ML20215E487: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
| project =
| stage = Other
}}
}}


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.          .
{{#Wiki_filter:.
h
h Esiting Address
* Esiting Address
~' Atbama Power Coinpany.
        ~' Atbama Power Coinpany .
4
4   ' 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Afabama 35291
' 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Afabama 35291
        - Telephone 205 783-6090 R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President Flintr6dge Building AlabamaPbwer tne saut%m entr c s,' stem September 19, 1986 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364
- Telephone 205 783-6090 R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President Flintr6dge Building AlabamaPbwer tne saut%m entr c s,' stem September 19, 1986 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364
                                                                    '86 0CT -3 P1 :03 Director, Office of Administration                   g g' q'NM' , .
'86 0CT -3 P1 :03 Director, Office of Administration g g' q'NM',.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Ms. Patricia G. Norry Gentlemen:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention: Ms. Patricia G. Norry Gentlemen:
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 NRC Invoice for Review of Part 50 Applications By letter of June 11, 1986, Alabama Power Company appealed charges invoiced for NRC review of an April 19, 1985 submittal regarding containment vent and purging. On July 31, 1986 the NRC denied this appeal based on a subsequent review of the issues by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (0NRR)
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 NRC Invoice for Review of Part 50 Applications By letter of June 11, 1986, Alabama Power Company appealed charges invoiced for NRC review of an April 19, 1985 submittal regarding containment vent and purging. On July 31, 1986 the NRC denied this appeal based on a subsequent review of the issues by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (0NRR)
Staff. Alabama Power Company takes exception to this second review in that the rationale given by the NRC does not address the basis cited for the appeal and is an extension of the fee provisions of 10CFR170 to unrelated NRC activities. Specific Alabama Power Company concerns are provided below.
Staff. Alabama Power Company takes exception to this second review in that the rationale given by the NRC does not address the basis cited for the appeal and is an extension of the fee provisions of 10CFR170 to unrelated NRC activities. Specific Alabama Power Company concerns are provided below.
I i                 1.       The April 19, 1985 Alabama Power Company submittal was not an l                           amendment, exemption, relief or other related approval request.
I i
l                           That submittal was merely a notification to the NRC that their j
1.
activities regarding this issue were considered to be a backfit
The April 19, 1985 Alabama Power Company submittal was not an l
'                          request and, as such, should be pursued by the NRC in that manner.
amendment, exemption, relief or other related approval request.
l That submittal was merely a notification to the NRC that their activities regarding this issue were considered to be a backfit j
request and, as such, should be pursued by the NRC in that manner.
Neither 10CFR170.12(c) nor 10CFR170.21 apply to backfit activities.
Neither 10CFR170.12(c) nor 10CFR170.21 apply to backfit activities.
: 2.       The July 31, 1986 NRC appeal denial cited a May 17, 1984 evaluation for Unit 2 in which containment vent and purging was considered an open issue. This evaluation was performed in response to an Alabama Power Company November 24, 1982 administrative Technical Specification change request. The 10CFR170 provisions cited by the NRC, however, were issued May 21, 1984. Thus, they are not applicable for an issue in which NRC closure was granted May 17, 1984. All charges related to the original November 24, 1982 submittal were thus subject to the previous 10CFR170 provisions; namely, the $1200 administrative fee paid at the time of submittal.
2.
8610150333 DH                  861008 ~
The July 31, 1986 NRC appeal denial cited a May 17, 1984 evaluation for Unit 2 in which containment vent and purging was considered an open issue. This evaluation was performed in response to an Alabama Power Company November 24, 1982 administrative Technical Specification change request. The 10CFR170 provisions cited by the NRC, however, were issued May 21, 1984. Thus, they are not applicable for an issue in which NRC closure was granted May 17, 1984. All charges related to the original November 24, 1982 submittal were thus subject to the previous 10CFR170 provisions; namely, the $1200 administrative fee paid at the time of submittal.
ADOCK 05000348 PDR
8610150333 861008 ~
DH ADOCK 05000348 PDR


