L-78-389, Responds to 781129 Request for Class 2 Fee for 780905 Appl Re Surveillance Req for Onsite Diesel Generators Used for A/C.Requests Reconsideration,As FPL Did Not Initiate or Plan to Initiate Appl & Was Submitted Solely Per Comm Request
| ML17206A578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1978 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| L-78-389, NUDOCS 7812290147 | |
| Download: ML17206A578 (5) | |
Text
DOCKET 0 05000335 N.OTES t
'll+..
). 'i REGULAT()
INFOBMATION D I STR I BUT ION STEM (R I DS )
ACCESSION NBR:,7812290,1 47 DOC. DATE-78/12/,18 NOTABIZED -
NO FACIL:50-335 SAINT LUCIE Ol, FLORIDA P()HER 8, LIGHT CO..
AUTH.NAMF.
AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIG,R.E.
FLORIDA POWER 8
LIGHT CO.
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MILLER,N.O
- LICENSF. FEE MANAGEMENT BRANCH SUBJECT!
Responds to 781129 request for Class 2 fee for 780905 appl 0
,re survei llance req for onsite diesel generators used for A/C.Bequests reconsideration, as FPL did not initiate or plan to initiate appl 8, was submi tted solely per Comm,request.
DISTRIBUTION CODE i A0015 COPIES RECEIVED: LTR Q ENCL M SI ZE~
TITLE-. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION FOR AFTER ISSUANCF OF OPERATING LIC 0
ACTI.ON-I NTEB REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME 05 BC dg8 vPPf F
12 I8E 15 COBE,PERF.
BR 17 ENGR BB 19 PLANT SYS BR 21 EFLT TRT SYS 2
1, 1
,1 1
1 1
I I
COPIES LTTR ENCL RECI PI ENT ID CODE/NAME nJ WALE+
02 NRC PDB 14 HANAUER 16 AD SYS/PBOJ 18 REAC SFTY BB 20 EEB 22 BBINKMAN COPIES LTTR ENCL I
EXTERNAL- 03 LPDB 23 ACRS
.1 1
16 1
04 NSI C 1
~AN g tggg TOTAL NUMBFR OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTB 38 ENCL
0
~
0 0
0 A
hP Ih F
4 I
l r
4 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CoiVIPANY December 18, 1978 L-78-389 Office of Administration Attention:
Mr. Hilliam 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.
C. 20555
Dear Mr. Miller:
Your letter to me dated November 29, 1978, requested a Class II fee of $1,200.00 for FPL's September 5, 1978, application relating to the surveillance requirements for the diesel generator units used as the onsite A.C. power source at St. Lucie Unit l.
Our application stated our belief that no license amendment fee was required because the request was initiated in response to an NRC staff request and it had only minor safety significance.
You have rejected that position apparently on the basis that the request does not meet two of the criteria listed in 10 CFR'170.22 as the bases for license fee exemp-tions:
(1) the requested amendments must simplify or clarify the license or technical specifications and this application does not do that; and (2) the amendments must be issued for the convenience of the Commission which is not the case in this instance.
It would appear that you are using an overly restrictive application of the criteria for a license fee exemption.
Your position seems to be that a 1 1 of the criteria must be satisfied before such an exemption can be granted.
He would maintain that in any event, an exemption i' justified if the application is submitted in response to a Commission request.
It is unreasonable to impose an expense upon a licensee for an action which he did not initiate and did not plan to initiate.
He herewith request that you reconsider your position and declare that the subject application is fee exempt.
Yours very truly,
~
ULII1'A~>( Dog(ET FILE C Rr.G Vice President REU:LLL:cf cc:
Harold F. Reis, Esquire 789n~790ItI,"/
RKCKIVKD BY LFMB Dote..I. ~.
Tiii:s.. I. YQ By""h.:D..........
From.............
Cy to.......
AclI'on Cornel
A s
'4ia fg
'h
'f i'
.. 0, SOX 013l00,,',<IIAI'all, FL 3310l FLORIOA POVVER 8( LIGHT COMPANY December 18, 1978 L-78-389 Office of Administration Attention:
Mr. William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee tianagement.
Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Miller:
Your letter to me dated November 29, 1978, requested a Class II fee of $1,200.00 for FPL's September 5, 1978, application relating to the sur veillance requirements for the diesel generator units used as the onsite A.C. power source at St. Lucie Unit l.
Our application stated our belief that'o license amendment fee was required because the request was initiated in response to an i'IRC staff request and it had only minor safety significance.
You have rejected that position apparently on the basis that the request does not meet two of the criteria listed in 10 CFR 170.22 as the bases for license fee exemp-tions:
(1) the requested amendments must simplify or clarify the license or technical specifications and this application does not do that; and (2) the amendments must be issued for the convenience of the Commission which is not the case in this instance.
Ii would appear that you are using an overly restrictive application of the criteria for a license fee exemption.
Your position seems to be that all of the criteria must be satisfied before such an exemption can be granted.
iie would maintain that in any event, an exemption is iustified if the application is submitted in response to a
Commis ion recuest.
It is unreasonable to impose an expense uoon a licensee for an action which he did not initiate and did not plan to initiate.
/le herewith request that you reconsider your position and declare that the subject application is fee exempt.
Yours very truly, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU:LLL:cf cc:
Harold F. Reis, Esquire
~ ~
RQCQ) pp 8~ LFlifg 3/e
~ 0 ~
Cj'
~CEIQII C
~ ~
i
~
P EOP LE... SERVING PEOPLE