ML15223A726
| ML15223A726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1981 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105040017 | |
| Download: ML15223A726 (2) | |
Text
z77 APR 2 9 1981 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Duke Power Company 0,
198 ATTN: Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President - Steam Production 422 South Church Street P.O. Box 2178 - Power Building Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Gentlemen:
By our letters dated October 29, 1980 and November 26, 1980, we requested license amendment fees pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22 for your applications dated June 24, 1980 and October 20, 1980 (respectively) for Oconee Station Units 1, 2 and 3. A Class III and two Class I fees were requested for each of these applications.
Your letter dated November 4, 1980, stated that the June 24 application for a Technical Specification (TS) change relating to "operable" is exempt because it was only to clarify the TS, had only minor safety significance and was issued for the convenience of the Commission. -When plant operating experiences or other circumstances reveal that-there is a possibility that a TS or TS term may be misunderstood, it is the USNRC's responsibility to clarify the situation. The operable change requested in the April 10, 1980 letter to licensees was not requested for USNRC convenience. Instead, it was required in connection with the USNRC's mandated role of assuring that nuclear facilities are operated in a manner that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.
Since our October 29 letter was sent to you requesting the Class III and I fees for your June 24 application, the Division of Licensing (DL) staff have completed their final fee analysis for it. Based on this final analysis, they have now.determined that the operable application was pro forma in nature. Therefore, a Class II and two Class I fees totalling $2,000 are applicable and should be remitted to our office in lieu of the Class III and two Class I fees.
In connection with your October 20 application relating to reporting requirements, your December 10 letter concluded that fees were not due because this TS change is purely an administrative action that was made for the convenience of the USNRC because the review staff wanted the Oconee TS to be consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.16, Revision 4. The letter further stated that the USNRC has not identified any specific deficiency in the reporting of generic problems by your Company, and that you do not view the Oconee existing TS as being unacceptable.
Mr. William 0. Parke, Jr.
2 APR 91981 The DL staff have completed a reassessment of your October 20 application.
Based on this reassessment, it has now been determined that this application is exempt under the provision of Footnote 2 to 10 CFR 170.22 because it was to simplify and clarify the TS for the convenience of the USNRC and that it had only minor safety significance. Consequently, no fees are due for the October 20 application.
We thank you for your letters and regret our delay in responding to them.
Sincerely, Prighil Siid by Wm. 0. Miller William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration DISTRIBUTION:
PDR LPDR Docket File LFMB Reactor Files (4)
PWagner, ORB-4 Rlngram, ORB-4 RMDiggs, LFMB LFMB R/F (2)
OFFICEO LFMB ADM LFMB:ADM SURNAMEO bi sVM GC. 1oway.H9Pi il1 er SU.R M...E..S l
.0a.WO il..
NATEO 4/81/81 4
1 4/
81 NRc FRn1 0e01e0) NRcM 0240 OFFICIAL R ECOR D COPY USa -Po0 198o-09-2