ML20132C162
| ML20132C162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1985 |
| From: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Fate M PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509260460 | |
| Download: ML20132C162 (15) | |
Text
-
. y..
SEP 181985 Docket Nos. 50-556/557 Public Service Company of Oklahoma ATTH: Mr. Martin E. Fate, Jr., President P.O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
Dear Hr. Fate:
This is in response to your letter dated June 12, 1985, requesting waiver of 10 CFR 170 fees for costs incurred for the review of the withdrawn Black Fox Station (BFS) construction permit application.
In a meeting on January 29, 1985, Vaughn L. Conrad and Albert J. Givray informed the NRC staff that the co-applicants took exception to the fee assessed for the BFS application and planned to petition for a waiver of fees. This letter also responds to the June 14, 1985 letter from the 1
finn of Doerner, Stuart, Saunders, Daniel and Anderson, which submitted a brief in support of the request for a waiver of fees and a request fcr informal hearings on the matter.
Addressing the latter request first, in accordance with NRC practice (copy enclosed), a meetina with a licensee / permittee / applicant to discuss assessed fees may be requested by the NRC "at its option" to
" receive further evidence or arguments supporting the debtor's con-tentions." In this instance, you have already provided sufficient evidence and argument for the HRC to reach a decision in this matter.
Accordingly, we see no productive basis for a meeting or a " hearing."
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PS0), on behalf of the co-owners of the Black Fox Station, argues that the assessment of fees for the withdrawn CP application "would violate the fairness, public-policy, and value-to-applicant Act of 1952" (IOAA) principles of the Independent Offices Appropriation (now codified in 31 U.S.C. 9701). PS0 also contends that the assessment of fees would be a retroactive application of the Hovember 6,1981 amendment to 10 CFR 170 (46 F.R. 49573-577, October 7, 1981).
In support of its contentions, PSD alleges that, but for the inordinate delay in HRC promulgation of its post Three Mile Island-2 (111I-2) safety and non-safety licensing requirements, the co-owners would have made the decision to withdraw the application long before they did, thereby avoiding the withdrawn application fee requirements.
8509260460 850918 PDR ADOCK 05000556 A
_PDR
,p,
.i.
omra p-m
.m -
L
~-
6FriciAL REUURFC F'V ~
~
Public Service Company of Oklahoma 2
i PS0 takes the position that the BFS application should have received special treatment by the NRC after the THI-2 accident because of its unique licensing status and the extensive effort expended in construction at the site under the Limited Work Authorization (LWA). It is also stated that delays in decisions affecting NRC licensing and policy following the THI-2 accident removed any meaningful opportunity for the co-owners to withdraw the CP application in time to avoid Part 170 withdrawal fees for the application.
As you stated in your request for the waiver, the August 1981 NRC " policy" on fina. safety and non-safety licensing requirements was incomplete with respect to hydrogen control. However. PS0 could have considered this policy as a minimun basis for the " final" requirements, especially against the historical background of the pre-TMI-accident years.
Further, you contend that because the NRC's hydrogen control requirements were not final at that time, the co-owners were unable to detemine the feasibility of the project and make a decision whether or not to withdraw the application. The underlying assumption appears to be that the analyses of feasibility are so precise that the question could be settled with one additional set of data. Feasibility analysis, like the l
regulatory environment itself, is fraught with uncertainties related to assumptions. The issue of hydrogen control requirements could have been weighed by the co-owners, and they could have reasonably assumed imple-mentation of hydrogen control systems. While the choice in August 1981 was a difficult one, the co-owners were not denied either a free choice or meaningful epportunity to exercise their option to continue or withdraw their CP application.
t Prior to the TMI-2 accident, the regulatory environment was subject to-j-
uncertainties and evolving requirements. This was to be expected in a i
new industry and particularly one so complex as the nuclear industry where safety is a major concern and'the Commission's top priority. At i
no time should the Commission's safety requirements be considered final.
