Letter Sequence Approval |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARML19319E2711976-04-22022 April 1976
Discusses 760227 Revision to 10CFR50.55a Re Inservice Insp Testing Requirements for ASME Code Class 1,2 & 3 Components. Dates Re Next 40 Month Insp Period & Submission of Tech Specs Amend Reflecting Revised Regulation Requested
Project stage: Other
ML19309B0431978-01-10010 January 1978
Forwards Guidance for Preparing Pump & Valve Testing Program Descriptions & Associated Relief Requests.Guidance Should Be Followed When Submitting Proposed Inservice Insp & Testing Programs
Project stage: Approval
ML19269D4841979-05-14014 May 1979
Ack Receipt of Claiming Exemption from Class III Fee for Proposed Tech Specs Amend 63.Submittal Is Not Exempt from Fee Since NRC Review Effort Is Required
Project stage: Approval
ML19210E0061979-10-17017 October 1979
Ack Receipt of Proposed Inservice Insp & Testing Program in Lieu of ASME Code Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Components.Relief Is Granted,Pending Completion of Detailed Review
Project stage: Other
ML19254F5371979-10-24024 October 1979
Requests Addl Info Re Inservice Testing Program.Forwards Questions Re Valves That Can Be partial-stroke Tested Periodically
Project stage: Other
ML19210E0121979-10-30030 October 1979
Notice of Granting of Relief from ASME Section XI Inservice Insp & Testing Requirements.Relief Granted,Pending Completion of Detailed Review of Inservice Insp Code Requirements
Project stage: Approval
ML19210C4811979-11-0606 November 1979
Confirms Commitment to Submit Revised Inservice Insp & Testing Program & Answers to Encl 1 of by 791212
Project stage: Other
ML19256G4801979-12-12012 December 1979
To Proposed Amend 63 to Tech Spec Sections 3 & 4 Re Limiting Conditions for Operation & Surveillance Stds, Respectively
Project stage: Other
ML19256G4751979-12-12012 December 1979
Forwards Revision 1 to Proposed Amend 63 to Tech Specs Sections 3 & 4 Re Limiting Conditions for Operation & Surveillance Stds,Respectively
Project stage: Other
ML19256G5531979-12-24024 December 1979
Corrected Pages 4-4,4-11 Through 4-13,4-16,4-45,4-47 & 4-56 to Inservice Testing Program.Includes Results from Makeup/ HPI Sys,Decay Heat/Core Flood Areas,Raw Water & Cooling Water & Turbine Sampling Tests
Project stage: Other
ML19256G5481979-12-24024 December 1979
Forwards Corrected Pages to Implementation Review of Inservice Insp Testing Program
Project stage: Other
ML19260D2801980-01-22022 January 1980
Requests Info Re Effects of Valve Lineup Procedural Changes within 45 Days
Project stage: Other
ML19310A3601980-05-30030 May 1980
Forwards Revision 1 to ASME Code Class Valve Testing Requirements Pp 4-5 & 4-6 Re Program Changes Resulting from 790718 Operational Review for Implementation of Inservice Testing Program.Requests Addl Relief Due to Changes
Project stage: Other
1979-11-06
[Table View] |
Text
~
. i a, 7
.I['
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON fh r[.j Q 5 [4 /
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MAY 141979 DOCKET NO. 50-312 Sacramento Municipal Utility District ATTN: Mr. J. J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer ~
6201 S Street - Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Gentlemen:
In your letter dated April 30, 1979, you stated that the March 16, 1979 Proposed Amendment No. 63 for Technical Specification changes relating to inservice inspection requirements for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, is exempt from the requested Class III fee under the provision of Footnote 2 to 10 CFR 170.22.
Footnote 2 does permit the exemption of certain types of license amendments from fees. These are:
1.
Those in fee Classes I, II and III which result from written Commis-sion request provided that they have only minor safety significance, are to simplify or clarify the license or Technical Specifications and are being issued for the convenience of the Commission, and 2.
Orders issued by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204.
Compliance with the requirements of the regulations, facility licenses, and other Comission requests to assure that nuclear plants are con-structed and operated in a safe manner is not considered a written request of the type referred to in items 1 and 2 above because the amendment is not being required to simplify or clarify the license or Technical Specifications nor is it for the convenience of the Commission.
Because your Ma!ch 16 application requires review and approval by the NRR Staff to assure that the Rancho Seco inservice inspection program complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g), it is not exempt from the fee requirements [of-10 CFR 170. Therefore, it is requested that the Class III fee o $4,000 be forsarded'to this office within 2259 100~
790604o1g
k, 5
Sacramento Municipal Utility District fifteen (15) days after your receipt of this letter.
If in the final evaluation of your application it is determined that it was incorrectly classified, you will be refunded any overpayment or billed for any additional amount due.
Sincerely, William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT RE0UESTED i).2!59.'i 01 m
O pm o