ML19282B896
| ML19282B896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1979 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | David Williams ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903160322 | |
| Download: ML19282B896 (2) | |
Text
,
y-.
[
UNITED STATES
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl!.slON
.. g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t
o
%.... /
DOCKET N0. 50-313 Arkansas Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. Daniel H. Williams Manager, Licensin~g P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Gentlemen:
Your letter dated November 9, 1978, reiterated your previous Class III fee position for your July 19, 1978 application for cask handling approval related to Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit No. 1.
My letters of August 16 and October 19, 1978, requested a Class IV fee for the subject 'applica-tion because it was determined that it involved consideration of a complex issue.
If continued use of the cask had not been requested, the additional, more extensive evaluation would not be required and the application might have been finally categorized as a Class III amendment when Amendment No. 36 to License No. DPP,-51 was issued by the Commission on October 5, 1978.
The amendment authorized one-time use of the cask to allow shipment of the B C test rods before decay reduced their usefulness.
4 Since you have requested unlimited use of the cask, the staff considers the likelihood of a cask drop to be significantly increased if repeated operations /uses are allowed.
Because the consequences of a cask drop greater than 9 inches such as you propose could result in the cask breaking through the floor and disabling equipment in its path of fall which, in turn, could affect the ability to safely shutdown the plant, the NRR review will include assessment of the cask dropping through the floor. As such, the review will focus on all the equipment and electrical circuitry beneath the areas of the cask travel path and the consequences of damage to such equipment. This type of review will involve more than one safety issue and is considered complex.
Your letter makes reference to the " Supplementary Information Background" statement appearing on page 7214 of the February 21, 1978 Federal Register publication of the revised rule which states, in part:
"The processing of an application for an amendment or approval will not be delayed pending resolution of proper fee payment: Provided, the applicant has classified the application and remitted what it believes to be the correct fee."
The intent of this statement is to allow review of appli-790316032A
- y-- -..
L Arkansas Power & Light Co. cations to commence before resolving the fee issue.
It does not mean that amendments will be issued when there are outstanding fee questions to be resolved. The reculations in 10 CFR 170.41 provide that "In any case where the Commission finds that an applicant or a licensee has failed to pay a prescribed fee required in this part, the Commission will not process any application...".
Based on the above considerations which are based on discussions with the licensing staff, we retain our originti determination that your July 19, 1978 application requires a Class IV amendment fee of $12,300.
Accordingly, you are requested to forward the additional $8,300 to this office within 15 days from your receipt of this letter. Again, we empbcolze that if after final evaluation of your application is completed it is determined that it was incorrectly classified, you will be refunded any overpayment or billed for any additional amount due.
Sincerely, h,$
V William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPi REQUESTED
_