ML20205N781

Requests Clarification of Billing Inconsistencies Associated W/Invoices 0766W & 0767W.Number of Hours Billed Greatly Exceeds Hours Reported in Insp Repts & Lacks Consistency on How Hours Reported

ML20205N781
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/28/1986
From:	Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
NUDOCS 8605020294
Download: ML20205N781 (2)

Text

y Mailing Address j - Alibima Power Company 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 783-6090 R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice Presiden'.

Fhntridge Building M3f)3Mld bOWCf April 28, 1986 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cecrdssion Office of Administration License Fee Management Branch Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

On February 24, 1986, I wrote to request clarification of billing inconsistencies associated with invoice numbers 0624W (for Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 1, License No. NPF-2, Docket No. 50-348) and 0625W (for Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2, License No. NPF-8, Docket No.

50-364). I have not yet received a response to that request.

Alabama Power Company is now processing invoices 0766W (FNP Unit

1) dated 4/8/86 and 0767W (FNP Unit 2) dated 4/8/86. As with the previous bills, the number of hours billed greatly exceeds the nurrber of hours reported on inspection reports (by 522.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, a 47%

increase over the on-site inspection hours reported). There also continues to be a lack of consistency on how hours are reported:

three inspection reports record more time spent on-site than is billed in the invoice (85024, 85028, 85031) and two reflect no documentation time; 85025 reflects preparation and documentation of a Unit 2 inspection but no hours of inspection; it also reflects 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> of reactive documentation without any reactive preparation or inspection; 85032, 85034 and 85036 on the other hand, reflect hours for reactive inspection without eof reactive documentation; 85027 reflects hours of routine preparation end inspection split approximately equally between Units 1 and 2, but reflects 13.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of documentation for Unit 2 and none for Unit 1; 85034 reflects routine and reactive inspection of Unit 2 but no Unit 2 preparation or documentation; 85035 reflects routine preparation and inspection but no routine documentation.

Documentation time for reports containing no violations ranged as high as 84% of the hours reported on-site and as high as 45% of the total hours billed.

Inconsistencies of the above nature imply that the billing is not accurate and that controls in place to ensure employee efficiency involving work for which we are billed and to ensure that hours

• not actively spent on our units are billed to NRC overheads rather than Alabama Power Company may be inadequate.

f'Gg 0605020294 060429 8 (1 PDR ADOCK 0500 P

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 28, 1986 Page 2 As with the previous invoices, Alabama Power is processing 0766W and 0767W for payment. However, I repeat my previous request for clarification of why the billing inconsistencies exist. I trust it will not be necessary to formally conte:,t future billings under 10 CFR 170.51 in order to receive such clarification. ~~']

Yours e t ly, A n R. P. Mcdonald RPtyKWM:emb i

i I

i