ML20038C374

Notifies That Withdrawn CP Application Is Subj to Fees Under 10CFR170

ML20038C374
Person / Time
Site:	05000376
Issue date:	11/18/1981
From:	Donoghue D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Axelrad M LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
References
NUDOCS 8112100526
Download: ML20038C374 (4)

Text

~

% o cReN RW 1

i NOV 18 1981 Docket No. 50-376

\\

@//

.{0!I 2((1

[

Hr. Maurice Axelrad i

bj MON 33 ESP '_'

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis and Axelrad

-}

1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

.,cu p i%M Washington, D.C.

20036

Dear Mr. Axelrad:

h Ch As a result of our meeting on November 3,1931, we to consider further the points raised in your letter dated October 19, 1981, as well as those which were further discussed in the meeting regarding the applicability of fees pursuant to 10 CFR 170 for the North Coast withdrawn application.

I have again reviewed the facts as they appear in the agency records, and have come to the conclusion that there is no basis on which to grant the relief from fees that you request. Based upon the records, the analysis of the distribution of work effort prepared by the License Fee Management Branch and on discussions with staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(!!RR), the review being conducted was a normal construction pemit (CP) review where both aspects (site and plant equipment) were being evaluated by NRR.

In an October 14, 1977 letter from the Cornission's review staff to the PRURA and in the Site Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0541) issued by NRR in April 1979, your 1974 application was still being addressed as a pending CP review, although in the later stages of review site factors may have been receiving greater attention.

There are two additional factors that, in my opinion, also weigh against exercising qy discretion in favor of your client:

(1) There was sufficient notice of the alter' natives for requesting early site review (ESR), i.e., Appendix Q of Part 50, or Part I of a CP application as provided in 10 CFR 2.101(a-1), because the Parts 2 and 50 rule changes were published in the proposed form on April 22,1976, and in the final form on May 5,1977.

It would have been feasible for PRWRA to request ESR treatment after the 2mm effective date of 10 CFR 2.101(a-1),

I to

$8 (2) The background statement and revisions to Part 170 as published in l

j 88 the Federal Register in the proposed form on May 2,1977, clearly 7

signaled that fees would be collected even for ESR's, as demonstrated by letters and comments received. The final rule published on i

o lN February 21, 1978, exempted from fees only those applications on file which were not previously subject to fees. In my opinion, the 1

j i

gg language authorizing the exemption is unambiguous. CP applications have been subject to fees since the inception of Part 170 in 1968 j

x c-and thus are not included in the exemption.

<./

.* In consideration of the above, this letter is to fora.lly notify you and the PRllRA that the withdrawn North Coast CP applicat'on is subject to fees under 10 CFR Part 170. Consequently, we now intend to accumulate all of the manpower and contractual services costs expended on the North Coast docket by the major review offices (e.g., Office of Inspection and Enforcenent.

Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, et al) and subsequently to bill the Authority for the review costs from the date the application was filed to the date of its withdrawal.

Sincerely.

010C!N.u F' NED BY.

Daniel J. Don @ue,

Daniel J. Donoghue. Director Office of Administration cc: Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority ATTN: Messrs. R. Betancourt and 0. Anglero GP0 Box 4267 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936 DISTRIBUTION:

Actual Manpower File License Fee File PNorry, ADM DJDonoghue, ADM WOMiller, LFMB CJHolloway, LFMB RMDiggs, LFMB PDR LPDR

/

Regulatory Docket File v RFonner, OELD LFMB R/F (2)

..LF.MB A,D,M, hFi gQ OELDg(,,

AMi ADF ornce) sunume >. C.

.QwgA..WQii /19.r,,

.,RFgn[!d,r,,

..P No r 4,

DJDonoghue

..l.1104al. S...U/.\\..,l.8.1......lll(./.81.

