ML20039H186
| ML20039H186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000561 |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1978 |
| From: | Cox T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Taylor J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111090060 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-515, FOIA-80-555 NUDOCS 8201190696 | |
| Download: ML20039H186 (1) | |
Text
_.
N
- y.
.... 9,
UNITED STATES g* %.,
fb %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssiuoron.o.c. rosss s ;g, NOV 0 71978
{
~
Note to Jim Taylor, B&W
- Jim, Here are pages from a recent SER indicating the Westinghouse resolution'of cold shutdown issue at the PDA stage.
I hope that this might point the way to an i.
ea-ly resolution on the BSAR-205 docket.
r
/
)
l Tom Cox, NRC Licensing Project Manager BSAR-205 Project 4
cc: R. Brockman, B&W J. Lauer, B&W i
s t
e I
i 1
P
\\
4 t
.~.
'..y,
- n i
,> c.
}
C201190696 810403 PDR FOIA MADDEN 80-515 PDR
g...
s
-r DISTRIBUTION 3
NRC POR s
DOCKET FILE NRR READING SB READING
~
FEU 2 9 79 SB CHRON RS Boyd Denwood Ross, Jr.
RC De, Young RJ Mattson WP Gammill Mr. James H. Taylor TH Cox 4 M
Panager, Licensing Babcock & Wilcox Company P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505
Dear Mr. Taylor:
SUBJECT:
LICENSE FEES FOR POST-PDA ACTIVITIES Subsequent to the issuance of the revised fee schedule in 10 CFR Part 170, a nua.ber of PDA-holders have inquired as to the impact of the rule on the review of post-PDA matters. These inquiries dealt with whether these reviews would be subject to fees, the magnitude of the fees, and when such fees would be assessed.
3 In a January 17, 1979 letter to the Ceneral Electric Company, we responded to each of these questions. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information and use.
't If you require any additional infomation or clarification on i
this matter please contact the staff's assigned licensing project manager.
Sincerely.
[4 Original signed byt.
K. Kane, C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Chief Standardization Branch,
~
Division of Project Management
. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
l Enclosunt:
i As stated l
CM mn.
>. s n-t I wwt MLJD )
I 5..
.0P,M,;,$h,.. Mft;,
.W l
/
................Y. l....
THCox:jk C
- s m
...................... ~.
. ~.......... -......
... ~... - -.........
......./.7 9 2/4.,/79 2/4 nac samu m o.m uncu o2e
- =. = = - - - - ' ' * * " ' ' * * * * - ' "
i
5
(
t.'N:T C : :!T;.T Es
().
i.U':LE Ars REGU'.ATORY CO*.t.11ss 0 ?
usN r.cic:4. D. O. 00555
_ *}
" f' JAN 171979
~
Occket.'.os.:
STl4 50-447 STi; 50-531 STN 50-550 D'r. Glenn G. Sherwood, anager Safety and Licensing Operation General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125
Dear Dr. Sherwooa:
SUBJECT:
LICEi.SE FEES FOR POST-PCA ACTIVITIES i
Within the past several years, the staff has issued Preliminary Design
-m Apprcvals (PDA's) for three Gen.eral Electric Company reference system
' designs.
In the course of these reviews, we identified a number cf
- matters for which we would require additional information at the final design stage of review for those designs.
These matters generally have been referred to as post-PDA matters. Prior to issuance of the revised fee schedule in 10 CFR Part 170, which was made effective on March 23, 1978, both the staff and the General Electric Company had found it desirable to initiate work en such activities well in advance of the final design stage of revieb., The principal objective of an early review of such matters was to reduce the scope of material that would have to be reviewed in the applicatiens for final design approval.
Subseque'nt to the, issuance of the revised fee schedule, members of your staff have inquired as to the impact of the rule on the continuing review of post-PDA matters. Of specific concern was whether these reviews I
would be subject to fees, the magnitude of the fees, and when such fees l
would be assessed.
f As you know, the staff's review of post-PDA matters can be initiated following the receipt of a request by a PDA-holder for review.
- These, e
requests could fall into any of three categories: PDA amendments, j
topical reports, or miscellaneous reports and letters. The first two j
of these categories are covered explicitly in the fee schedule, i.e.,
each is subject to fees and the fees will be collected when the review is coc.pleted. The principal difference is that there is a $20,000 upper t
slimit cr. topical report review fees, as compared to PDA amend.1.ent review Yees, which have no upper limit.
I
~
cs)
C
-.--. _ n
.. en
' V O.) Vf D
a l
l
~
\\
.:........;r..::.
^
~. at ee cett er, raiscellar.ee..s re;crts anc letters, is the era 6 - f :L
'.: ' N.-ly :crer ~ cst. of tne ; cst-?CA submi.ttals. Sub;.ittals of t7is
- .Te,.1c.
revietted by the staff, cculc, at your request, be treatec as gart ci tr.a Fun application, even though that application hac not yet cean tancerec.
