|
|---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARNRC-2011-0299, Comment (14) of James Becker on Draft Regulatory Basis Document to Support Potential Amendment to Regulations Concerning Nuclear Power Plant Licensees' Station Blackout Mitigatin Strategies (10 CFR Parts 50 and 52), (NRC-2011-0299)2013-06-24024 June 2013
Comment (14) of James Becker on Draft Regulatory Basis Document to Support Potential Amendment to Regulations Concerning Nuclear Power Plant Licensees' Station Blackout Mitigatin Strategies (10 CFR Parts 50 and 52), (NRC-2011-0299)
NRC-2011-0058, Comment (9) of Thomas N. Weber on Behalf of Arizona Public Service Company, on Proposed Rule PR-26, Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements2011-05-27027 May 2011
Comment (9) of Thomas N. Weber on Behalf of Arizona Public Service Company, on Proposed Rule PR-26, Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements
ML11216A1392011-02-0303 February 2011
Comment (3) of Arizona Public Service Co on Proposed Rule, Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications
ML0736105582007-12-17017 December 2007
Comment (5) of T. Moser on Behalf of Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (Stars), Supporting Proposed Rules Pr 50, Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.
ML0717106392007-06-19019 June 2007
Comment (14) Submitted by Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (Stars), T. Moser, on Proposed Rules Pr 50 Regarding Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements
ML0717106362007-06-19019 June 2007
Comment (12) Submitted by Arizona Public Service Company, Thomas N. Weber, on Proposed Rules Pr 50 Regarding Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements
ML0702604112007-01-17017 January 2007
Comment (15) Submitted by Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (Stars), D. Hooper on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0511600672005-04-20020 April 2005
Comment (23) Submitted by Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing, D.R. Woodlan on Proposed Rules Pr 2, 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 63, 71, 72, 73, 76 & 150 Re Protection of Safeguards Information
ML0414902572004-05-21021 May 2004
Comment (8) Submitted by Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (Stars), D. R. Woodlan, on the Proposed Interim Enforcement Policy for a Pilot Program on the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution
ML0326009582003-09-0909 September 2003
Comment (26) Submitted by Strategic Teaming and Resources Sharing (Stars), D. R. Woodlan on Proposed Rule PR-50 Re Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors
ML0312901462003-05-0101 May 2003
Comment (23) Submitted by Arizona Public Service, Gregg R. Overbeck, on Proposed Rule PR- 170 & PR-171 Re Revision of Fee Schedules; Recovery for Fy 2003
ML0235701542002-12-12012 December 2002
Comment (15) Submitted by Rep. Bruce Smith on Petition for Rulemaking PRM 50-79 Re Protection for Day Care Centers and Nursery Schools in Radiological Emergency
2013-06-24
[Table view] |
Text
,iL:-I-A 68 FR 16374 Gregg R. Overbeck Mail Station 7602 Palo Verde Nuclear Senior Vice President TEL (623) 393-5148 P.O. Box 52034 Generating Station Nuclear FAX (623) 393-6077 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 102-04937-G RO/TNW/RKR DOGCWKW May 1, 2003 PROPOSM 'I DOCKETED U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission USNRC ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff May 8, 2003 (11:11AM)
Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OFFICE OF SECRETARY Washington, DC 20555-0001 RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF
Dear Sirs:
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Comments on Proposed Rule to Revise Fee Schedules (68 FR 16374)
Arizona Public Service (APS) has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule to revise fee schedules as published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2003 (68 FR 16374). APS endorses the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (STARS).
APS understands the concept and regulation for NRC cost recovery through Licensee fee allocation. However, APS believes that there should be some specific accountability and reasonableness in that assessment. Therefore, the inclusion of security issues into the fee base when some of the financial responsibility lies within other governmental jurisdiction is unacceptable. In the same manner, many of the efficiencies gained from the current regulatory environment should also be reflected. APS also believes, as noted in the NEI letter, that better cost explanations for evaluation by licensees and stakeholders should be provided. Therefore, APS encourages the NRC to consider NEI's comments and recommendations.
Should you have any questions, please contact Thomas N. Weber (623) 393-5764.
Sincerely, G RO/TNW/RKR/kg ",eeoxf/I /
A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway
- Wolf Creek Gihna e L+tt =S cc N-o cf) 5&2'F 0
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Comments on Proposed Rule to Revise Fee Schedules (67 FR 14818)
Page 2 cc: E. W. Merschoff J. N. Donohew N. L. Salgado Senator John McCain Senator Jon Kyl Robert Aiken