4 The.TMI-2 accident resulted in a thorough reevaluation of the entire nuclear power plant licensing process and requirements. This reevaluation has been and continues to be a difficult and time-consuming process.
But this process did not produce unfairness in the treatment of the BFS application. The NRC's practice was and remains to process every appil-cation in. an expeditious and fair manner with the overriding concern being public safety. Obviously, the decision to apply for a permit, i
expend application and construction funds, and finally to withdraw the application was solely that of BFS project management. The Commission is limited to regulation of safety for the nuclear facilities to be built and/or operated by applicants.
SURNAWk
^">
.nne ronu ais tioson uncu o2' OFFICML. RECORD COPY
Public Service Company of Oklahoma 3
The Comission does not agree that the November 6,1981 amendment to 10 CFR Part 170 was applied retroactively. On Hovember 10, 1980, the Cocuission published a notice of its intent to charge a fee to recover its review costs when the review of an application is completed, whether by issuance of a pemit, license or other approval, or by denial or withdrawal of an application, or by any other event that brings an active Connission review of the application to an end (45 Fed. Reg. 74493,1980). The Comission proposed to charge the fee for any with-drawal dating back to !! arch 23, 1978. Thus, applicants were infomed of the Comission's intent to recover its costs for withdrawn applications a year before the effective date of the rule. This was sixteen months before a preliminary notice of withdrawal was filed for BFS.
(Fomal notice of withdrawal was not filed with the ASLBP until April 6,1982, five months after the effective date of the rule.) In !{ew England power
- v. HRC, 683 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1982), the court held that the Comission may charge for the review of withdrawn applications prior to issuance of a pemit, license or approval, under the promulgated regulation, but only for review of applications withdrawn after Hovember 6,1981 (effective date of the rule). An understanding that owners of BFS might not have been liable for the fee if the application had been withdrawn prior to November 6, 1981, was not possible until the issuance of the court's opinion in New England Power on July 19, 1982. Thus, the Comission's licensing actions could not have deprived you of an opportunity to avoid the fee by withdrawal before Hovember 6,1981, since that opportunity was not apparent until July 19, 1982. The rule as published gave no lead time to withdraw without a fee.
With respect to the question regarding the value of HRC services asso-i ciated with the processing and review of applications, it was held in Mississippi Power and Light v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1979), that review work perfomed by the HRC at the request of an applicant constitutes substantial and particularized benefit to the applicant and justifies the imposition of fees under 10AA. The review work performed in this instance was clearly attri-butable to the application filed by the co-owners of BFS.
The Commission does not consider the BFS construction pemit application as a unique situation meriting special treatment. The co-owners of BFS freely chose to apply for the pemit and LWA. The extensive investment made by the co-owners in construction at the site prior to the issuance of a construction pemit was a BFS management decision. Likewise, the decision and timing to withdraw the application was a decision of management.
For the reasons stated above, your request for a waiver of fees is denied.
MMEh
"' A NRC FORM 318 (10 80) NRCM O24 OFFICIR RFCORD COPY
4 Public Service Company of Oklahoma 4
As you know, PS0 was billed by the NRC on May 8, 1984, for $884.275 (after a prior notification on May 3 that the bill would be forthcoming).
This amount, plus the $125,000 application fee (previously paid by 8FS) covers the NRC costs incurred in the review of the construction permit application for the Black Fox Station. There followed additional correspondence wherein your Company asked for waiver of interest (denied),
a meeting (granted), a letter (February 1,1985) infoming the NRC that your Company would apply to the Chaiman of NRC for a waiver of fees, etc., and the letter and brief to which this letter responds. (It is further noted that you were specifically advised by letter dated February 6 1985, that "there have been no waivers (exenptions) from the fee requirements of Part 170 granted applicants for Part 50 construction pemits or operating licenses.") It has now been over one year since your Company was first billed and the fee has not been paid. As described in the enclosed NRC procedures, the NRC assesses and collects fees under a statutory mandate, duly implemented. It is of singular importance that any fee assessed becomes a debt immediately due and payable to the United States when billed. The statute entitled " Interest and penalty on claims," 31 U.S.C. 3717, does permit non collection of interest fees for the first 30 days, which period may be extended by the NRC. As indicated above, the original 30-day period was not extended by the NRC in this case. Accordingly, when your Company did not pay the debt by June 8,1984, interest began accruing, retroactive to the original billing date. With the failure to pay the bill within 90 days after June 8,1984, a statutorily mandated penalty charge for the delinquent bill accrued, calculated from the date that the debt became delinquent.
