ML20082Q448

Requests Refund for Overpaid License Amend Approval Fees Re Steam Generator Replacement

ML20082Q448
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/05/1983
From:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
NUDOCS 8312120192
Download: ML20082Q448 (2)

Text

o lHsconsin Electnc nwencouraur 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 December 5, 1983 Mr. W. O. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

( DOCKET NO. 50-266 REFUND OF LICENSE AMENDMENT AFPROVAL FEES POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 Your letter dated November 10, 1983 requested that Wisconsin Electric Power Company remit a sum of $1,200 to complete a Class V fee for review and approval of our license amendment applications dated May 27, 1982 and July 5, 1983 relating to steam generator replacement at our Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1.

In our review of the past fee payments and correspondence regarding these applications and the requirements of 10 CFR 170.22, it appears to us that we have, in fact, overpaid fees for this review.

Therefore, we hereby request a refund of $12,300 for the reasons detailed below.

Our original letter concerning steam generator replacement at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, dated May 27, 1982 did not include a 10 CFR 170 fee since we had concluded at that time that NRC approval of our proposed action was not necessary in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. In a letter dated July 6, 1982 from Mr. R. A. Clark, we were advised that our determination that steam generator replacement could proceed without prior NRC approval was incorrect and that associated fees for the NRC review of the May 27, 1982 letter, which would thereafter be treated as a license amendment application, should be forwarded.

In a letter dated July 22, 1982, we provided additional information concerning our steam generator replacement plans and submitted what we had determined was the appropriate Class III amendment review and approval fee ($4,000). By letter dated October 29, 1982, Ms. Reba Diggs of your staff declared that the NRC staff had decided that since this review would involve consideration of several safety issues and include the issuance of an extensive environmental impact appraisal, a Class IV fee ($12,300) was proper.

We subsequently provided as an enclosure to our letter dated November 23, 1982 the additional $8,300 payment for this fee.

0hk B312120192 831205 PDR ADGCK 05000266 l P PDR

9 Mr.-W..O. Miller December 5, 1983 On July 5, 1983-we transmitted Technical Specification Change Request No. 90 associated with the steam generator replacement at Point Beach, Unit-1. Based on our understanding of previous NRC staff advice, we submitted a separate Class IV fee ($12,300) with this application although the revisions proposed in that Technical Specification change request were directly associated with.the steam generator replacement. In your November 10, 1983 letter, you indicate that the July 5, 1983 submittal has been

' determined to be a supplement to the original May 27, 1982 application.

Accordingly, the Class IV fee submitted with the July 5, 1983 l Technical Specification change request was neither necessary nor appropriate and should be refunded.

[ .You subsequently argue in the November 10 letter that because the review of these submittals involved the issuance of anLEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) a Class V fee of $25,800 should be applied. We maintain, and, in fact, the NRC staff supported the contention until very late in the review process, that an EIS was not required by law for this specific steam generator replacement action. .The'NRC decision to prepare an EIS, when such action was not required, is not relevant to the determination of the applicable fee under 10 CFR-170.22 and contradicts the determination reached in your october 29, 1982 letter. We believe that a single Class IV amendment approval fee is indeed appropriate for this application and, as noted above, that instead of the remittance of an additional payment,'a refund of payments already tendered is in order.

Very truly yours, t .

l l(Q .

Vice President-Nuclear Power C . . W. Fay Copy to NRC Resident Inspector

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _