ML19256B047
| ML19256B047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000480 |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1979 |
| From: | Heltemes C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Anderson T WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901220014 | |
| Download: ML19256B047 (1) | |
Text
.
i.~
JAN 11 ic79 Occket,10. 37.1 50-422 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAlHS POOR QUAttry PAGES T1r. Tc.a !!. Anderson, !*anager iuclear Safety Department Westinghouse Electric Ccrporation P. C. Box 355 Nuclear Center - Bay 415 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
Dear tr. Andersen:
S'J3 JECT : FEES FCR PDA IXTE iSICH REVIE'dS R. Boyd's letter to you dated Cecerber 25, 1970 forwarded Amendment 1 to PDA-3, which extanded tha approval tera for two additional years.
In that letter, he statad that the detailed review of the PCA extension mattars would ba initiated as soon as the staff is inforced by a utility-applicant that it int:nds to reference the RESAR-41 desica. He also notad that tha staff would advise you of the Commission's decision as to. whether a fee would be associatt.1 with that review, as socn as that decision becor.es available.
Cn January 3,1979 in a letter to P. FcGill of Coahustien Engineering, Incorporated, Chairman Hendrie provided that decision.
In su: :ary, i t requires that each PCA-holder be charged the cost of the PCA extansica revicu, en the basis of twenty,;ercent of the cost, as each of tr.2 fi rs t five units involving the ext c' PDA is refsrenced in an application filed ay a utility cr util.:ies.
However, for those instances in..'ni:5 a Fir.al Oasign Approval l'_'A) for the design is tenderad prior to car.-
pletion of the PCA e-asion raview, tha staff will, at th2 FDA applican t's request, include t.'-
- ast for the PCA extension. review as part of the F:A review cost.
I have enclosed a copy of the Chairman's letter which describes the considerations that led to the Cermission dacision.
If you recuire any clarification of the mattars discussed in this letter please contact the staff's ass'igned licensing ; reject car. agar.
Sincerely,
'Friskh-1 -13n-a ty:
W. Kane C. J. 'Hel temes, Jr., Chief Standardization Brancn Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure 790122Cobr
(
[c# 90 t
4
- UNITED STATES
,(*
g NUCLEAR REGULA FORY COMMISSION WASHINGTO'J. D. C. 20555 y
./
January 3,1979
'o *e,e*
C'4 AI R M A rd Mr. P. L. McGill, Vice President q
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Dear Mr. McGill:
Your letter of May 18, 1978 discussed the objections of Combustion Engineering, Incorporated, to the imposition of a fee for the staff review associated with extending the term of existing Preliminary Design Approvals (PDA).
You proposed, as an alternative, that the Commission grant an automatic two-year extension for the CESSAR PDA when Ccmbustion Engineering, Inc. tenders its application for a Final Design Approval-Type 1 (FDA-1) for the CESSAR nuclear steam supply system.
As you know, the Commission has carefully considered the question of fees for PDA-extension reviews on a number of occasions. On one hand, the Commission wishes to continue its strong encouragement of the standard-ization program.
But, as you have already noted in your letter, we are concerned about recovering the costs of review.
Accordingly, the Ccmmission has requested that the staff proceed on the l
basis that approved Preliminary Design Approvals will be extended frcm a three-year to a full five-year term, based upon having each holder of a l
PDA docket its assessment of each applicable PDA extension review matter.
This material would be reviewed by the staff for ccmpleteness, but not for adequacy.
The staff would then conditionally extend each PDA for which an acceptably complete assessment had been provided.
There would be no fee associated with this extension, but it would be conditional in the sense that staff design approvals would be based on satisfactory resol-ution of the various issues to be addressed in later safety reviews.
l Upon formal notification by a utility-applicant that it intended to reference one of the twelve approved PDA's during the extended term, that is, after the initial three-year period of validity, the staff would then review the assessment package.
Such a review would be scheduled for l
completion prior to the tendering of the utility applicaticn.
The cost of a PDA technical review conducted cutside the centext of a Final Cesign Application would be handled in a similar manner to the PDA approval fees j
which are due at the time of tendering of the application.
That is, the PDA holder will be charged the cost of the PCA extensien review, on the basis of twenty-percent of the cost as each of the first five units
' nvolving the extended PDA is referenced in an acclicatien filed by a i
utility or utilities. However, for these instances in wnich an FCA q q 0$0{ D Y
c.
Mr. P. L. McGill application for the design is tendered prior to completion of the PDA extension review, t'e staff will, at the FDA applicant's request, include r
the cost for the PDA extension review as part of the FDA review cost.
Thus, in such instances, cost recover. for the FDA extensicn wculd be in the context of th-FDA fee.
There#.a upon your request - the FDA extension review mat.
for CESSAR could be handled as part of the FDA application review, and the costs charged to the FDA.
L'e believe that this approach is a sensible and fair way to treat the extension fee matter, and one consonant with our desire to encourage the use of standardization.
I understand that the subject of extending the CESSAR PDA, based upon the CESSAR FDA, has been adequately addressed through separate staff discussions and correspondence.
Thank you for your continued interest in and support of the Commission's standardization program.
) Sincerely, F
/
Y Yu e
Joseph M. Hendrie
-