ML20031C742
| ML20031C742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1981 |
| From: | Diggs R NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110080272 | |
| Download: ML20031C742 (2) | |
Text
_
.d s
+w I
SEP 2 41381 DOCKET NO. 50-312 D I' s
e i
U
\\gu I/'
h 6.(L As Sacramento Municipal Utility District Z My ATTN: Mr. J. J. Mattimoe T
Od i
Assistant General Manager and q
u $ "$$g'
',5/
.y; Chief Engineer
['
6201 S Street
(/._ d..se P.O. Box 15830 f
Sacramento, California 95813 cd e /
2 Gentlemen:
We have received copies of the following letters that your company filed with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (0NRR) for review. These letters applied for approvals pertaining to your Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1.
4 1.
June 10, 1981 letter which submitted Amendment No. 9 to the Security Plan, and 2.
August 3,1931 letter which was filed as Proposed Amendment No. 79 for organizational changes that were effective July 1, 1981.
Fees pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22 were not remitted with either of the above requests.
Your basis for not submitting fees with item 2 above was that the amendment is editorial and is submitted to clarify the Technical Specifications (TS); therefore, it is exempt under Footnote 2 of 10 CFR 170.22.
Under the provisions of 10 CFR 170, the USNRC may, and does, exempt from fees applications that clearly meet the criteria of Footnote 2.
In cases where the USHRC requests companies to propose changes to simplify or clarify something in their license or TS for our convenience (e.g., a USNRC inspector might request you to submit an application for a TS change because of ambiguous wording in a specification), and there is only minor safety significance involved, the appli-cation is generally exempted from fees. When companies make organizational changes such as yours that have to be submitted to the USNRC for approval (by license amendment or letter), they are not exempt from fees under Footnote 2.
Therefore, your August 3 application is not exempt from fees.
Based on information provided to us by the ONRR staff as a result of a preliminary review of items 1 and 2 above, it has been determined that iten 1 will require i
USNRC approval and involves a single security issue which qualifies it for a omc r >
- - - ~ ~ ~.
~ ~ " " - " -
summe)
.. ~.. ~. - - - ".
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - "
--- ~~~~
- - ~ ~ " " " "
011000o272 810924
" " " " " ~ " " " " "
" " ~ " " " " " ~ "
" " " " ~ " " " " " "
" ~ " " ~ ~ " " "
A o
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom =--
jne.
w-p.
,w.
O
,~
Sacranento Municipal Utility District I I93I Class III fee of $4,000.
Item 2 is considered to be administrative in nature ancl, as such, will require a Class II fee of $1,200. On this basis, it is requested that your conpany remit a sum of $5.200 to our office.
If the 0:lRR staff's final review of these items reveal that these fees are not correct, you will be notified and any necessary adjustments will be made.
Sincerely, original CICned D '
ENeN N. Eiggs Facilities Program Coordinator License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration DISTRIBUTION:
(Qgcket File PDR LPDR LFMB Reactor File LFMB R/F (2)
RMDiggs, LFMB MPadovan, ORG-4 Ringram, ORB-4 m
..LFa%'f@} e omer p
..... ~.
WY9gs
.9ZfM/8T;,,J smun
...... ~. -
OFF1CIhL RECORD COPY usom >>$2-mm unc ronu aia oc m sucu ma