In sum, the United States is owed the balance of the applicable fee in the amount of $884,275, interest charges of $108,148.04, and penalty charges in the amount of $67,737.89, for a total of $1,060,160.93, through Septenber 15, 1985. The interest and penalty charges continue to accrue at the rate of $363.40.per day until payment is received.
Enclosed is a revised bill. Full pa3 ment should be made within 15 days from the date of this letter. You should consider this letter the final agency action with respect to review of the debt owed the United States.
However, if you still wish to meet with the staff, please contact William 0. Miller, LFNB. Any such meeting should not delay payment of the debt owed the United States.
Sincerely, Oridnal Signed by Patrida Norry Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated
- See previous concurrences attached.
Ik
) o=i.3Fgy
,,,gELg*,,,,,,,,q*,,,,,,,,,,ADM,[k,,,,,,ggg*,,,,,,,,, AQQ, [,)pp,,,,,,,
I "* > WQUllletijp..,RSmitb......GJohnson..... MS.r.i,qqqr..... JiD,qqtqq,,,
,,P,GNo r.ry.......W.D,i r,k s,,,,
P
... /.9?.8,5,,,,,9/,,, /,8,5,,,
, 9/,,, /,8,5,,,,,,9f,f,3f,8,5,,,,,,9/,, /,8,5,,,,,
9//'( /,8,5,,,,,,9-/ -86 1
o^" >
9 4 unc ronu aia no sai nncu ano OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
--l
9
- N onk ass anLL NuvaERINore on nmorrances BILL FOR COLLECTION REVISED 9/15/85 C0203 MAKE CHECKS PAYAaLE TO THE U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND MAIL TO gJg 81LL DATE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC 5/8/84 OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGER IEN PAWENT DuE DATE DIVIStoN OF ACCOUNTING AND IN A/R/Rd WASHINGTON,0C 20555
'ICEN$l NUMBER Uf appt<csD/e/
TO:
REF ERENCE NuveEn tif spphcabies bPublic Service Company of Oklahoma U
Attn:
Mr. John B. West, Manager cc,,,cy,
- Niu, Black Fox Sta. Nuc. Project P.O. Box 201 AUG 9 1984 Janet M. Rodriguez Tulsa, OK 74102
,,te,,0,c SECOND NOTIC ? puuoca
%A DESCRIPTIS - '
AMOUNT FEES FOR THE REVIEW 0F THE BLACK FOX 1 & 2 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION Unit 1 Docket:
50-556 Fee Code:
AA903 CON Fee:
$978,600 Total (125,000) Paid Balance Due
$853,600 Unit 2 Docket:
50-557 Fee Code:
AA903 CON Fee:
$30,675 Due Total due for Two Units:
$884,275.00 Interest accrued through 9/15/85 (496 days) 108,148.04 Penalty on delinquent debt through 9/15/85 (466 days) 67,737.89
$1,060,160. 93 Interest originally charged according to provisions of Debt Collection Procedures in 10 CFR Part 15.21(a)(2).
The bill is properly subject to the Federal Claims Collection Standards' interest accural provisions in 4 CFR 102.13(b) and penalty charges on delinquent debts in 4 CFR 102.13(e).
AMOUNT DUE
Interest will accrue from the bell date at the annual rate of 9.00
%, except that no interest will be charged if the amount due is paid in full by the payment due date.
NOTE.
