review of. amendment requests an initial review to determine whether the ame ment involves a significant hazards consideration for purposes of determ' ing the nature of the initial notice and a subsequent review of whether the a.endment properly insures adequate safety.
If things in fact turn out you speculate and there is evidence that these procedures give rise to an un ward increase in unwarranted hearing requests which'could strain resources, we w uld not hesitate to modify our internal procedures again in an effort to mini ize unnecessary drain on limited resources.
With respect to the three groupings, the first s' simply a traditional screening review to determine whether or not the incomi request contains sufficient information to permit undertaking a technica review.
This is similar in approach, but of course much smaller'in sco e than the predocketing review of initial license applications.
You indicat that it had been common in the past for some staff Project Manages to take th initiative of contacting applicants to request additional information.
This meant keeping the request in a dormant status pending receipt of such informat on.
The administrative effort involved in tracking the status of such request, awaiting the eventual receipt of missing information, and essentially onducting a double review is an undesirable expenditure of limited resources, cordingly for such defective applications the staff will inform the licensee f the deficiencies in the application and will not process the request furth r.
The applicant may of course rectify the i
deficiencies and refile its amend ent request.
This action does not preclude a i
request for additional informati n once the detail review commences.
Rather it j
is an initial screening stating that the detailed review will not commence until the package is properly resented as a whole.
l i
)
i i
s Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. The distinction between the second and third categories is also rather straight forward.
If, on review of. the materials submitted with the incoming application, the Project Manager can readily ascertain that the amendment involves no complex safety issues, the Project Manager will categorize the application in the second category and prepare a proposed finding that the action involves no significant hazards consideration and will proceed to complete the safety review so that the amendment may issue shortly after completion of the notice period.
On the other hand, if the Project Manager cannot determine f om the materials submitted by the licensee that the action does not involv complex or significant safety issues or safety considerations, the Project Ma ager will categorize the application in the third category, issue a notice. f opportunity for prior hearing and arrange for the technical review effort t begin.
While categorization may to come limited extent depended on t e expertise and i
attitude of the Project Manager assigned to the project, it till depend to a i
far greater degree on the quality of the materials submittyd by the licensee in support of the amendment request.
A well prepared sub ittal by a licensee which clearly and fully addresses the safety aspects aff cted by the proposed amendment and which provides a thorough and technicall sound evaluation of effect of the amendment on facility safety can be the/nost significant element in the determination of whether the application will be categorized as category 2 or 3.
In short, the principal effect of the new procedu es will be that licensees who believe that the amendment they propose invo ves no significant hazards considerations must assure themselves that the pplication materials are thorough, clear, and provide a technical sound basis for such conclusian, with respect to each of the criteria on 10 CFR 50. 2.
After three years of case by case discussion and guidance by the staff wi respect to the revised Notice provisions of 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92, licen es should have a fair understanding of criteria utilized by the NRC.
NRC staff resources are too limited to permit the staff to rewrite inadequate "no signif cant hazards consideration determina-tions" and this was explained to the lice sees in Generic Letter 86-03 issued February 10, 1986.
Your concern that the procedures set f rth in the memorandum attached to your j
letter would amount to a de facto mod'fications to the provisions of the Commission's regulations, is misplac d.
The standards for determining whether j
an action involves a "significant h ards consideration" remain those set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 and are not change by these procedures.
Similarly, the provisions governing notices set f rth in 10 CFR SS 2.105 and 50.91 are not changed by these internal procese ng procedures.
Your reference to a require-ment in 10 CFR 50.91(a)(2)(ii)(
is also misplaced.
S50.91(a)(2) relates to notices of proposed actions "f an amendment for which it (the staff) makes a proposed determination that n significant hazards consideration is involved."
Under the provisions of S 18 a)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, a notice providing opportunity for public comm t on a proposed no significant hazards considera-tions determination is req red only for those amendments which the Commission proposes to issue under th provisions of S 189(a)(2)(A).
T{.
a.:
-' =
y 8 [;jnsess ,
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lh4 -
UNITED STATES I
.o
,r $
WASHINGTON, D C.20555 f
EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL 1
. FNOM: :
DUE: 11/30/87' EDO CONTROL:. 003285 DOC DT: 11/06/87
. TROY.'B. CONNER, JR.
FINAL REPLY:
. CONNER L WETTERHAHN LTOs
/
STELLO FOR SIGNATURE'OF:
GREEN SECY_ NO:
.' EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
~DESC:
ROUTING:
' REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF 9/4/87. MEMO FROM STELLO MIRAOLIA L STAROSTECKI RE PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW TAYLOR RESPONSIBILITY AND AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE' REHM BECKJORD DATE: 11/13/87 MURRAY
' ASSIGNED TO: NRR-CONTACT: MURLEY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR' REMARKS:
'NRR RECEIVED: NOVEMBER 1,3, 1987 ACTION:
DRPR:VARGA$
NRR ROUTING:
MURLEY/SNIEZEK MIRAGLIA ACTION STAROSTECKI
@'SE"'"
DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE BLAHA BY p 25 N MOSSBUa L
1 L
-j