ML19345G843
| ML19345G843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck, Millstone File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1981 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104220494 | |
| Download: ML19345G843 (3) | |
Text
f*1 gl e
o UNITED STATES 3
. [} )er NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- / '
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
\\.'.u.../
APR 15 581 Docket Nos. 50-245 50-336 /
50-213 y Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Vice President P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Gentlemen:
We have completed our review of your application / letters dated September 16, 1980 and February 13, 1981, relating to fees pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22 for certain applications for Millstone 1 and 2 and Haddam Neck.
Prior to addressing specific applications and their fees, we would like to respond to the issue raised in your February 13 letter regarding the applicability of Class IV to many applications /
areas of reviews.
The fee provision relating to Class IV clearly permits more than one safety environmental, or other issue or several changes of a Class III type in a single application as a Class IV fee.
Licensees can also revise or supplement pending applications without paying additional fees as long as the revision or supplement does not add new areas or items of review that were not a part of the original application. While there are many letters from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (0NRR) to licensees as a result of the TMI accident, it is our understanding that they are generally letters covering different aspects of the nuclear plants and that such letters are sent as new concerns and developments arise in the area of safety. It is recognized that more than one request for data on a given system or area of review (e.g., auxiliary feedwater system-AFWS) might be necessary because of the discovery of further problems with the system or the development of new criteria and/or new safety-related requirements.
We understand from the ONRR review staff that many times a given situation might require imediate action by them and the licensee and later subsequent action which is additional or reflects slightly different requirements as a result of completion of a more in-depth study and review of the given situation.
Therefore, it is not always possible for them to make a single request to licensees all-inclusive.
Let us assure you that changes and additions in USNRC requirements are not for the purpose of collecting additional or unreasonable fees, but rather are required in connection with the USNRC's mandated role of assuring that nuclear facilities are operated in a manner that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.
g10422 M P
Mr. W. G. Counsil 2
APR 15 E8; The following comments relate to applications referenced in your September 16, 1980 letter / application, as well as the September 16 application itself:
1.
Millstone 2 application dated May 20, 1980, on AFWS - This application has been reassessed from a fee standpoint and it is still considered to have involved review of a single safety issue that was not related to the unit's Cycle 4 reload nor the detailed review of the safety grade instrumentation system required to automatically initiate the AFWS which was the subject of 0NRR's letter dated July 2,1980 to licensees..The My 20, 1980 application and your March 31, 1980 AFWS filing were related to ONRR review of responses to their short and long term recommendations addressed in a letter to your Company dated October 22, 1979, on reliability of the Millstone 2 AFWS. This review was completed and is reflected in the Safety Evaluation by ONRR that was issued with Amendment No. 63 on January 14, 1981.
We consider the Class III fee of $4,000 as applicable and still due for this application.
2.
Millstone 2 application dated May 21, 1980, on " operable" - This application was approved by the ONRR staff on November 19, 1980, as Amendment No. 62.
Although it is as a result of DNRR's letter dated April 10, 1980, stemming from TMI, it is a separate issue vhich has been determined to have been administrative in nature; therefore, a Class II fee is applicable and should be remitted to this office.
3.
Haddam Neck - Application dated August 27, 1980, in response to ONRR's letter dated July 2,1980, as currently filed is acceptable as a Class IV.
When other Technical Soecifications are proposed for Haddam Neck on other subjects such as water level over fuel assemblies (ONRR's August 15, 1980 letter) and the decay heat removal system (0NRR's June 11, 1980 letter), they will be assessed fees according to the issue (s) in each particular application.
4.
Millstone 1 and 2 and Haddam Neck application dated September 16, 1980 - This application, as currently filed for Millstone Units 1 and 2, is being accepted as a Class IV for Unit 2 and Class I for Unit 1 based on ONRR's preliminary review of it. Although Millstone 1 and 2 are not identical units, we have been advised by the ONRR review staff that the changes in this application for Unit 1 are only administrative items; therefore, the duplicate fee of $400 for Unit 1 is being accepted as applicable for this application as currently filed.
The ONRR staff has determined that the Haddam Neck proposed Technical Speci-fication changes contained in Attachment 1 of the September 16 application are acceptable as a supplement to the August 27, 1980 application for which the licensee paid a Class IV fee.
l l
l l
l 1
l l
Mr. W. G. Counsil 3
APR 151991 On the basis of the above, it is requested that your Company remit a sum of
$5,200 to this office within 15 days after your receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, f
\\\\<
N William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED l
- - - - -