ML20128D621

Disputes Charges on 850424 Bill D0258,per 10CFR15 & 170. Bases for Calculation of Bill Involved Use of Inappropriate Fee Schedule.Extension of Due Date of Fee Requested to Facilitate Resolution of Disputed Amount

ML20128D621
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	05/24/1985
From:	Owen W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (ORM)
References
NUDOCS 8505290141
Download: ML20128D621 (3)

Text

,

+ . _.- ,

DUKE POWER GOMPANY Powna BurLDINo, Box 00189, CHARLOTTE, N. G. 28242 W H.OWEN (7041 373-4:20

• stCutivt vsCE P.tSetlef Endshttmesso.COmSfpuCT80lt 4 P.00vCTese SW May 24, 1985 l l

~

U. S. Nuclear Reg latory Commission Office of Resource Management ..

Division of Accounting and Finance ] P,Q b ;. P 3 :4 4 Washington, D.C. 20555 -

,. R e : i g er D0258 Gentlemen:

This will acknowledge receipt of the above-captioned bill, dated April 24, 1985, and will serve as Duke Power Company's response, in accordance- with 10 CFR Parts 15.31 and 170.51, explaining why. Duke believes the debt assessed in Bill Number D0258 is incorrect in fact or in law.

Duke does not dispute the fact that some payment for the NRC's review of Duke's withdrawn application for the Perkins Nuclear Station may be appropriate. However, for the reasons set forth below, Duke is unwilling to pay the bill as it- is presently constituted. Briefly, Duke believes that the debt may be incorrect in fact or in law because its underlying bases may have been calculated by using-an inappropriate fee schedule for a part or all of the amount, and because the amount billed may include charges for

~

reviews that Duke believes are not appropriate. Moreover, whether or not the amount for which payment is requested was correctly calculated, Duke requires further information regarding the bases for such amount before payment can be made.

(1) The license application for the Perkins Nuclear Station was filed March 29, 1974, and docketed April 24, 1974. The~ NRC issued its Draft Environmental Statement in May of 1975, its Final Environmental Statement in October of 1975, its Safety Evaluation Report in March of 1977, and the supplement to its Safety Evaluation Report in July of 1977. Following several evidentiary hearing sessions (the majority of which were held in 1976 and 1977), three separate Partial Initial Decisions were issued. (See Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87(1978); LBP-78-34, 8 NRC 470 (1978); LBP-80-9, 11 NRC 310 (1980) . ) No construction permit was ever issued and, on March 2,

.1982, Duke filed a motion to withdraw the application for a construction permit. That motion triggered a round of briefing and resulted in yet another order by the Licensing Board (LBP-82-81, 16 NRC 1128 (1982)) which authorized withdrawal of the application for the construction permit without prejudice. Based on the foregoing 8505290141 850524 I PDR ADOCK 05000488 l A PDR '

i j

--~ .. , - -. . -. . ~, - . . .- . . - - - - - . -

E l

.. f . ..

JU.S. Nuclear Regu'latory Commission-

. May 24,.1985 Page.two

. chronology, it appears that the major part of both the NRC Staff's

safety and environmental review and the evidentiary hearings had been completed by the end of 1977.

. As. this- is-the case, in Duke's view the. fee schedule on which

. Lthe costs iassessed in the bill were calcul'ted a may not. ,be

' appropriate.

~

The NRC's' letter of. April 24) 1985, which' transmitted the bill states that the fee schedule which became . effective March

23-, -1978, formed the basis for the Perkins bill because it "was in Jeffect- at the time the construction permit application was withdrawn". But as discussed above, the major. portion of.the NRC's review was completed well,before~that time and it .would. seem_.that the _ appropriate- fee schedule to use is the one that was in effect-

during the NRC review.

f(2) . Duke also believes that _the total amount billed _ may--

' include.. charges for reviews that Duke believed were not appropriate 4

at:the time they were performed and that Duke continues to believe Lare- not appropriate. For example, in June of 1978 the NRC Staff on its own motion- reversed the position it. had' taken before- the l'  ; Licensing Board less than two months before and moved for a reopening of L the record cut alternate sites. That motion resulted, over-the strong. objections of Duke, in reanalyses of_ alternate sites by -both Duke and the NRC Staff, cufminating in evidentiary hearings-4

- during-1979, and the issuance of LBP-80-9 on. February 22,'1980. As this- portion- of the- review associated with the.Perkins docket'is i- attributable solely to the actions of-the NRC Staff,.and was' of no-benefit .either to Duke or_to the public, Duke does not believe it should be responsible.for costs associated with that effort. . At a

. minimum, if the original environmental review was in error, then -

Duke should not be charged:for the erroneous review or for_ any excess costs of.the supplemental review. Finally, Duke would point; out that, with.the exception'of the alternate site question, the NRC Staff review was complete prior to March of 1978..

b '

(3) Even assuming, for the sake of argument,' that-the- license

-fees. are proper, Duke:cannot be expected to-pay them at;this time i - based on the information now available to it. Before Duke .could g approve any such bill' for payment, information on how the amount

- assessed was developed must be made available. For example, Duke ,

needs' to know the formula used-to develop the charges, as wel) as a complete description and breakdown of the charges. Such a description should include, but not be limited to, man-hours,-dates,

"- specific work. performed, specific items _ reviewed, nature of the

' review, the position and/or title of the reviewer, the basis for the charge for the specific -reviewer, and. expenses. It- is' also

. -necessary to know how expenditures were made - for example, whether anLexpenditure'is associated with review of a particular -item, _a' site, visit, hearings, etc. Such~information is-simply that required

-by standard- business- practice. Nevertheless, it is particularly l appropriate.in this case, where~more than three years have elapsed v .

. ~.

U.S. Nuclear l Regulatory Commission EMay-24, 1985 Page three between Duke's withdrawal of the application for a construction permit and tender of the bill by the NRC, and the work for which Duke is being billed was performed eight to ten years ago.

We trust that this letter will serve to extend the-due date of:

the subject fee so that. interest will not. accrue on any balance due.

If this- is not the case, please notify us promptly. We will be happy to. meet with the Staff of the NRC to discuss these matters so that they may be resolved in a mutually agreeable fashion.

Sincerely yours,

, W4(/ . UM/

Warren H. Owen AVCjr/dm se

'h O

1. '

e l

y,e- s . - - - - - , e - - , - g