ML20099A567
| ML20099A567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1979 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099A192 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-207 NUDOCS 7903020466 | |
| Download: ML20099A567 (3) | |
Text
-.
- 1 4
i '
e g
[
l' I
DIS RIBUTION:
l JANUARY
'! 2 1979 et File RIngram 1
}
ORBf4 Rdg Memo File l
{
BGrimes h
j l
Docket No. 50-289 TJCarter' RReid
. 1 i
GZwetzig I
4 MEMORANDUM FOR: Willian 0. Miller. Chief. LFM. ADM
-l FROM:
Robert W. Reid, Chief. ORS #4 DOR
SUBJECT:
LIC'ENSE AMENDMENT FEE FOR THI-1 AFPLICATION DATED AUGUST 30.1978(CHANGEREQUESTN0.77)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed), by letter dated Deceber 1.1978 L
indicated that' the subject request for license amerutient should not be subject to a license fee because: (1) it was requested by the Comeission, j
i (2) it would simplify the Technical Specifications (TS) and (3) because its issuance would reduce the staff's work load and thereby would be for the convenience of the Commiission. Based on these contentions. Met Ed 4
l requested that we'rereview our fee detemination. We have perforund such l
l areroviewwiththefollaringresults:
i i.
i
- 1. With respect to whether the amendment was requested by the j
i Cameission. it is true that we requested in our letter of Decader 29. 1977 that the submit proposed revised T3 for rieg girden inspectice. This request, however, was not based I
ce convenience to Cannission. Rather. It was a direct consequence of the wording of the existing specification which permitted a revision in the inspectica program if certain prerewisites t
were met. In our letter of Deceber 29. 1977 while we did use i
the word " request
- rather than "seggest." the intent was merely to indicate that the had satisfied the prerequisites for requesting j
i
%.__.a r.ev.ised inspection program. This usage of the woni " request" is*for different than the meaning intended in the regulations i
uhere a ' request" is made 'for the convenience of the Cosuiission."
In the present case, the real benefit accrues to Met Ed through l.
I approval of a less detailed inspection program - not to the Caunission.". We have no real interest in whether they revise the j
i specification er mott it is strictly up to them and therefore our
' request
- was actually only an advisory notice.
L i
L 2.
The requested change would significantly reduce the neber of pages n "
TS used to describe this inspection prorJrem and. in this sense.
r would "staplify" the specifications. Again. hauever, this represent:;
i misuse of a word relative to its use in the context of the regul.
ations. In this case. the misused word is " simplify." and in the i
context of the regulations this means simplification of the existing t^q
. specification relative to a fixed safety consideration not replace-L 1
c a,, saant of.a namelf h t w h ta a ek== w==<**=,-
w ea--
e-~ -
l Ll
\\.j ll me. >
,........m.m...m.......mm. m.m.. ~... a
....-~~~~~aaa~~amaaa~~~a
,.- ~ ~.aa ~ ~
mmawaa5aa t.
1-enve k
,.m
..aa mm..ua...a a.a...mma aaaaaaa~aaaa*
' a aa amaa a aa a a '
a.aaaaaaaaa"
."aa"
""aaa W M $40(976( M 54 ~
8*.8.******'"'*"*""'******
1 L--
c.:
l 4:j '-
! William 0. Miller -
p
}L L
f t is implicit in the usage that simplification is encouraged by the Comission in the interest clarity and hence, of safety.
and not merely for the convenience of one or more Itcensees.
+
F Accordingly we conclude that Met Ed has used the word " simp 1tfy" exterior to the intent of the regulations.
3.
We have already addressed the question of whether the change is j
for the convenience of the Copeitssion; and the answer is that it is not.. While the staff " requested" or advised Met Ed that it could apply for the change, the Comission has no real interest in whether the change is made or_not. The true test of conveiw t
f
.lence is which party benefits from the change.
If it.is truly.
F only for the convenience of the Comission. Met Ed should refuse e
to pay the fee.. Ir. that case we will not issue the requested 1
j=
action and will allow the present type cf annual surveillance l
to remain.
Met Ed claims that the change would reduce the Staff's wortload and is therefore for. the convenience of the Consiission. This F
statement reflects a lack of understanding of the role of the Comission and its Staff. In its proper sense. ' convenience of the Commission" refers to the ease and efficiency with which identified regulatory needs can be implemented or modified, and j
4 not merely to reduction of review workload. Indeed, many actions will increase the review workload of the Staff, but are nonetheless necessary and are therefore implemented for the convenience of the
[
Comission.
i
. Based on the foregoing we conclude that Met Ed's arguments presented in L
their letter of December 1.1978, rest heavily upon literal word usage which is outside *.he intent and context of the regulations in 10 CFR 170.
1 Accordingly, we further conclude that a fee is required.
In the course of this rereview, we have also had occasion to reconsider our original classification of this requested change. As a result of this l.
reconsideration, we conclude that we erred in our original datamination that this was a Class !! amendment and that.it should more properly be designated class III. This revised classification arises because the requested change involves not only deletion of a tamporary inspection program, but also review and approval of a replacement pmgram. Accordingly, the change is not pro foma or shiinistrative as is required for Class !!. but does _ involve a l
single safety issue, vis. the adequacy of the replacement surveillance program j
. for the containment ring girder. Themfore. inasmuch as a significant l
spannes >
j ense>
N Macu see
..==== ' - - -*a
- =*'***
a'.'**
- 1 1
e s
V
~ l..
, ~
l
]
l' Willi a 0. Miller :
4 I
i haranis considerttion is not involved, we conclude that this change should L
be redesignated as Class !!!.
j l
~,
Sincerely, d
1 4
0 'W.' w-M b'y j
4 1
Robert !!. Reid. Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors i
ll -
I i.
I,
(
0 1
I 1
4 I.
+
4 nM 06..... 4..!..o..o..n.......
ec.o..o..n...
j Hautslo...
.(...............
2!Zd.!.9...........1. R.HM.......
y n
_i