.11./.l.$/81 11./j.y./81 om>

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY us= mi-moy NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0243

~

\\

C u

c y

y 3

gr; y

+

n 4-1 Docket No. 50-376 4

Y Y

srt -

~

Mr. Maurice Axelrad

/

fjjg

% menstein, Newman, Reis and Axelrad

-fD M

l r--

1 5 Connecticut Avenue Was ngton, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Axelrad:

[

Y

\\

As a resul of our meeting on February 18, 1981, we agreed that my staff would examine in g ater detail the manpower expended by NRR on the North Coast appli-cation for the eriod October 1,1974 to April 30, 1976. The staff has conpleted i

its analysis an enclosed is a copy of a memorandum from Mr. William O. Miller to me dated March 7, 1981 on this matter.

i i

At our meeting on Feb ry 18,1981, a copy of a memorandum dated February 3,1981

(

from William 0. Miller me was provided to you for discussion purposes. The memorandum indicated tha during the period October 1,1974 to April 30, 1976, j

8,793 professional staff rs had been spent by the NRR staff in the review of I

i the North Coast construction rmit application. Of this amount, 7,113 hours0.00131 days <br />0.0314 hours <br />1.868386e-4 weeks <br />4.29965e-5 months <br /> were related to safety aspect while 1,680 hours0.00787 days <br />0.189 hours <br />0.00112 weeks <br />2.5874e-4 months <br /> were related to environmental activities.

In our meeting of bruary 18, 1981, you indicated that, despite the fact that more than 7,000 hou had been spent by the staff for safety related activities, you felt sure t t a majority of those hours were spent on

{

site safety aspects of the applicati rather than safety issues relating to

[

equipment. Your contention is not sup table by the record. A further s

breakdown of the 7,113 hours0.00131 days <br />0.0314 hours <br />1.868386e-4 weeks <br />4.29965e-5 months <br /> spent by HR on the safety related aspects of the

\\

application indicates that 44% of the hour were spent by the Division of Site i

Safety and Environmental Analysis, 39% of t manpower was spent by the Division of Systems Safety and 17% was spent by the D1 ion of Project Management. As Mr. Miller's memorandum of March 27, 1981 indic s, the review performed by the l

Division of Systems Safety was solely related to plant equipment safety issues.

Based on the further review by the staff, we conclude t t the NRR manpower was not limited to the site suitability aspects of the I ote site. Rather, the review being conducted was a normal CP type review whe both aspects, j

site and plant equipment, were concurrently being reviewed d evaluated by the

}

NRR staff. When we take into consideration all the informat n we have reviewed j

and discussions with the NRR review staff, it is our conclusi that the CP y

application filed in 1974 and withdrawn in September 1980 was a valid CP j

application and subject to the fees of 10 CFR 170 upon withdrawa.

!j i

5 r

r

..a

~

4

,1

.,g i

o 4

Mr. Maurice Axelrad 2

We now intend to formally request the manpower and contractual services costs xpended by the major program offices, e.g., Office of Inspection and Enforcement,

, etc; and bill Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority accordingly for the re costs up to the time the application was withdrawn.

Sincerely, Daniel J. Donoghue Director Office of Administration

Enclosure:

W. O. Miller Memorandum dated 3-27-81 DISTRIBUTION:

Actual Manpower File License Fee File PNorry, ADM DJDonoghue, ADM WOMiller, LFMB CJHolloway, LFMB RMDiggs, LFMB LFMB R/F (2)

POR w/ enclosure LPDR w/ enclosure Regilatory Docket File w/ enclosure RFonner, OELD w/ enclosure W w b %/ F C 3.)

.DELD:

e..

ADy:

ADM:

omcq.LFMB,:ADM LFMB:

.}.

..p

. Vm i ' '

'M

PNo y DJDonoghue SURNAME)

Cd loway WOMil RFonne

• r" 5/.

1, 5/,g81''

,p,,,

SOh81 5/,,

},,,,

5/,,, /81 "o ' *o- *2' nac nosu ais no.comcu c24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY