ML19261B636

Justifies Exemption from License Amend Fee for Tech Spec Change.Addresses Several Points in Footnote 2 to Table of Amend Fees Schedule.Reserves Right to Request Refund of $4,000 Fee

ML19261B636
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	02/21/1979
From:	Whitmer C GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-11158, NUDOCS 7902280310
Download: ML19261B636 (2)

Text

Georgia Power Company 230 Peachtree Street Post Othce Don 4545 Atlanta. Geortra 30303 Telephone 404 522 #4 60-February 21, 1979 q

h Georgia Power Chas. F. Whitmer V co Peacert Engmeering N v 'oth m * * * * >. '

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 170 Gentlemen:

The December 22, 1978, letter from the License Fee Management Branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested payment of a

$4,000 fee for a proposed change to the Unit 2 Technical Specifications submitted by our December 1, 1978, letter.

Our licensing representative subsequently discussed this matter with a representative of the License Fee Management Branch and with the Commission's Hatch Project Manager in order to gain some understanding of the rati7pele for requiring a fee for the submittal on building settlement.

However, after having the basis for the Commission's determination explained to our licensing representative, Georgia Power Company does not believe a correct determination has been made by the Commission. We present the following information as justification for not being subject to the license amendment fees for this change:

Quoting from footnote 2 to the table of facility license amendment fees schedule, " Class I, II, or III amendments which result from a written Commission request for the application may be exempt from fees when the amendment is to simplify or clarify license or technical speci-fications; the amendment has only minor safety significance, and is issued for the convenience of the Commission". Addressing each point in the footnote:

1.

The Technical Specifications issued by the Commission with the June 13, 1978, letter granting an operating license for Unit 2 contained a request for submittal of differential building settlement values by November 1,1978; this date was extended to December 1,1978, and the request was answered by the subject submittal.

2.

The proposed amendment addresses a single safety issue, and is a Class III amendment, as confirmed by your December 22, 1978, letter.

3.

The amendment clarifies the Technical Specification requirements on building settlement by inserting values for differential g

(N -

settle =ent in addition to existing values on total settlement.1 790228O'S/d 9#e, 0

i.,4L-r

GeorgiaPower1 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation February 21, 1979 Page 2 4.

Our review, attached to the December 1, 1978, submittal, has confirmed that the subject of building settlement Technical Specifications has only minor safety significance.

5.

The issuance of the specification is clearly for the con-venience of the Commission; we do not desire the imposition of an unnecessary specification and only submitted the proposal to comply with the Technical Specification requirement issued with the Operating License.

We believe the information presented shows that the proposed amend-ment qualifies for exemption in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 170.22.

Therefore, we request a determination by the Commission that this amendment is exempt from the fee requirements in that regulation.

We are subm:.tting a payment of $4,000 to the NRC License Fee Management Branc'a, reserving our rights to request this exemption and a

~

refund. A copy of this letter is also being forwarded to the License Fee Management Branch.

Yours very truly, rP C 'f c

r, IQ/

/

/

MWf

'F W

Chas. F. Whitmer RDB/mb xc: NRC License Fee Management Branch

^TTN:

Reba Diggs (w/$4,000 check)

Ruble A. Thomas George F. Trowbridge, Esquire