ML20003E511
| ML20003E511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Parris H TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104030822 | |
| Download: ML20003E511 (2) | |
Text
Butt aM%
8 8
4'C, UNITED STATES
[%r.g i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S hs; g[@"f- /: g!
4 I
WASHINGTO4 D. C. 2C553
'%,.~.. [#
APR 9 1 1931 e
4 Docket os. 50-25 50-260 nd 50-296 /
1/
/
A'7 U
71 l
e../%^ 0 y Tennessee Valley Authority N
ATTN:
Mr. H. G. Parris
\\$
,D Manager of Power A
iT@\\#
500A Chestnut Street - Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Gentlemen:
In our letter dated December 3,1980, we requested fees pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22 for_ certain applications filed by the Authority relating to license amendments for the Browns Ferry Station.
By wire transfers, the requested fees were paid for all but two of the applications.
You had' initially paid Class II (and I) fees with your applications dated August 13, 1980 (TS-145 for Units 1 and 2) and September 24, 1980 (TS-151 for Units 1, 2 and 3) because you had determined that these applications were administrative in nature.
Our letter of December 3 requested sums of $2,800 for each of these applications because the review staff of'the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (0NRR) had determined that each of these r lications involved a single sa ety r
issue requiring a _ Class III fee.
Your letter dated December 17,1980 (signed by L. M. Mills), provided your reasons for determining that the Class II fees paid were correct
-and not the requested Class III fees. The ONRR staff have now completed their review of _ both of these applications and have determined that:
1.
TS-145 dated August 13, 1980 and approved October 6
-did involve consideration of a single safety issue (revision of a %fety limit for a core operating parameter)'and consideration of an environmental issue (whether the higher exposed fuel, when averaged with the lower exposed fuel from the initial-fuel cycles, might approach 33,000 MWD /MTU or more specifically, in this case, 29,900 MWD /T, and possibly invalidate-the use of the S-3 and
.5 4 tables). On_this basis, the ONRR staff have-
- advised us that the Class III.(and I) fee is appropriate for this application.
- 2..TS-151 dated September. 24, 1980 and approved on February.24, 1981, was properly classified as a Class II because it only involved administrative issues with little or no safety significance.
Therefore, the Class'II (and I). fee paid initially is correct.
- 8104030%
- 10--
- p
~
n:
~'
Mr. H. G. Parris 2
On the basis of the above, the additional $2,800 for item 1 is still applicable and should be r'mitted to our office.
Sincerely, William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration cc:
Mr. Percy Hammonds Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street - Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401