Ti.e staff t.ould ther, assign separa.te charge nu-bers fce the raviev. cf each sucn submittal and accumulate all charges incurrec during l
the revie.. Mcwever, we would not approve such submittals en an incividual l
tasis; a;;roval would cccur when the FCA was issued. The total-fee fer the l
revien of an FDA applicaticn will, therefore, consist of the lesser of these l
costs incurred curing the formal review of the FDA application plus the intivicual costs cf the review of post-PDA items submitted as miscellanecus reports ano letters, cr the applicacle upper lii.iit specified in the fee l
l scheaule.
In the ever.: that an FDA applicaticn is r.ot filed, cr if you require on incivicual a;;rcval of any miscellanecus repcrt er letter cuts
- ice of the
- cntex,t cf the FCA, the staff will, f or f ee purposes, treat each such submittal as a special project.
In such instances, the fees will be determined i. hen the reviv.. is cc..gleted and will be based en actual costs, i.e., there is no u per lirc.it, as in the case of topical repcrts.
r i
i
!t shculc be nctic tnat certain succittals may not be accccpaniec by a request for staf f review. These situations may occur because a PDA-holcer k' N..ishes tc Les; the staff infon..ed cf the evolving final design, the progress o test programs, or other matters of interest.
The staff may, as rescurces permit, review such submittals and request additional information. However, the costs
=sscciatec with such reviews uculd not be subject to fees.
l l
in a,revicus letter cn this sucject, C. Parr to G. Sherwood, catec l
OctcLer 23, 1978, we stated that your report NED0-24046, " Evaluation 1
Of -c;.. tic Fressure Leads on M.3/6 Internal Cen.;ccents" was exe:pt l
T. u. cces.
Le balieve a clarification of that statement is reg. ira:.
i ld;C-24C43 was sub.r.itteo in res;cnse to a staff request in connection with our review of your GESSAR PDA applications.~ In our request, we noted i
l that the information could be supplied in the final safety analysis report.
l Accordingly, it was cur view that the information in NED0-24048 could be treated as part of the FDA application, rather than as a topical report.
Therefore, we concluded that, under these conditions, our review of this infor: cation would be exempt from an individual fee. However, we should have noted in cur letter that the review of NEDO-24048 would be subject to i
cost reccvery as part of the fee for the FDA. We apologize for any j
inconvenience this may have caused.
i 1
1 l
t
\\
)
4
!_a
~. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _.
9
t Dr. Glenn G. Sherwood JAN 171979
. ~
(
\\,
If you wish the staff to proceed with the review of NEDO-24048, we request that you review the guidelines contained in this letter and indicate the appropriate submittal category. We recommend that, for all future submittals relating to the GESSAR PDA applications, you indicate whether the submittal is for information or for staff review.
In the case of the latter, you should identify the submittal category as discussed above.
If you require any clarification of the matters discussed in this letter, please contact the staff's assigned licensing project manager.
Sincerely, vicinal cicnet h'*:
Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation F
0 1
t s.
bd mis
\\# '
userto sta rts k
/'
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~j wasectos. o e resss i.... keel *** STN 50-561 JOI-All Power Reactor licensees and Applicants with Docketed Applications To Construct or Operate a Power Reactor Gentlemen:
This letter and enclosed NUREG/CR-0181 are being sent to all licensees authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor and to all applicants with applications for a license to operate or construct a power reactor.
NUREG/CR-0181 provides basic barrier and penetration data needed for physical security system assessment.
The data provided in the NUREG is being used by NRC during the reactor safeguards review process.
Additional copies of this document can be obtained from the National
(
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161, at current prices.
Sincerely,
~ '/
James R. Miller, Assistant Director for Reactor Safeguards Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
NUREG/CR-0181 cc Without
Enclosure:
Service List V
- )
C 1
.- Qis,,h,
7 l
(
~
Dabcock & Wilcox Company Jy[,y3 g ATIN: Mr. James 11. Taylor Manager of Licensing Nuclear Power Generation Division P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 cc: Washington Public Power Supply System ATIN: Mr. N. O. Strand Managing Director ( Acting)
P. O. Box 968 3000 George Washington May Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Robert Dorsum Dethesda Representative Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Gonaration Division Suite 5515, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 i
.,'s B. G. Shultz Project Engineer
(
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation P. O. Box 2325 Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Mr. W. E. Kossler ConTnonwealth Associates, Inc.
209 Cast Washington Jackson, Michigan 49201 6
Robert J. Kafin. Esq.
115 naple Street Glen Falls, New York 12801 Mr. B. M. Miller Ohio Edison Company i
76 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 b
}
,- 3 e%
+=e -
ie,-
e-w
-w,,
,. we % -
,,,,*-w+,+=.a.
-p_-
.we.---.-,,w*-
.~<-e--
O