ML20044G737
| ML20044G737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1993 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR21662, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 58FR21662-00426, 58FR21662-426, NUDOCS 9306040174 | |
| Download: ML20044G737 (2) | |
Text
I
]
"ij7d4*M l
.~.
s l
Duke Pccer Cornpany
(}f
}/bb Hu B Dun j
b Senror Ske President l
PO Bax 1006 Chartone. NC 2h:01 1006 Nudear Generatu n GM)382-4531 l
l
.r,,
D
~1
.~
l DUKEPOWER
~'
l 1ay 25, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'7 Washington, D.
C.
20555 i
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch l
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Station Docket Numbers 50-269, -270, and -287 McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Numbers 50-369 and -370 Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Numbers 50-413 and -414 Duke Power Company Comments on the Proposed Revision to Fee Schedules for Fiscal Year 1993 1
Duke Power Company offers the following comments on two aspects of the proposed rule regarding the collection of fees for Fiscal Year 1993, as solicited in the Federal Register (58 FR 21662).
Exenotion of Non-Profit Educational Institutions The first comment relates to the exemption of non-profit educational institutions from license fees. The Commission proposes to continue to exempt such institutions, solely on the basis of the NRC policy of supporting nuclear-related education for its societal value.
In the Federal Register notice, the NRC acknowledges that it is a
" regulatory agency with the responsibility of safeguarding public health and safety..."
This charter does not include subsidizing-educational institutions; especially not with utility licensees' money.
With the exception of those licensees who qualify as small
- entities, license fees should be assessed in a uniform and equitable manner.
Allocation of Generic LLW Costs Duke Power Company endorses the NRC's selection of Alternative 2 (basing LLW costs on the amount of LLW generated by groups of licensees, and assessing each licensee in a group the same fee), as has been done in the past. This is considered to b2 the best option, in terms of its fairness to licensees of different sizes
)h 9306040174 930525 PDR-PR
\\
170 5BFR21662 PDR n%- : -
l" I
and with different types of waste, while not being too cumbersome
~
to effectively administer.
i i
Thank you'for this opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.
i If-there are any (uestions, please call Scott Gewehr at (704) 382--
f 7581.
l l
Very truly yours,
- /~$ l ey Hal B.
Tucker
-r cc:
Mr. V. Nerses, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, D.
C.
20555 I
[
Mr.
L. A. Wiens, Project Manager i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, D.
C.
20555 l
Mr. R.
E.
Martin, Project Manager office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-j U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN j
Washington, D.
C.
20555 l
Mr.
S.
D.
Ebneter, Regional Administrator i
i U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW - Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 j
i lj
.l f
i
~
r