ML19345F595
| ML19345F595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1981 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102180485 | |
| Download: ML19345F595 (2) | |
Text
r N
h&
s* *
- cu g
,g UNITED STATES y
i #,
g NUCLEAR RtiGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 E
\\'
JAN 3 01981
/
h r
- ~*
DOCKET NOS. 50-245/336
/h g
h RB 0 2 FJ3W r Northeast Nuclear Energy Company p
ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil
~
23 u.s.T'MAm 4<
A Senior Vice President P.O. Box 270 B{x' Hartford, Connecticut 06101 r-1 Gentlemen:
Your application dated July 14, 1980, which was filed with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for review, requested certain organizational changes for Unit Nos.1 and 2 of your Millstone Nuclear Power Station.
With this application, you remitted only a duplicate amendment fee of
$400 for Unit No.1 because although your Company determined that a Class II fee was appropriate for Unit No. 2, the Unit No. 2 organizational changes can be incorporated into the Unit No. 2 application dated May 9, 1980, for the Cycle 4 Reload for which you paid a Class IV fee.
On the basis of the information provided by the ONRR staff, it has been determined that the Class IV fee paid for the May 9 reload for Unit 2 is correct, but that the organizational changes requested July 14,1980, are '
unrelated to the reload request and are administrative in nature.
As such, a Class II fee of $1,200 is due for Unit 2 and should be remitted to this office. Although Millstone Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are not essentially identical units, we are accepting certain types of requests for the two units under ~
the duplicate category for one of the units.
Consequently, the Class I duplicate fee paid for Unit No. I with your July 14, 1980 application is acceptable.
If the final review of your July 14 application by the ONRR reflects that the Class II and I fees are incorrect, an adjustment will be made.
l l
For your information and guidance, the following comments are being provided.
Fees for applications for license amendments and other approvals are determined based on what you (the licensee) are requesting to be reviewed.
For example, if you request review of changes which relate to two separate unrelated safety issues in a single application or one change / safety issue in an application today and you supplement it tomorrow with a new separate unrelated safety issue, a Class III fee is due for each of the two issues.
Likewise, if an application involves a safety issue or complex issue and an unrelated administrative change, a Class III or IV and a Class II fee would be required.
Therefore, it is not acceptable for a licensee to file an application for a license amendment today on a given subject and add new areas of review / subjects later and only pay a single fee.
We do, 8102180'/PS r
[
x, 3 0 1981 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. !
however, generally permit more than one administrative change in a single application for only one Class II fee.
This letter is also intended to preliminarily highlight our concern with your September 16, l?80 letter (A0ll62) in which you are applying a single Class IV fee to m;ny applica-tions/ areas of review.
As previously stated, this is not permissible, but l
we will later respond specifically to your September 16 letter.
l Sincerely, i
t m,
William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration l
i i
l l
l l
l 1
l i
l
..