ML17165A045
| ML17165A045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College, Susquehanna |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1999 |
| From: | Funches J NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | Byram R PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-MA4726, TAC-MA4728, NUDOCS 9910270009 | |
| Download: ML17165A045 (5) | |
Text
~ v tEIs1t RE0II
~4
~o sc s
Cl
'C O
tfs
/
O~
+~
~ ~ "~O
++**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&4001 October 21, 1999 Pennsylvania Power and Light Company ATTN:
Mr. Robert G. Byram Senior Vice President, Generation Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101-1179
Dear Mr. Byram,
Your January 29, 1999, letter to the U.S: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Items IV.F.2.b. and c.,
regarding the conduct of a full participation exercise of the onsite and offsite emergency plans at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES).
Due to the circumstances under which the Part 50 exemption request was required, an exemption from 10 CFR 170 fees for the review and approval of the Part 50 exemption request was pursued by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
As explained below, an exemption from 10 CFR 170 fees for the Part 50 exemption approval is granted in accordance 10 CFR 170.11(b)(1).
The basis for the exemption request from 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Items IV.F.2.b. and c., is that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region III, asked that the full participation exercise be rescheduled because they had a scheduling conflict which precluded them from participating in the exercise scheduled for the week of November 15, 1999. The NRC staff (NRR headquarters and Region I), indicated concurrence with the rescheduling and asked that the rescheduled date be in the year 2000 to relieve resource demands on the NRC
- staffs, Since the rescheduling would result in SSES exceeding the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Items IV.F.2,b. and c., it was necessary for you to request an exemption from those Part 50 requirements.
Based on the fact that FEMA scheduling and NRC resource limitations caused the need to delay the conduct of a full participation exercise at your site, it would be inappropriate to assess fees under 10 CFR 170 for the review and approval of your Part 50 exemption request.
Therefore, I have determined that an exemption from the 10 CFR 170 fee requirements for the Part 50 approval is appropriate.
This exemption is authorized by law and is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11(b)(1).
The staff approved your request for an exemption from Part 50 and tracked the NRC's review
~ efforts under TAC number MA4762 for SSES, Unit 1, 50-387, and TAC number MA4728 for ssEs, Unit 2,50-388;
~~ py IsptII+Ig, NRC has issued two invoices with charges associated to those TAC numbers as follows:
INVOICE DATE TAC HOURS RATE TOTAL RL0495-99 04/26/99 MA4726 RL0495-99 04/26/99 MA4728 RL0657-99 08/02/99 MA4726 4.5 21.5 50.0
$124.00
$124.00
$124.00
$558.00
$2,666.00 88,200.00 +(~ lt RL0657-99 08/02/99 TOTAL MA4728 47.0
$124.00
$5,828.00
$15,252.00
II
Date Rec'd:
9/13/99 DAFAction:
. DAF-9-205 OC Action:
DAFDue Date:
9/30/99 Branch:
LFARB Action item:
Susquehanna (SSES) Full Participation Emergency Exercise Exemption Request I
==
Description:==
Because the exemption was requested by FEMAand Region I, PPBL requests that the fees to process the exemption request be waived.
Date to KNR:
Ext. Date:
Date Closed:
Signature:
Subject File:
~ \\
\\ 'c
~
k
~
~
1
~
E
I
~ t
i NOTE TO.
DIANAB DANDOIS CHIEF OF LICENSEE ANDACCOUNTS RECEIVABLEBRANCH FROM:
V RSES, SR. PROJECT MANAGER, SECTION 1 PROJECT DIRECTORATE 1 DIVISIONOF LICENSING PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
SUBJECT:
SUSQUEHANNA (SSES) FULL PARTICIPATION EMERGENCY EXERCISE EXEMPTION REQUEST (TAC NOS MA4726 AND MA4728)
BY LETTER DATFD JANUARY29, 1999, PP&L, INC., (PPL) REQUESTED AN EXEMPTION TO ALLOW,RESCHEDULING OF ITS REQUIRED 2 YEAR FEDERALLYOBSERVED FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE FOR SSES, UNITS 1 8 2.
THE PPL LE%1 ER NOTES THAT THEIR REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION WAS AS A RESULT OF INFORMATIONTHEY RECEIVED FROM FEMAAND REGION I (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT = FG). IT TURNED OUT THATTHE FG HADA SCHEDULING AND RESOURCE PROBLEM IN MEETING THE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED ANDAGREED TO EXERCISE SCHEDULE. THE SCHEDULE AND RESOURCE PROBLEM PRECLUDED THE FG FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE SSES EXERCISE AND BASED UPON THIS PROBLEM, THE FG ASKED THATTHE EXERCISE BE RESCHEDULED.
THE SSES PROJECT MANAGER(PM) CONSIDERED THIS SITUATION UNUSUAL (UNUSUALBECAUSE THE FG ASKED PPL TO RESCHEDULE KNOWINGTHATTO DO SO PPL WOULD NEED TO REQUEST AN EXEMPTION-INESSENCE THE FG ASKING PPL TO REQUEST AN EXEMPTION) AND DECIDED TO CONSULT WITH OGC.
ON APRIL 15, 1999, PROJECTS ANDTECHNICALSTAFF METWITH OGC TO DISCUSS HOW NRC SHOULD.HANDLEPPL'S REQUEST. OGC STATED THATSINCE THE FG WANTEDTHE RESCHEDULING, THE NRC SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A LETTER UNILATERALLYGRANTING PPL AN EXEMPTION (10 CFR 50.12 STATES THAT"THE COMMISION MAY.....UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE,GRANT EXEMPTIONS FROM THE REGULATIONS..."). HOWEVER, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN AND SINCE THE LICENSEE HAD ALREADYSUBMITTEDTHEIR REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION, IT WAS DECIDED TO PROCESS IT LIKEANYOTHER EXEMPTION REQUEST.
WHEN PPL RECEIVED THE BILLFOR THE CHARGES TO PROCESS THE EXEMPTION REQUEST, PPL CALLEDTHE PM AND STATED THATPPL SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR THIS EXEMPTION REQUEST SINCE THE FG CAUSED PPL TO ASK FOR IT. THE SSES PM AND THE DLPM MANAGEMENTAGREEWITH PPLAND THATTHE REQUEST IS REASONABLE AND CONSIDERS THE FEE SHOULD BE WAIVEDFOR THIS CASE.
CC:
M. KALTMAN B. DAVIS S. BAJWA