The NRC debt collection regulations are found in 10 CFR 15 and are based on the Federal Claims Collection Act as amend Collection Act of 1982. If there are any questions about the existence or amount of the debt, refer to these regulations and I
the indivedual named above. The revocation of a license does not waive or affect any debt then due the NRC from the licensee.
PRESENT AND SEPARATED EMPLOYEES:
The attached Notice of Due Process Rights applies to both current and former employees.
l
j t'FC PR0 & $!! F (4 [ C i f.i i M : M Fi ' 1 DA R.'
OF LICif3E FEE Ellt M.%
Fees are billec in accordertre with the schedules cr.d staf f hcur rates conteir.ed in 10 CFF Part 170.
Interest on the amount billed accrues f run.
the dcte on which notice of tbc debt is mailec, but may not be charged if the amount due is paid within 30 days after saio date.
31 U.S.C. {3717 If the 30 ocy period is extended, interest will be waived provided the debt is paid before the expiration uf the extended period.
The 30 day period may be extended, at NEC's discretion, in accordonce with the following procedures.
1.
The Division of Accounting and Finance, Office of Resource Mar.ogement, Nuclear Regulatory Cornission, before expiration of the 30 c5v perioc, must receive the debtor's written request for an extension of the period.
The request must explain why the debt is incorrect in fact or in law.
If the request is not received within the 30 day period, it will automatically be denied.
2.
The debtor's explanation must have merit for the NRC to extend the 30 day period. A request is deemed to have merit if it causes the NRC to question whether the amount originally billed is correct.
A.
If the explanation has merit, the NRC will notify the debtor 4
in writing that the request is granted and that the 30 day period will be extended to a date certain, which shall be stated on a revised, bill and shall be approximately 15 days ofter the date the revised bill is mailed. The amount on the revised bill shall constitute a final determination of the existence or amount of the debt. A final determination by NRC for this purpose need not await the outcome of litigation or further administrative review.
Further extensions of the date stated on the revised bill will not be granted.
If the amount on the revised bill is not paid on or before the date stated on the bill, interest from the date of mailing the original bill will become due and payable.
B.
NRC may, at its optiun, request a meeting with the debtor's representatives to receive further evidence or arguments supporting the debtor's contentions.
C.
A request for an extension may be granted either with respect to i
the entire amount originally billed or.with respect to a portion of the amount originally billed.
In the latter case the remainder of such amount remains due end payable as originally billed.
If not paid on or' before that date, interest from the date of mailing the original bill will become due and payable.
D.
If the debtor's explanation does not have merit and does not cause the NRC to question whether the amount originally billed is correct, the request will be denied.
Failure of NRC to notify a debtor before the end of
}
the 30 day period that a request for an extension has been denied will not t
constitute grounds fur a waiver of interest.
l
f,. -
E.
The assertion that the bill is unsupported by a sufficiently detailec breekdown cf dotes, hours, rates, and other cate does not corstitute an explanation of why the arount billeo is incorrect in fact or in law, it the debtor views information furnished with the bill as insufficient for the purpose of a request for an extension, the debtor shoulc seek the necessary information as soon as possible in order that a request for extension con be submitted within the 30 coy period.
3.
If an extension of the 30 day period is granteo and the amount originally billed ren.ains unchanged, such extension shall be stated on the revised bill as provided in 2A above.
i 4
NRC records in support of billed fees are not subject to audit by non-Governmental entitles. 'However, copies of records desired by a debtor can be niade available to the debtor if they are reproduced at. the debtor's expense. See 10 C.F.R. $9.14 entitled Charges for Production of Records.
5.
The rate of interest assessed shall be the rate of the current value of funds to the United States Treasury (i.e., the Treasury tax and loan. account rate), as prescribed and published by the Secretary of the Treasury in the Federal Register and the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins annually or quarterly, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. {3717. See 4 C.F.R.
$102.13(c).
6.
