ML19284A411
| ML19284A411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1979 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Herbein J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903060347 | |
| Download: ML19284A411 (3) | |
Text
{' dix en sto,
v UNITED STATES g,
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISs!ON EM WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
{, g - q//
'n
- l g !
w.h. ;
FEB 14 1979 DOCKET NO. 50-289 Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. J. G. Herbein Vice President - Generaticn P.O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Gentlemen:
Your letter dated December 1, 1978, requested that we rereview our fee determination for your Technical Specification Change Request No. 77 dated August 30, 1978, relating to Ring Girder Surveillance Test for TMI-1. Our letters to you dated October 11 and November 29, 1978, requested a Class II fee of $1,200 for the above application.
We have completed our rereview of your application and review of the data provided in your letter dated December 1.
Based on this additional review, we have concluded that a fee pursuant to 170.22 is applicable and that our former Class II fee for your application was incorrect.
The fee required is a Class III fee of S4,000 because the application involves consideration of a single safety issue (the adequacy of the replacement surveillance program for the containment ring girder).
Our bases for the fee are set forth in the Enclosure to tnis letter.
It is requested that your Company submit the Class III fee of $4,000 to this office within fifteen (15) days after your receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, l'
/
- ([
-/ Ic.-
f.pn t a, r.;,
/,..
- / William 0.' Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branc.h Office of Administration
Enclosure:
Fee Justification for TMI-l Change Request No. 77 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED To3bcoy7
4 ENCLOSURE FEE JUSTIFICATION FOR TMI-l CHANGE REQUEST NO. 77 A.
Discussion of NRC Request, Convenience and Simolification:
1.
With respect to whether the amendment was requested by the Commission, it is true that the NRR staff requested in a letter of December 29, 1977, that Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed) submit proposed revised Technical Specifications (TS) for ring girder inspection.
This request, however, was not based on convenience to Commission.
Rather, it was a direct consequence of the wording of the existing specification which cermitted a revision in the inspection program if certain prerequisites were met.
In our letter of December 29, 1977, while we did use the word " request" rather than "suggest", the intent was merely to indicate that Met Ed had satistied the pre-requisites for requesting a revised inspection program.
This usage of the word " request" is far different than the meaning intended in the regulations where a " request" is made "for the convenience of the Commission". In the present case, the real benefit accrues to Met Ed through approval of a less detailed inspection program - not to the Commission.
The Commission has no real intarest in whether Met Ed revises the specification or not; it is strictly up to them and therefore our " request" was actually only an advisory notice.
2.
On the matter of simplification, the requested change wculd significantly reduce the number of pages in the TS used to describe this inspection program and, in this sense, would
" simplify" the specifications.
Again, however, this repre-sents misuse of a word relative to its use in the context of the regulations.
In this case, the misused word is
" simplify", and in the context of the regulations this means simplification of the existing specification re'ative to a fixed safety consideration, not replacement of a specifica-tion due to a changed safety condition.
Further, it is implicit in the usage that simplification is encouraged by the Commission in the interest of clarity and hence, of safety, and not merely for the convenience of one or more licensees.
Accordingly we conclude that Met Ed has used the word " simplify" exterior to the intent of the regulations.
3.
Item 1 above addresses the question of whether the change is for the convenience of the Commission, and the answer is that it is not.
The true test of convenience is which party benefits
d
_2_
from the change.
If Met Ed feels that the change is truly only for the convenience of the Commission, Met Ed can refuse to pay the fee.
In that case, the Commission will not issue the requested action and will allow the present type of annual surveillance to remain.
Met Ed claims that the change would reduce the NRR staff's workload and is therefore for the convenience of the Commission.
We feel that this statement reflects a lack of understanding of the role of the Commission and its staff.
In its proper sense, " convenience of the Commission" refers to the ease and efficiency with which identified regulatory needs can be implemented or mod fied, and nct merely to reduction of review workload.
Indeed, many actions will increase the review workload of the staff, but are nonetheless necessary and are therefore implemented for the convenience of the Commission.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Het Ed's arguments presented in their letter of December 1,1978, rest heavily upon literal word usage which is outside the intent and context of the regulations in 10 CFR 170. Accordingly, we further conclude that a fee is required.
3.
Justification for Reclassification:
In the course of this rereview, we have also had occasion to reconsider our original classification of this requested change. As a result of this reconsideration, we conclude that we erred in our original determination that is was a Class II amendment and that it should more properly be de. gnated Class III.
This revised classification arises because the requested change involves not only deletion of a temporary inspection program, but also review and approval of a replacement program. Accordingly, the change is not pro forma or administrative as is required for Class II, but does involve a single safety issue, viz. the adequacy of the replacement sur-veillance program for the containment ring girder.
Therefore, inas-much as a significant hazards consideration is not involved, we conclude that this change should be redesignated as Class III.