ML20111B755
| ML20111B755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1985 |
| From: | Williams F ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20111B703 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8503130216 | |
| Download: ML20111B755 (1) | |
Text
e t-(/j] [ d k ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW g
p]h.O 1120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N W.. SUITE 840 WASHINGTON. D.C 20036 EDWARD S. ISHAM. 1872-1902 202 833 9730 CHICAGO OFFICE ROBERT T. LINCOLN. 1872-1889 THREE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA WILLIAM G. BEALE. 1885 1923 CHICAGO. lLUNOIS 60602 TELEPHONE 312 558-7500 March 8, 1985 William G. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4550 Montgomery Avenue Room 2015 Bethesda, Maryland Re:
Midland Energy Center Operating License Fee Assessment
Dear Mr. Miller:
Attached is the official response of Consumers Power Company to your bills nos. D0184 and D0185.
Due to logistical difficulties the enclosed letter is a xerox copy, but the original with a live signature will be in your office on Monday morning, March 11, 1985.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Yours truly, I4
.f ' 3 7 1 Frederick C. Williag 2ld 8-bW se, FCW:kls 03U cc:
Janet M.
Rodriguez 8503130216 050311 PDR ADOCK 05000329 A
O POW 8T DESMm aw = w cosa QQQQ,Q var nudert - %ms, k=sme=s at ceannethm w onsa.: ts4a wee f ames! =cas, harsm. MI 4e201 * ($171 f as44t2 ffarth 7, 1985 William G. Millst, Chief License Tse Management 3 ranch office of Ad=histration US Nuclear tegulatory Consission Washington, D.C.
20655 MIDLA.VD DERGT CINTER OPERXTING LICDiSE FEE ASSESSMENT
?!LE: 0485.11, 1300 SERIAL:
32196 This letter responds t'o your letter of February S 1985 informing us that fee notificatiens were fau:intut and two fee bills dated February 11,1985 frez your office for the eparating licensa reviews for Eidland Cutts I (No. D0184) and 2 (No. D0185). These bills raquest payment of $3,077,400 for each usit.
Consumers ?cver Company rsspectfully declines at this time to pay the fan billa D0184 sad D0135 vithout further doeurantation and analysis.
The bills stats total operating license review costs for each unit through June 23, 1964, but give no supporting data or analysis sheving hev these figures were arrived at.
Consumers requests that you provide back-up documen-tation to support the figures set forth in the bills.
In addirien in the Statement of Considerations fer the 1984 amends 4nts to LO C.F.K. part 170, the REC invited applicants or licensees to audit NRC costs.
e.9 7ed. Reg. 21293, 21300 (Ny 21,1954). Consu:nsrs therefore requests thst. afts; Censurcrs bas had an c;portunity to review tbs initial decusentntien for the fee bills the NRC than all w Consusters persennel to audit the detailed back-g records which the NEC keeps to support its time charges at a eutually ccnvenient tisa and place. Consuners ?over Cecany further requents that the NRC make use of the authcrity set forth in 10 C.7.2. I 15.31(5) and extand t'e due date of the fee c
bills for at !aast 90 days in order to allev us time to reviev and analyte NEC records before reaching a finsi pcsiticn.
With respect :o ; articular iteso, Censu=ers ?cvsr Cenpany eencludes free the regulattens and the 1975 and 1984 Starments of Consideraticas that vari ue sicsents of raviav charges are properly ex:!udable frem tha er:al fee.
Withcut review of documentati:n and full audit va arte of coursa, unable to ascertain with certainty that tima has been inpreperly :harged. Howaysr, it is 00:susers Power C0=psny's position that any time asscciated vita reviav relating ec the soils remedial work, and in particular any sectech=ics1 revisv beycod what veuld have been perfer=ed for an ordinary operating license, is 0C0385-0011 A-WC2
- ^
rs v a i n n v i
2 net properly billabis.
In additice, ti=e expended in preparatien for, accan-dsstt et, or otharvise associated with contested hearings, either the Ctf hearings er the OL haarir.gs, is also preparly excludable, under existing N3C regulations, fica the fee bill.
"hus, the ::tal ancutts aggregated shonid be reduced by any charges vhich are related to such costs.
4 In addition, we believe that time may be improparly allocatsd between units.
For a m plee henra expended in revisving commes or duplicate systems should be charsed undsc cue of the eve units and should thus ecma under the tailing f :
the itingis unit.
- c addition, vs bell' eve that some review time which is charged for dnit 2 nay be properly' applicable to unit 1, or vice versa.
Censumers Power Company believes sine that the applicarica of the ceiling of
$3,077,400 to the fees for each unir at Midland is erroneous as a =atter of law because it is a retroactive application of a new fee schedula, Censumers Power Caspany believes that its Midland OL faas bacase " fixed" when ravisv tins for tha CL applications reached the ceilings established in ths 1978 regulaticas. Any other interpretation of the regulations results in an application of a faa schedule retroa:tively, which is impermissible under the Independent Office Appropriationa Act, 31 U.S.C. 9701 as interpreted in New England Power C m any v. EC, 683 T.2d 12,15 n.4 (1st Cir.1952).
In additica, avan if tha NRC could apply a new ceiling retroactively, the Statenant of Considerations does not siva fair notics of any NEC intent to de so.
If fact, the Commission indicated to tha centrary in tbs Statement of
^
Considerations :
Since the final rule would new retain ceilings for most major licens-es, and the hourly rates established by this rule vill apply enly to verk that occurs after the effsetive date of the final rule, this particular aspset of the questics of "retros tive" application of the anendments is n: lengar get-zane.
49 Ted. Peg. 21293, 21296 (May 21, 1984).
In sunmary, Consmsrs ? ver Ccz;;cny requests that the NRC extend the d:e date for its fas bille for at least 90 days, that the NEC previda vritten dec=sn-tatien for the fee bills, that the NPC chan ;rtvide C:teusers with an cppertu-nity to audit ten supporting records and that the Hic apply the ceilings under the 1972 regulaticus te tha fee bills.
Censuners Pever Ce pany v:uld like to discuss these censiderations with you at ypur coevenience.
Berefore, we request that you either schedule a confarance pursuant to 10 C.F.E. I 15.31(:) Or a paraenal interview with Co.munsts ?cver r
- 7.a stew of the Midland Operating Li:ense applicatic s began prier := the effective date of the~1973 regulatien vtan there vaa no " cost +'tased" fee schedule in effset.
Acccrdingly, no fsas should be assassed for utse I
axpanded prior to March 23, 1973.
r l
OC03B S-0011 A-FJ02
i
'~
s.
1 3
would nest likely bs mere product 5ve (0)E g Company pursu4= to 10 c.y.g, y gc 25 ch a enferanca or intar71ev g
US bd in opportunity to review dectistatation 82d "Sudit records. D:ack ycu for yeur considerarten ga g3:3 ugg,7, Ji(C/TCW/1r e
t i
l I
l
~
i M3365-C011s tSc:
_.