NRC is required to assess a penalty charge, not to exceed 6 percent a year, on any portion of a debt that is delinquent for more than 90 days, 4 C.F.R. $102.13(e). The NRC has determined that it shall assess penalty I
charges at the rate of 6 percent a year.
This charge shall be calculated on or af ter the 91st day of delinquency, but shall accrue from the date that the cebt became delinquent. A debt is considered " delinquent" if it has not been paid by the date specified in NRC's initial bill or by the date stated in the revised bill. 4 C.F.R. $101.2(b) 7.
NRC will promptly refund to a debtor any amount which is later determined to be an overpayment, including interest, if any, which was paid by the debtor on such amount.
NRC is not authorized to pay interest on any part of a license fee which was paid to NRC and is later refunded.
8.
Requests for extensions of the 30 day period should be submitted to the Division of Accounting and Finance, Office of Resource Management, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
Telephone requests for extensions will not be considered.
Payment should be made as indicated on the original or revised bills.
DISTRICUTI0id:
EDO EDO R/F (#000738)
JRoe, ED0 TReha ED0 VStello. EDO i
HDenton, NRR GCunningham. ELD
. PGiiorry, ADM HSpringer, ADM GJohnson,RH/A RSmith, ELD LFM3R/F(#85-21)
WOMiller, LFMB Re ulatory Docket File tual Manpower - Black Fox Reactor File CJHolloway. LFMB RMDiggs. LFMB SECY l
l
"'C'>
W AMEk DATE) 4QC FOQM 318 (10 8W NRCM O24 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Public Service Company of Oklahoma 4
i As you know, PS0'w billed by the NRC on May 8,1984, for $884,275 (after a prior noti ication on May 3 that the bill would be forthcomi
).
l This amount, plus
$125,000 application fee (previously paid by S
covers the NRC costs incurred in the review of the construction pe it j
application for the B ck Fox Station. There followed additiona correspondence wherein our Company asked for waiver of interes (denied),
ameeting(granted),a etter (February 1,1985) informing the RC that 4
your Company would apply to the Chairman of NRC for a waiver f fees, etc., and the letter and rief to which this-letter respond. (It is further noted that you w specifically advised by letter dated February 6 1985, that "there have been no waivers (exemptions) from fee requirements of Part 170 granted appli for Part 50 construction neits or operating licenses.") It ha now been over one year s a your Company 1
was first billed and the fee not been paid. As cribed in the i
enclosed NRC procedures, the C assesses and coll fees under a statutory mandate, duly imp 1 ted.
It is of si lar importance that i
any fee assessed becomes a debt usediately due payable to the United States when billed. The tute entitl
" Interest and penalty 4
on claims ":31 U.S.C. 3717 does ruit non co action of interest fees for the first 30 days, which peri may be ex by the NRC. As indicated above, the original 30-da period as not extended by the NRC i
in this case. Accordingly, when you y did not pay the debt by June 8,1984, interest began accruing, re ctive to the original billing date. With the failure to pay bill within 90 days after June, 1984, a statutorily mandated ty charge for the delinquent bil M* M m: rGr nM W 6.
rf & E ;
y] in the s//CQVfor In sum, United States is owed the balance of applicable fe~e
}
f $884.275 in rest charges of 108F 47.8kand penalty charg
(
59,016. 3 for a otal of { \\p51.43 F thr6 ugh ~5eiRemFer 15, j.
gg73d,inthe The interest and penalty rges conti to accrue at the rate 1985.
}
of $363.40 per day until payment s received. En osed is a revised yN bill. Full payment should be within 15 days the date of this M o,9 j
letter. You should consider s letter the final a y action with respect to review of the debt owed the United States.
ever, if you still wish to meet with the taff, please contact Willi
- 0. Miller, i
LFMB. Any such meeting s ld not delay pquent of the t owed the
\\
United States.
ggg g, Q Sincerely,
{
Sh & d@ Lca I kli [.
i 4!
Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration l'
Enclosures:
}
As stated g9 l
4a
- see previous concurrence atta ed.
