ML19350E266

Requests re-evaluation of Class III Fees Assessed for 810319 Proposal for Alternate Svc Water Capability.Review of Amend 18,Item B Requirements Stated No License Amend Fee Required for Response to Proposal.Class III Fee Encl

ML19350E266
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	06/10/1981
From:	Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
712, TAC-52156, NUDOCS 8106170220
Download: ML19350E266 (1)

Text

1

~

TOLEDO

%mm EDISON K2r T

'k RC"G PCWE Docket No. 50-346 F

/C

"~~

[@[,HI=

r

,h

%c-eae f

g,

i.U C

'd'2 2ss e License No. NPF-3

.m H JUN 181981 C"i r

Serial No. 712 1,Q uA maaaa.=.=.===

j i

~

\\. h June 10, 1981 q

.N s

Yl}Q Director of Office Administration Attn:

Mr. W. D. Miller, Chief license Fee Management Branch U. S. Nuclaar Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your letter dated >by 21, 1981 (Log No. 720) concerning fees for Toledo Ei.ison's March 19, 1981 (Serial No. 697) submittal which prop sed an alternate service water capability for Davis-Bess 3 Nuclear Power Station I.

'.t No. 1.

Enclosed is check number 107279 for S4,000.

Your April 2, 1981 (Log No. 688) letter informed Ioledo Edison that our March 19, 1981 lettet to t.he Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (ONRR) involves a single safety issue and, therefore, is a Class III application requiring a fee.

We reviewed the requirements for our alternate service water capability submittal on March 19, 1981.

The letter was in response to schedules and design descriptions of 10CFR 50 Appendix R and Amendment 18 dated July 26, 1979 (Log No. 409).

Appendix R modified the submittal requirements of Amendment 18, Item B of Table 1 in accordance with License Condition 2.C.(3)h to modify the Service Water system backup system by mid 1984 The Amendment 18 letter stated ".. no license amendment fee is required to accompany your response to the aforementioned request." (Item B of Table 1).

We feel this information submittal was associated with the original Amendment 18 review, therefore requiring no seperate fee determination under 10CFR 170.22.

Toledo Edison request a re-evaluation of the fees assessed for our ihrch 19, 1981 submittal and a remittance of the $4,000 enclosed.

Yours very rulv, g

= - -

i QO O ff y d,V RPC: GAB: lab L

enclosure p

cc:

DB-1 NRC Resident Inspectar T

ECISCN PLAZA 3CO MACISCN AVENUE TCLECO. CHIO 40652 810 6 fE/CLECO ECISCN CCMPANY

. om P

.