ML20003C795
| ML20003C795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1981 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Cavanaugh W ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103180390 | |
| Download: ML20003C795 (2) | |
Text
.c a
a M
O e-a
- r-o D CC ht.,k FE3 20 "d' VG c,
d Cocket Nos. 50-313 and 50-363 Arkansas Power & Light Company ATTN: iir. William Cavanaugh III Vice President, Generation and Construction P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Gentlemen:
We have received copies of the following applications which your fiyapany filed with the Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation (0NRR) for review.
Each application provides Technical specifications requested by the OriRR staf f's letters dated April 10, 1980, pertaining to the definition of operable for your Arkansas Nuclear One plant:
1.
Application dated August 13, 1980, for Unit No. 2 which included a Class III fee of 34,000 pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22.
2.
Application dated November 28, 1980, for Unit No. I which did not include fees. You determined that no fee is required because the changes are merely clarification of the current Technical specifications, they have only minor safety significance, and will be issued for the convenience of the Commission.
Based on information proviceu by the ONRR staff as a result of preliminary reviews of these applications, the following fee deteminations have been rade for the above applications:
1.
Item 1 for Unit No. 2 is considered to be pro forma anc l
administrative in nature. Consequently, it only requires l
a Class II fee of $1,200 in lieu of the $4,000 that was paid. For Unit No. 2, a refund of $2,800 is due.
2.
Item 2 for Unit No.1 is considered to involve a single safety issue which requires a Class III fee of 54,000.
The ONRR staff-also informed us that the difference in fee classes for your two Arkansas Nuclear One units is due to the differences in the Technical Specifications for each plant which make the ONRR review requirements dif ferent.
~ f ] elos18 W 0
- n.
.u--
b y
e s
- E~. When applications for license atendments or other approvals are requested by the USNRC for the purpose of enhancing the safe operation of a nuclear facility or to correct a problem or potential problem relating to operation (suen es assuring safety systen availability and performance, and/or for procedures), they are not exempt from the fee requirecents of 10 CFR 170.22 unless specifically ordered by the USNRC pursuant to 10 CFR 2.234. On this basis, licensees are being requested to pay fees for the applications in response to the April 101%t.ers.
Although the purpose of the " operable" change was stated to be of a clarifying r.ature on page 1 of the April 10 letter, we have been advised by the ONRR review staff that the underlying reason is that of assuring safety system availability as stated on page 2 of that sare letter. Therefore, this requested change is not considered a USMRC convenience matter, but is required in connection with the USNRC's mandated role of assuring that nuclear facilities are operated in the safest possible canner.
Rather than refunding your Corpany the sun of $2,300, we are applying it to the
~
54,000 dJe for item 2 above, and we request that your Cogany remit an additional sum of $1,200 to this office to complete the total due for item 2.
We hope your Cowany finds this transaction to be acceptable.
If the final reviews of these applications by the CNRR staff reveal that these fees are incorrect, an adjustrent will be made.
Sincerely, William O. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration Distribution:
POR (2)
LFMB/RF - 2 LPDR(2)
Regulatory Docket File (Record cpy.)
LFFS Reactor Files (3)
RMartin, ORB-3 PKreutzer, ORB-3 GVissing, ORS-4 RIngram, ORS-4 RDiggs, LF>B N
A LFMB(ADM LFFA:ACM LFMB:ADM
- DL
,ogy: gt.
[ M TJ[olloway M NI r
,jRW4fcC Clark.
1/x/81 1/j,781 Sh/01 F/ij81 S V I 81 v.
1__._ _
g 22_
]7
,._1i
_