|
|---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML11189A0492011-07-0606 July 2011
Comment (8) of Lewis Patrie, Opposing Proposed Rules Pr 50, Draft Regulatory Basis for a Potential Rulemaking on Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facilities
ML0913503862009-05-13013 May 2009
Comment (1) of Gary E. Williams on Behalf of Veterans Health Administration Draft Rulemaking for Part 37, Subpart C, Physical Protection of Byproduct Material
ML0807205022008-03-0505 March 2008
Letter from Thomas P. Harrall on Behalf of Duke Energy on Pr 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72 Regarding Decommissioning Planning. Supports Nei'S Request for a 90-Day Extension of the Comment Period
ML0735215422007-12-17017 December 2007
Comment (1) of Thomas P. Harrall, on Behalf of Duke Energy, on Proposed Rule Pr 50, Regarding Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events
ML0727709122007-09-21021 September 2007
Comment (1) of Henry B. Barron, on Behalf of Duke Energy on Energy Solutions PRM-50-88 Re to Amend 10 CFR 50.82., Termination of License
ML0632102172006-11-15015 November 2006
Comment (2) Submitted by Duke Energy, Bryan J. Dolan, on Supplemental Proposed Rules PR-2, 50, 51, and 52, Regarding Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants
ML0607302102006-03-0606 March 2006
Comment (11) Submitted by Duke Power Company, James R. Morris on Proposed Rule PR-50 Regarding Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Technical Requirements
ML0407609042004-03-0303 March 2004
Comment (13) Submitted by Duke Energy Corporation, H. B. Barron on Proposed Rules Pr 170 & 171, Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fy 2004
ML0326903062003-09-23023 September 2003
Comment (1) Submitted by Duke Energy Corporation, W. R. Mccollum on Proposed Rule PR-50 Re Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities
ML0328012992003-09-22022 September 2003
Comment (1) Submitted by Duke Energy Corp., W. R. Mccollum on Proposed Rule PR-50 Re Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities
ML0323905172003-08-11011 August 2003
Comment (15) Submitted by Duke Power Co., W. R. Mccollum on Proposed Rule PR-50 Re Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors
ML0312701402003-04-28028 April 2003
Comment (13) Submitted by Duke Power, Michael S. Tuckman, on Proposed Rules PR-170 and PR-171 Re Revision for Fee Schedule; Fee Recovery for Fy 2003
ML0228904032002-09-17017 September 2002
Comment from Mary T. Kelly on Proposed EIS for a MOX Fabricating Facility at SRS
ML0225600652002-09-0303 September 2002
Comment of M.S. Tuckman on Model Safety Evaluation on TS Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Mode Change Limitations Using Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process
ML0223305642002-07-10010 July 2002
General Notice Comment Letter on Draft Regulatory Guides, DG-1114, Control Room Habitability at Nuclear Power Reactors, and DG-1115, Demonstrating Control Room Envelope Integrity at Nuclear Power Reactors Dated March 28, 2002
ML0219906432002-07-10010 July 2002
General Notice Comment Letter on Draft Regulatory Guides, DG-1114, Control Room Habitability at Nuclear Power Reactors, and DG-1115, Demonstrating Control Room Envelope Integrity at Nuclear Power Reactors Dated March 28, 2002
ML0214902762002-05-23023 May 2002
Comment (3) Submitted by Duke Power Co., M.S. Tuckman on Proposed Rule PR-50 Regarding Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV and OM Code Cases
2011-07-06
[Table view] |
Text
I Duke Duke Energy Corporation ffPower.
© 526 South Church Street A Duke Energy Company PO Bo] 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 (704) 382-2200 OFFICE (704) 382-4360 FAX Michael S. Tuckman Executive Vice President NVuclear Generation DOCKETED USNRC May 6, 2003 (9 09AM)
April 28, 2003 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 on License, Inspection and Annual Fees for FY 2003 In the Federal Register dated April 3, 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a proposed rule that would change 10 CFR 170 and 171 regarding license, inspection and annual fees charged to licensees. Duke Energy Corporation has reviewed this proposed rule and endorses the positions taken by Nuclear Energy Institute. We are submitting the following comment on the proposed rule.
Duke is of the opinion that there is insufficient basis to support the required costs to the power reactor licensees for activities not directly attributable or beneficial to their operation.
We think that utilities should be responsible for fees directly associated with agency expenditures on power reactor regulation. Cost allocations should be justified and equitably proportioned.
Very truly yours, M. S. Tuckman Teim laEf =swc-o (a7 secy-oa-
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 28, 2003 Page 2 bxc:
L. E. Nicholson - ON03RC C. J. Thomas - MGO1 RC G. D. Gilbert - CN01 RC M. T. Cash - ECO50 L. B. Jones T. R. Dimmery - EC05Z
