Letter Sequence Other |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARML19317H3061980-04-10010 April 1980
Model Tech Specs for PWRs & BWRs
Project stage: Other
ML19317H3041980-04-10010 April 1980
Forwards Model Tech Specs for PWRs & Bwrs.Requests That Utils Submit Proposed Changes to Tech Specs,Incorporating Encl Requirements,Within 30 Days & Implementing Described Procedures for Compliance within 30 Days Thereafter
Project stage: Other
IR 05000266/19800091980-05-16016 May 1980
IE Insp Repts 50-266/80-09 & 50-301/80-08 on 800310-14 & 0408.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Procedures & Operator Training.On 800408 Meeting Was Held to Review Plant Performance
Project stage: Request
A800028, Responds to NRC Requesting Amend to Radiological Tech Specs to Clarify Meaning of Term Operable.Previous Discussions W/Ie Inspector Concluded Spec Contains Adequate Clarification & No Addl Revision Is Necessary1980-05-30030 May 1980
Responds to NRC Requesting Amend to Radiological Tech Specs to Clarify Meaning of Term Operable.Previous Discussions W/Ie Inspector Concluded Spec Contains Adequate Clarification & No Addl Revision Is Necessary
Project stage: Other
ML19332B0891980-09-19019 September 1980
Application to Amend Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,changing Tech Specs 15.1,15.3 & 15.6,re Limiting Conditions for Operations,Definitions of Operability & Administrative Structure
Project stage: Request
ML19332B0911980-09-19019 September 1980
Tech Spec Change Request 64,consisting of Proposed Tech Specs 15.1,15.3 & 15.6 Re Limiting Conditions for Operations,Definition of Operability & Administrative Structure
Project stage: Other
ML19339C4741980-11-14014 November 1980
Discusses License Amend Approval Fees.Only Single Class 1 Duplicate Amend Fee Appropriate Since All Amend Changes Have Been Provided & Should Be Processed & Issued at Same Time
Project stage: Other
ML19340E9871981-01-13013 January 1981
Responds to NRC 801219 Request for Second Class I License Amend Approval Fee for 800919 Tech Spec Change Request 64. No Addl Administrative Effort Required for Issuance of Tech Spec Pages for Second Unit
Project stage: Request
ML20005A7271981-06-24024 June 1981
Notice of Issuance & Availability of Amends 50 & 56 to Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,respectively
Project stage: Other
ML20005A7241981-06-24024 June 1981
Amends 50 & 56 to Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,respectively, Revising Definition of Operability & Adding New Specs to Address Limiting Conditions for Operation & Inoperability of safety-related Sys Due to Loss of Power Supply
Project stage: Other
ML20009A7761981-07-0606 July 1981
Corrected Tech Spec Page 15.6.11-1 for Amends 50 & 54 to Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,respectively
Project stage: Other
1980-05-30
[Table View] |
Text
.
Wisconsin Electnc m com
- 31 w. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE. WI $3201 November 14, 1980 Mr. Harold R.
Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Ms. Reba M.
Diggs, Facilities Program Coordinator License Fee Management Branch
Dear Mr. Denton and Ms. Diggs:
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 LICENSE AMENDMENT APPROVAL FEES POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Ms. Diggs' letter dated October 23, 1980, requested payment of an additional duplicate fee for the license amendment application we submitted with our letter dated September 19, 1980.
Your request is based on the assumption that a duplicate fee is required for each class of license amendment approval requested in the application.
We believe this determination is in error.
Although the license amendment application may involve both Class II and Class III approvals, the Technical Specification changes involved should be issued in a single license amendment for each unit.
Therefore, only a single Class I license amendment fee is necessary for the single duplicate amendment to the Point Beach Unit 2 facility operating license.
We also would note that the fees required pursuant to 10 CFR Part 170 are charged for licensing services rendered.
Once the necessary Class II and Class III approval re';iews have been completed for the first unit, the licensing services rendered to apply those identical Technical Specification changes to the second unit should be no different than if the application had involved only one class of initial approval.
Therefore, we conclude that only a single Class I duplicate amendment fee is appropriate since all changes in the amendment have been provided, and should be processed and issued, at the same time.
Very truly yours, fd 00%
3 C.
W.
Fay, Director Nuclear Power Department i0 Copy to NRC Resident Inspector 80111s0%
)
t
