ML20111B728
| ML20111B728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1985 |
| From: | Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20111B703 | List: |
| References | |
| 32196, NUDOCS 8503130209 | |
| Download: ML20111B728 (3) | |
Text
,
e.
e Ce'Potver Consurners James W Cook Vice President - Projects, Engineering General offices:
and Construction 1945 West Parnell Road, Jackson Mt 4920 1 + (517) 788-0453 March 7,1985 William G. Miller, Chief
\\
License Fee Management Branch i
Office of Administration US Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
Commission 20655 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER OPERATING L FILE:
0485.11, 1300 ICENSE FEE ASSESSMENT
{
SERIAL:
32196 This letter responds to your l notifications were imminent and etter of February 8, 1985 info your office for the operating licens two fee bills dated Februa rming us that fee and 2 (No Consumers. D0185).
Power Coapany respectfully dThese bills request paymente rev bills D0184 and D0185 without f of $3,077,400
- o. D0184) urther documentation and analy ieclines at th June 23, 1984The bills state total operati ee s s.
figures were a,rrived atbut give no supporting datang license review or analysis showing how thesecosts for tatio to support the figures set forth in thConsumers requests that you NRC invite' applicantsStatement of Considerations f e bills. provide back-up documen-or licensees toor the 1984 amendments to 10 C F RIn addition, in t 21300 (Mcy 21, 1984.).
NRC then a' low Consumers pehad an opportunity to review audit NRC costs.
part 170, the 49 Fed. Reg. 21293, e initial documentation for thafter Consumers has at, the NRC k= ops to support it rsonnel to place.
s time charges at a mutuallyaudit the detailed back-up Conaneers Power Company furth authori ty se6 r s which
' east 90 days in order to allforth in 10 C.F.R. $ 15 31(b bills for
't records be/ ore reaching a final and extend the due date of the f use of the ow us time to review and analyze NRC With respect position.
ee regulations and the 1978 and 1984 Stc particular items, Cons i
elecents of review tatements of Considerationumers Power Compa Without review of documentaticharges are properly excludablrom the ascertain with certainty that timon and full audit we are, of coe from the total fe is Consumers Power Company' s position that any time associ t de has been im relating to the soils remedial beyond what would have been perf v.
However, it work, and in particular any ge twith review ae ormed for an ordinary operatin echnical review o
OC0385-0011A-MP02 g license, is 85 31 g $ h $
A
not properly billable.
In addition, time expended in preparation for, atten-dance at, or otherwise associated with contested hearings, either the OM hearings or the OL hearings, is also properly excludable, under existing NRC regulations, from the fee bill. Thus, the total amounts aggregated should be reduced by any charges which are related to suca costs.
In addition, we believe that time may be improperly allocated between units.
For example, hours expended in reviewing common or duplicate systems should be charged under one of the two units and should thus come under the ceiling for the single unit.
In addition, we believe that some review time which is charged for unit 2 may be properly applicable to unit 1, or vice versa.
Consumers Power Company believes also that the application of the ceiling of
$3,077,400 to the fees for each unit at Midland is erroneous as a matter _of law because it is a retroactive application of a new fee schedule. Consumers Power Company believes that its Midland OL fees became " fixed" when review time for the OL appifcations reached the ceilings established in the 1978 regulations. Any other interpretation of the regulations results in an application of a fee schedule retroactively, which is impermissible under the Independent Office Appropriations Act, 31 U.S.C. 9701 as interpreted in New England Power Company v. NRC, 683 F.2d 12, 15 n.4 (1st Cir. 1982).
In addition, even if the NRC could apply a new ceiling retroactively, the Statement of Considerations does not give fair notice of any NRC intent to do so.
If fact, the Commission indicated to the contrary in the Statement of Considerations:
Since the final rule would not retain ceilings for most major licens-es, and the hourly rates established by this rule will apply only to work that occurs after the effective date of the final rule, this particular aspect of the question of " retroactive" application of the amendments is no longer germane.
49 Fed. Reg. 21293, 21296 (May 21, 1984).
In summary, Consumers Power Company requests that the NRC extend the due date for its fee bills for at least 90 days, that the NRC provide written documen-tation for the fee bills, that the NRC then provide Consumers with an opportu-nity to audit the supporting records and that tne NRC apply the ceilings under the 1978 regulations to the fee bills.
Consumers Power Company would like to discuss these considerations with you.at your convenience. Therefore, we request that you either schedule a conference pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 15.31(c) or a personal interview with Consumers Power
- Review of the Midland Operating License applications began prior to the effective date.of the 1978 regulation when there was no " cost-based" fee schedule in effect. Accordingly, no fees should be assessed for time expended prior to March 23, 1978.
OCO385-0011A-MP02
7 4
3 4
Company pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 15.25(b). Such a conference or interview would most likely be more productive if held after Consumers has had an opportunity to review documentation and audit records. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
J JWC/FCW/lr I
j i
I f
I i
1 l
b 4
t J
l 1
h I
4 h
i l
i
)C0385-0011A-MP02 I
i
.. ~.
.