ML18004B766
| ML18004B766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Cutter A CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704160315 | |
| Download: ML18004B766 (6) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-400 April 10, 1987 Carolina Power tI Light Company ATTN:,'r. A. B. Cutter, Vice President Nuclear Engineering 8 Licensing
'.O.
Box 1551 411 Fayetteville Street
- Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:
We have completed our review of your request dated December ll, 1986, for an exemption from the annual fee requirements of 10 CFR 171 until such time as the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant "achieves commercial operation".
The basis for your request was mainly that there is a double assessment of fees under Parts 170 and 171 for plants that have only a low power operating license.
Our evaluation of your request does not support granting an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 171; therefore, your request is denied.
Our assessment of your application is contained in the enclosed evalu-ation.
Your letter dated February 2, 1987, requested that the two quarterly payments of the annual fee made by your Company be refunded to you pending final action on your exemption request.
Since your request has been denied, these payments are appropriate.
Consequently, no refund is in order.
Sincerely, 8704l 6031 5 870410
- PDR, ADOCK'5000400,
'P
.PDR
Enclosure:
Evaluation of Application for Exemption (Spined) ZacIr.'. Ice Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION w/encl:
PDR LPDR
,-:Reg Docket:File-RMScroggins, RM
- BBuckley, BWD-2 DMiller, BWD-2
- Rh1Diggs, LFMB LFtlB Reactor File LFMB 171 File LFMB R/F Rht/A R/F DW/RMD/Carolina VStello JRoe TRehm JZerbe OFFICE
) '. RM LF:R
/'~
- SURNAME,
- R iggs:jp
- CJH DATE '4/+>/87 P/
OGC gb@:
RM/A
~
~
))IacK oway
- RSmith 33ohns n
87: 9/R( /87:
/3
/87
~ 9/
s:
0 el 1 o e
/8:
/ 5/87
E.
~ 0 t
h j
If'f ff I I K
tl 4I N
P
Evaluation of A lication for Exem tion from t e nnua ees of CFR for t e S earon Harris Nuc ear Power P ant Carolina Power 8 Li ht Com an Docket No. 50-400 Introduction By application dated December ll, 1986, the Carolina Power 5 Light Company (CP8L) requested an exemption from the annual fee provisions of 10 CFR 171 until such time as the facility achieves commercial opera-tion.
10 CFR 171 became effective on October 20, 1986, and requires the collection of approximately
$950,000 in FY 1987 in annual fees from each holder of a license for operation of a nuclear power reactor.
These fees are to be paid in four equal quarterly payments of $237,500..
CP8L was issued a
5 percent power license on October 24, 1986, and received a
100 percent power operation license on January 12, 1987.
CPSL's first and second quarter invoices have been issued and paid.
The first quarter invoice was a prorated invoice for $ 175,123, as provided for in 10 CFR 171.17.
10 CFR 171 provides the following criteria to be considered in evaluat-ing requests for exemptions from the annual fees of this rule:
l.
2.
3.
4 ~
5.
Age of the reactor; Size of the reactor; Number of customers in rate base; Net increase in KWh cost for each customer directly related to the annual fee assessed under this part; and Any other relevant matter which the licensee believes justifies the reduction of the annual fee.
CPSL contends that the annual fee assessment is a "double assessment of fees under Parts 170 and 171" for plants with a low power license.
It is their position that the fees they pay for the operating license under Part 170 cover NRC services up through issuance of a full-power license.
Therefore, Part 171 fees should not be assessed until the date of "commercial" operation.
In addition, it is CPSL's position that they cannot realize the full measure of "regulatory benefit of the Commission's services until commercial operation."
Evaluation CP&L basically did not provide data to be evaluated against the factors of 10 CFR 171.11.
Consequently, we have reviewed the relevance of CPSL's other contentions in what follows:
r
Double Assessment of Fees Under 10 CFR 170 and 171 2.
The NRC cannot be viewed as having a double assessment of fees because the costs recovered pursuant to each Part are for different and distinct services.
The statement of consideration for the final rule establishing Part 171 made the point that fees estimated to be collected under Part 170 are excluded 'from the basis upon which the fee under Part 171 is calculated (51 FR 33224, 33228).
Each category of fees is assessed under a different statutory authority and are for different services.
The fees under 10 CFR 170 are for plant-specific applications for operating licenses, amendments to licenses, licensing of operators to operate the plant and inspections of the plant.
These fees are authorized under the provisions of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (31 USC 9701).
The annual fees under 10 CFR 171 are to recover those generic regulatory costs directly related to the regulation of power reactors.
These generic costs include the areas of research, safeguards, reactor regulation, inspection and enforcement and analysis and evaluation of operational data.
These costs have been determined by the NRC to benefit all operating power reactors which would include Harris l.
10 CFR 171 annual fees were mandated by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 which was signed.-into law in April 1986 (P.L.99-272).
Re ulator Benefit CP8L contends that the facility cannot realize, the full measure of regulatory benefit of the Commission's services until commercial operation.
The proposed rule published in the Federal
~Re ister made it clear that the fees apply to a licensed~aci sty regardless of whether the reactor is in service (51 FR 24078, 24083).
That view was not changed with promulgation of the final Part 171.
Conclusion It has been determined that CP8L has not provided any factors under the exemption provisions of 10 CFR 171.11 or otherwise that furnish a basis for exempting them from annual fees for Shearon Harris Unit No. l.
On this basis, CP8L's request for exemption is denied.
C re
- ~
ls