                    =
=
* Ms. Patricia G. Norry                                         September 19, 1986
Ms. Patricia G. Norry September 19, 1986
                'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission                             Page 2 1
'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Page 2 1
: 3. ONRR arguments that tie the November 24, 1982 submittal to the April 19, 1985 backfit letter are tenuous. The November 24, 1982 submittal did not address containment vent and purging. It merely:
3.
submitted administrative changes, one of which was to reflect the as-built condition of the plant utilizing 8-inch valves not 18-inch valves as the Technical Specifications stated. Additionally, the change from 18-inch to 8-inch valves had been made at the request of the NRC. .The NRC coment about containment vent and purging remaining an open issue was considered by Alabama Power Company as not only inappropriate for inclusion in the May 17, 1984 NRC SER' but also unrelated to the original request.
ONRR arguments that tie the November 24, 1982 submittal to the April 19, 1985 backfit letter are tenuous. The November 24, 1982 submittal did not address containment vent and purging.
: 4. It should be noted that the May 17, 1984 NRC SER was docketed for Unit 1 only. Thus, if the NRC is successful in its pursuit of the fee charges based on item 3 above, then only that portion attributable to Unit 1 should be specified.
It merely:
submitted administrative changes, one of which was to reflect the as-built condition of the plant utilizing 8-inch valves not 18-inch valves as the Technical Specifications stated. Additionally, the change from 18-inch to 8-inch valves had been made at the request of the NRC..The NRC coment about containment vent and purging remaining an open issue was considered by Alabama Power Company as not only inappropriate for inclusion in the May 17, 1984 NRC SER' but also unrelated to the original request.
4.
It should be noted that the May 17, 1984 NRC SER was docketed for Unit 1 only. Thus, if the NRC is successful in its pursuit of the fee charges based on item 3 above, then only that portion attributable to Unit 1 should be specified.
In summary, Alabama Power Company considers the continuing NRC insistence on the applicability of 10CFR170.12(c) and 10CFR170.21 fees to be unjustified.
In summary, Alabama Power Company considers the continuing NRC insistence on the applicability of 10CFR170.12(c) and 10CFR170.21 fees to be unjustified.
Additionally, it is felt that the NRC did not provide in its July 31, 1986 appeal denial any justification for its determination. It merely restated the issues without addressing their direct relationships to the provisions of 10CFR170. Alabama Power Company therefore requests that a clarification be provided to address all issues raised in this and the {{letter dated|date=June 11, 1986|text=June 11, 1986 letter}}.
Additionally, it is felt that the NRC did not provide in its July 31, 1986 appeal denial any justification for its determination.
It merely restated the issues without addressing their direct relationships to the provisions of 10CFR170. Alabama Power Company therefore requests that a clarification be provided to address all issues raised in this and the {{letter dated|date=June 11, 1986|text=June 11, 1986 letter}}.
In order to separate the administrative accounting for this issue from the technical arguments, enclosed is a check for $4,613.00 to cover the remaining balance on invoice No. E0588 through September 23, 1986. Although payment is being made, this matter is still considered to be under protest.
In order to separate the administrative accounting for this issue from the technical arguments, enclosed is a check for $4,613.00 to cover the remaining balance on invoice No. E0588 through September 23, 1986. Although payment is being made, this matter is still considered to be under protest.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Your personal attention in this matter is requested.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Your personal attention in this matter is requested.
Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA POW     OMPANY
Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA POW OMPANY
_he R. P. Mcdonald RPM /J AR: dst-D-T.S.5 Enclosure cc: Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace       .
_he R. P. Mcdonald RPM /J AR: dst-D-T.S.5 Enclosure cc: Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford Mr. C. J. Holloway, Jr.
Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford Mr. C. J. Holloway, Jr.
Ms. J. M. Rodriguez}}
Ms. J. M. Rodriguez}}

Latest revision as of 22:42, 3 December 2024

Requests Clarification of Issues Raised Re Review of 10CFR50,applications & 860611 Appeal of Charges Re Containment Vent & Purging
ML20215E487
Person / Time
Site: Farley  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 09/19/1986
From: Mcdonald R
ALABAMA POWER CO.
To: Norry P
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20215E471 List:
References
NUDOCS 8610150333
Download: ML20215E487 (2)
v • d • e


Text

.

h Esiting Address

~' Atbama Power Coinpany.

