ML20138H606
| ML20138H606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1997 |
| From: | Asmussen K GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| To: | Messier R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138H596 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705070230 | |
| Download: ML20138H606 (1) | |
Text
- _
hCEN:RALATDhNCE
()75/M 6, '
February 26,1997 696-2687 D7 In -3 F3 3: 20 Ms. Rita. Messier Mail Stop 9 E10 License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch Office of the Controller i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Docket No.70-734; SNM-696: Questioning S 70,513 ofInvoiced Amounts
References:
- 1) Asmussen, Keith E. Letter No. 696-2427 to Mr. Robert C. Pierson," Submittal of Decommissioning Plan for General Atomics' Hot Cell Facility and Request for its Approval," dated July 6,1995. (a.k.a " Request Dated 07/06/95")
- 2) NRC Invoice No: JR0175-96, dated 11/03/95 in the Amount of $ 10,498.
- 3) NRC Invoice No: JR0261-96, dated 01/22/96 in the Am'ount of $ 25,410.
- 4) NRC Invoice No: JR0475-96, dated 04/29/96 in the Amount of $ 11,331.
- 4) NRC Invoice No: JR0622-96, dated 07/22/96 in the Amount of $ 21,909.
l
- 6) NRC Invoice No: FL0078-97, dated 10/28/96 in the Amount of $ 6,540.
- 7) NRC Invoice No: FLO303-97, dated 01/20/97 in the Amount of $ 33,057.
Dear Ms. Messier:
By letter dated July 6,1995, General Atomics (GA) submitted for NRC approval, a decom-missioning plan for GA's Hot Cell Facility (Ref.1). In January 1997, GA received the second invoice generated by this request, NRC Invoice No. JR0261-96, dated January 22,1996, for $25,410.
The invoice indicated that the costs were for work performed by NRC plus " Contract Cost" in reviewing " Request Dated 07/06/95." At that time, while substantial, and somewhat more than expected, this amount (plus the previously billed amount of $10,498) appeared to be reasonable for a complete review and approval of such a plan. However, this second invoice was not the final one --
instead it wrs just one of the six (6) invoices GA has received to-date for " Request Dated 07/06/95" (Refs. 2-6). The review was completed and the plan approved in November 1996. As of January 20, 1997, GA has been invoiced and has paid a total of $108,745 for " Request Dated 07/06/95." There clearly is some mistake. It simply is not possible tojustify that amount of cost for the review and approval of the subject plan. Further, of the total amount invoiced to GA, $70,513 is identified only as " Contractor Costs," with no further explanation for what GA was being asked to pay. (Billings of that magnitude shou!d be accompanied by adequate explanation justifying the costs.) GA suspects that the subject contractor costs were somehow mistakently associated with GA's " Request Dated 07/06/95."
l l
In view of the above, GA requests that the costs, especially the " Contractor Costs," for which GA has been billed (and has paid) for review and approval ofits Hot Cell Facility Decommissioning Plan (i.e.," Request Dated 07/06/95) be reexamined for accuracy and applicability (Refs. 2-6). If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate contact me at (619) 455-2823.
j Very truly yours, Dr. Keith E. Asmussen, Director Licensing, Safety and Nuclear Compliance 9705070230 970422 PDR ADOCK 07000734 I
C PDR z
3550 GENERAL ATOMICS COURT, SAN DIEGO. CA 921211194 P.O BOX 85608. SAN DIEGO CA 92186 9784 (619)455 3000 l
l