ML19259B285

Explains License Fees for post-preliminary Design Approvals. Clarifies Exempting from Fees NEDO-24048, Evaluation of Acoustic Pressure Loads on BWR/6 Internal Components

ML19259B285
Person / Time
Site:	05000447, 05000531, 05000550
Issue date:	01/17/1979
From:	Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Sherwood G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 7901250042
Download: ML19259B285 (3)

Text

'

i; sTATIS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

WASHINc TCN. D. c. ::Ess

'.C'

' f

~./

JAN 171979 OccKet i.os.:

Sii, 50-47 Siis 50-531 STi' 50-550 Cr.GlennG.Sherwood,kanager Safety and Licensing Oceration General Electric Ccmpany 175 Curtner e. venue San Jose, California P5125

Dear Dr. Sherwocc:

SU5 JECT:

LICEi.SE FEDS FOR POST PCA ACTIVITIES

.:ithin the past several years, the staff has issued Preliminary ;esicn Apprcvals (P0A's) for three General Electric Company raference system designs.

In the course cf these revicws, we identified a number cf matters for which we would require additional information at the final design stage of review for those designs.

These matters generally have oeen referreo to as pcst-PCA matters. Prior to issuance of the revised fee schedule in IC CFR Part 170, which was cade effective on March 23, 1978, ccth the staff and the General Electric Company had f tund it desirable to initiste work cn such activities well in advance of the final cesign stace

f revie;..

Tne principal cbjective of an early review cf such catters was tc recute the sccpe of T.aterial that wculo have to ce reviet.ed ir the applicaticns fcr final desicn approval.

Subsaquent to the. issuance of the revised fee schedule, members cf ycur staff have inc,uired as to the irpact of the rule on the continuing review cf post-PDA matters. Of specific concern was whether these reviews woulc be subject to fees, the magnitude of the fees, and when such fees would be assessed.

As you know, the staff's review of post-PDA matters can be initiated followinc the receipt of a request by a PDA-holder for review.

These requests coula fall into any of three categcries: PDA acendments, tcpical reports, or miscellaneous reports and letters. The first two cf these cateccries are coverec explicitly in the fee schedule, i.e.,

each is subject to fees and the fees will be cc!1ected wnen the review is ccc.pieted. Tr.e principal difference is that there is a S20,CCO upcer

'..it cr. tcpical re;crt review fees, as cc7 pared tc FC A a.Terd.snt res ie.,-

fees, t.hich have no upper limit.

Mc9 767)k

o

~. ',i :.' ci ig'r., tiscella.r e..s re;crts drd le :ers, is the :,

c

. n e.,.,....:.-

s

.we a.

,... i..e.

.e, +. 4... i..e.-.

...m..a. u.

.e r.

.,s..c reviet ec by the staff, cculc, at yace request, be trea e:

ar; cf tne F.n applicatica, e en thcc;n that acplicaticn nac nct ye: ceen m

.;..arec.

Th e s t a " 5.o ul d tl.e n a s s i g r. s e; a rs.t e c'ia r;e n u '.'e rs f c.- t h e c:. ie cf e29. sucn 3;b.-ittal anc accucul ate all cnarges 'ncurrec during tr.e re vie...

Mc.ever, we..culd not a; prove such submittals en an inciviceal

. asis; a;;rev21..culd cccur

5. hen the FCA was issuec. Tr.e O ct al-f ee f e r - n c re<;es. of an FDA sp;licaticn will, therefore, ccnsist of the lesser cf tr.cse costs incarreo curing the fccmal review of the FCA applicaticr plus the ir.civicual costs of the review of post-FDA items submittec as miscellanecus

-1;;r:s arc letters,-cr :he ap;licacle upper liinit specifiec ir the fee scnecule.

I-the event tr.at an FCA a;;1ica*icn is r.o: filec, cr if you recuire an

.ci.icaal a;;rcval cf any r..iscellar. ecus rcpcrt cr letter cuts' ice of the

nte c cf the FCs., the staff will, fcr f ee purpcses, treat ecch such submittal as a s,;ecial ;rcject.

In such instances, the fees :ill be cetermined.. hen

r.e rc. ; t...

s cc cle:ec anu..ill be asec cn actual ccs:s, i.e., there is no

.a e r !

i t, as in the case of tcpical rescrts.

shculc be nct-c tnat certain sur.it:als may not be accc.:.;aniec by a rez;es; for s:aff review.

These situaticns may cccur because a PDA-hcicer

. ; i.es c r.eep the staff infer..ec cf the evolvins final cesi;r., the ;rocress cf test prcgrams, or cther matters of interest.

The staff may, as rescurces permit, revie.. such suc.:.ittals anc request ac'diticr.al infor.catien. Ect.ever, the ccsts

ssccia

ec..ith such reviews t.'cuid not ce subject tc fees.

a,res:cus le::er cn Inis sucject, C. Parr to G. Sher.ccd, ca:ec Cctcter 23, 1978, t.e stated that ycur report.NE 0-2c045, "Evaluatice u

.........,..,.<=..~c.se....,i.:

~.. <

,r

-a

=

, e..,.,,.,... s....e e....

.~...-;.

r : t, : c c..,., :

....c.

.c.; c... 4s a

.ce:.

..u

.c u.

r.

e c

.s c d..-24 c; i.as subr.ittec in res;cr,sa tc a staff request in conhecticn with cur review of ycur GESSAR FDA appliccticrs.

In our request, we noted that the information could be supplied in the final shfety analysis repcrt.

Acccraingly, it was cur view that the infcrmation in NEDD-24048 could be treatec as part of the FDA application, rather than as a tcpical re;crt.

Theref:re, we concluced that, or cer these conditiens, cur review of this infor:ca: ion woulc be exempt f rca an incividual fee. However, we should have r;c:ec in cur letter that the review of NECO-2dO48 would be subject to ces reccvery as part of the fee fer the FCA. he apologice for any inconvenience this may have caused.

6

a Dr. Glenn G. Sherwood I-JAN 171979 If you wish the staff to proceed with the review cf NED0-24043, we request that you review the guidelines contained in this letter and indicate the appropriate submittal category. We recommend that, for all future submittals relating to the GESSAR PDA applications, you indicate whether the submittal is for information or for staff review.

In the case of the latter, you should identify the submittal category as discussed above.

If you require any clarification of the matters discussed in this letter, please contact the staff's assigned licensing project manager.

Sincerely, cri;1:ni sicsed tr; Roger S. 5 yd, Director 1

Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear.leactor Regulation

..