Letter Sequence Request |
|---|
|
|
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
O Wisconsin Electnc ne coumr 231 W. MICHIGAN. P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI S3201 January 13,,1981 Mr. Harold R.
Denton, Director
~:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f
U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 1' Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. William O. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch L
Gentlemen:
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 64 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 This is in response to your letter dated December 19, l
1980 which again requested that we submit a second Class I license amendment approval fee for our Technical Specification I
Change Request and license amendments application dated September 19, 1980.
We still believe that the reasons discussed r
(
in our Noven1ber 14 letter for opposing payment of a second Class I fee are correct, particularly since the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 use a common Technical Specification document.
Contrary to your statement, no additional admini-strative effort is required for checking and issuing the i
Technical Specification pages for the second unit since only a single set of pages is issued for both units.
Although a license amendment cover page is prepared for the second unit, there is no more effort required to prepare and review this l
cover page when both Class III and Class II application reviews are involved than if only one or the other review was involved.
I Accordingly, we believe our amendment fee submittals in this matter are correct.
Very truly yours,
.A r
Executive Vice President y 008 l
Sol Burstein
.s Copy to NRC Resident Inspector
/p sl o 12 co#/
/