4

' 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Afabama 35291

- Telephone 205 783-6090 R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President Flintr6dge Building AlabamaPbwer tne saut%m entr c s,' stem September 19, 1986 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364

'86 0CT -3 P1 :03 Director, Office of Administration g g' q'NM',.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention: Ms. Patricia G. Norry Gentlemen:

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 NRC Invoice for Review of Part 50 Applications By letter of June 11, 1986, Alabama Power Company appealed charges invoiced for NRC review of an April 19, 1985 submittal regarding containment vent and purging. On July 31, 1986 the NRC denied this appeal based on a subsequent review of the issues by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (0NRR)

Staff. Alabama Power Company takes exception to this second review in that the rationale given by the NRC does not address the basis cited for the appeal and is an extension of the fee provisions of 10CFR170 to unrelated NRC activities. Specific Alabama Power Company concerns are provided below.

I i

1.

The April 19, 1985 Alabama Power Company submittal was not an l

amendment, exemption, relief or other related approval request.

l That submittal was merely a notification to the NRC that their activities regarding this issue were considered to be a backfit j

request and, as such, should be pursued by the NRC in that manner.

Neither 10CFR170.12(c) nor 10CFR170.21 apply to backfit activities.

2.

The July 31, 1986 NRC appeal denial cited a May 17, 1984 evaluation for Unit 2 in which containment vent and purging was considered an open issue. This evaluation was performed in response to an Alabama Power Company November 24, 1982 administrative Technical Specification change request. The 10CFR170 provisions cited by the NRC, however, were issued May 21, 1984. Thus, they are not applicable for an issue in which NRC closure was granted May 17, 1984. All charges related to the original November 24, 1982 submittal were thus subject to the previous 10CFR170 provisions; namely, the $1200 administrative fee paid at the time of submittal.

8610150333 861008 ~

DH ADOCK 05000348 PDR

=

Ms. Patricia G. Norry September 19, 1986

'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Page 2 1

3.

ONRR arguments that tie the November 24, 1982 submittal to the April 19, 1985 backfit letter are tenuous. The November 24, 1982 submittal did not address containment vent and purging.

It merely:

submitted administrative changes, one of which was to reflect the as-built condition of the plant utilizing 8-inch valves not 18-inch valves as the Technical Specifications stated. Additionally, the change from 18-inch to 8-inch valves had been made at the request of the NRC..The NRC coment about containment vent and purging remaining an open issue was considered by Alabama Power Company as not only inappropriate for inclusion in the May 17, 1984 NRC SER' but also unrelated to the original request.

4.

It should be noted that the May 17, 1984 NRC SER was docketed for Unit 1 only. Thus, if the NRC is successful in its pursuit of the fee charges based on item 3 above, then only that portion attributable to Unit 1 should be specified.

In summary, Alabama Power Company considers the continuing NRC insistence on the applicability of 10CFR170.12(c) and 10CFR170.21 fees to be unjustified.

Additionally, it is felt that the NRC did not provide in its July 31, 1986 appeal denial any justification for its determination.

It merely restated the issues without addressing their direct relationships to the provisions of 10CFR170. Alabama Power Company therefore requests that a clarification be provided to address all issues raised in this and the June 11, 1986 letter.

In order to separate the administrative accounting for this issue from the technical arguments, enclosed is a check for $4,613.00 to cover the remaining balance on invoice No. E0588 through September 23, 1986. Although payment is being made, this matter is still considered to be under protest.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Your personal attention in this matter is requested.

Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA POW OMPANY

_he R. P. Mcdonald RPM /J AR: dst-D-T.S.5 Enclosure cc: Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford Mr. C. J. Holloway, Jr.

Ms. J. M. Rodriguez

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215E487&oldid=3978209"