ML20003C376
| ML20003C376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07106346 |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1981 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Mowry W GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102280308 | |
| Download: ML20003C376 (2) | |
Text
.. -.. _
p um a
y (h s.,4 ( g f
UNITED STATES o
ph g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I.
FEB 1 1581 j
fn!CO/[D' il FED 191981 m 78 g u.s.ggron &
N)h d
General Atomic Company S
ATTN: Mr. William R. Mowry Licensing Administrator
'U f
P.O. Box 81608 San Diego, California 92138 Gentlemen:
This refers to your November 14, 1980 letter (SHP-2027) to Douglas Weiss, which requested that we reexamine our position concerning the assessment of the $5,500 major amendment fee for your October 9,1980 amendment request to Certificate of Compliance No. 6346.
The additional fee requested in our October 24, 1980 letter was based on the Licensing staff's initial review of your amendment request for fee purposes where it was determined that the scope of review required to process your request should be classified as a major amendment.
Because the License Fee Management Branch has to rely on the technics 1 reviewer's decision as to the review scope of an application, we have forwarded a copy of your November 14, 1980 letter to the Transportation Branch,
-Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, concerning the points raised in your letter. Please be informed, however, that the decision as to whether an amendment is major or minor is not influenced by NRC policy deliberations, but rather the decision is based solely on the type of review effort required by Licensing.
In the case of your October 9,1980 amendment request, it is still the Licensing staff's position that the-application would require a major amendment review, notwithstanding your classification of the request as-a minor amendment. As we indicated in our October 24, 1980 letter to you, Licensing's justification for a major amendment review was that your application presented a "new concept in shipping high level liquid wastes" within separate containers and inserts.
In order to qualify
-as a major amendment review, the application must require evaluation of many aspects of licensed activities where the proposed action could present a potential risk to the public's health and safety. Accordingly, we have again confirmed with the Licensing staff that your October 9 -
application meets the requirements of an application which qualifies for a major amendment review.
G A
Y
%euGk h
Diosyg o@
g
FEB 13 :931 Mr. William R. Mowry As you are aware, the Licensing staff time required to review the application will be carefully monitored, and the final fee assessed will be based on the professional manpower expended, in accordance with 10 CFR 170.31, Footnote 4.
If the final review cost is less than the $5,500 fee submitted for your application, a refund will be made.
Sincerely, A).
U William O. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration
Enclosure:
1 we -
r
+
t
Y
)
)
FEB 13 1981
.s \\ \\ F / 'lo g
t FEB 19193;qe cOI57'*" D General Atomic Company y
ATTN: Mr. William R. Mowry S
Licensing Administrator 9
P.O. Box 81608 i:
C' San Diego, California 92138 Gentlemen:
This refers to your November 14, 1980 letter (SHP-2027) to Douglas Weiss, which requested that we reexamine our position concerning the assestment of the $5,500 major amendment fee for your October 9,1980 amendment request to Certificate of Compliance No. 6346.
The additional fee requested in our October 24, 1980 letter was based on the Licensing staff's initial review of your amendrent request for fee purposes where it was determined that the scope of review required to process your request should be classified as a major amendment. Because the License Fee Management Branch has to rely on the technical reviewer's decision as to the review scope of an application, we have fomarded a copy of your November 14, 1980 letter to the Transportation Branch, i
Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, concerning the points raised in your letter. Please be informed, however, that the decision as to whether an amendment is major or minor is not influenced by NRC policy deliberations, but rather the decision is based solely on the type of
[
review effort required by Licensing.
In the case of your October 9,1980 amendment request, it is still the Licensing staff's position that the application would require a major amendment revie.w, notwithstanding your classification of the request as a minor amendment. As we indicated in our October 24, 1980 letter to you, Licensing's justification for a major amendment review was that your application presented a "new concept in shipping high level liquid wastes" within separate containers and inserts.
In order to qualify as a major amendment review, the application must require evaluation of many aspects of licensed activities where the proposed action could present a potential risk to the public's health and safety. Accordingly, we have again confirmed with the Licensing staff that your October 9 application meets the rcquirements of an application which qualifies 6, O/
for a major amendment review.
Os v
\\l fl v
,A Q)g-q
h-h f
h f
Mr. William R. Howry FEB 13 1981 As you are aware, the Licensing staff time required to review the application will be carefully monitored. and the final fee assessed will be based on the professional manpower expended, in accordance with 10 CFR 170.31. Footnote 4.
If the final review cost is less than the $5,500 fee submitted for your application, a refund will be made.
Sincerely, Ori:inal Signed by V.*m. O.'Eller William 0. Miller. Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration
Enclosure:
10 CFR 170 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File ASCabell, LFMB PDR Matls. License Fee File Matis. Manpower File LFMB R/F (2) (SS & Beth) u LFMB l
o L
I:
omer[LFMB: ADM LM LFMB:ADM LFMB :ADM l
m,#yfeTfs"g
' [lNay WOMi M N i
"'>1 Ascaben:vi -
..?..- 1.8.1........
...?Q/.sl.,...
i ? /. n l.0....
werew rsoosoiacues" OFFICIAL RICORD COPY e
" =
_