'Mh 1-@b. er.4P.
..00.E..... Rii g
,,ADij,,,,,,,,,,,@,*,,,,,,
- o"'ce >
F.41
..RS $,,,,,,.QJphM99......USpr1099r..... llD90t00....
- sua"^=+
. I.'9!1 f fY.....
9 l
DATEp 9/
/85 9/
......./85 9./. /.2./85 9
... /.... /. 8 5.....
. 9. /.... /. 85.... 9. /.... /. 8 5.....
j NRC FORM 318 (10 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD t
. -.-.,_,- -. COP.Y.-.- - - - - - _ ---
Public Service Company of Oklahoma ATTN: Mr. Martin E. Fate, Jr., President P.O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
Dear Mr. Fate:
This is in response to your letter dated June 12, 1985, requesting waiver of 10 CFR 170 fees for costs incurred for the review of the withdrawn Black Fox Station (BFS) construction pemit application. This letter also serves to respond to the June 14, 1985 letter from the fim of Doerner Stuart, Saunders Daniel and Anderson, which submitted a request for both a waiver of fees and a hearing on the matter on behalf of your Company. For tile reasons stated below, your request is denied, both as to waiver of fees and a hearing.
Addressing the latter reque t first, i accordance with NRC practice (copy enclosed), a meeting with a li nsee/pemittee/ applicant to discuss assessedfeesmayberequested$y e HRC "at its option" to " receive further evidence or arguments s orting the debtor's contentions." In this instance, you have alreajy' ovided sufficient evidence and argument for the NRC to reach a deciston it this matter. Accordingly, we see no productive basis for a mee,tlng or a " hearing."
Public Service Company f Oklahoma (P 0), on behalf of the co-owners of the Black Fox Station / argues that the assessment of fees for the withdrawn application' for a constructio pemit violates the principles of the Independent Offices Appropriation et of 1952 (IOAA) (now codified in 31 U.S.C. 9701) in that it is unfair b ause of the alleged unique circumstances of the Black Fox Station Pro get; e.g., the fees allegedly do not reflect "value" to the co-owners and The fee assessment contravenes the Comaission's public policy of nuclear regulatory reform. You contend also that the assessment of fees would be a retroactive application of the November 1981 amendment to 10 CFR 170 (46 F.R. 49573-577, October 7, 1981).
In support of your contentions, it is alleged, in substance, that, but for the inordinate delay in NRC promulgation of its post Three Mile Island-2 (TitI-2) safety and non-safety licensing requirements and its failure to issue a construction pemit, your Company would have made the decision to withdraw its application long before it did, thereby avoiding the withdrawn application fee requirement which became effective Hovember 6,1981.
PS0 argues that the application for the BFS project pemit should have received special treatment after the TMI-2 accident because of its unique licensing status and the extensive effort expended inconstructionatthesiteundertheLimitedWorkAuthcrization(LWA).
D99tC:>
~~*
EETs >
ece ronu ne no-so) Nacu ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
I
?.
l ',.
]
a i
Public Service Company of Oklahoma 2
s p
It'is also stated that delays in decisions affecting IRC licensing and policy following the TMI-2 accident removed any meaningful opportunity i
for the co-owners to withdraw the construction pemit application in j
time to avoid Part 170 withdrawal fees for the application.
)
Although the August 1981 Cannission " policy" on final safety and non-
[
]
safety licensing requirements was incomplete with respect to hydrogen control it could have been considered as a minimen basis for the j
" final" requirements, especially against the historical background of the pre-TMI-accident years. More specifically, you contend that because j
the hydrogen control requirements were not final, the co-owners could j
not detemine the feasibility of the project and make a decision whether i
or not to withdraw the application. The underlying assumption hets i
seems to be that the analyses of feasibility are so precise that the question could be settled with one itional set of data. Feasibility i
analysis. like the regulatory envi t itself, is fraught with j
uncertainties related to assumptio The issue of hydrogen control requirementscouldhaveboekweig by the co-owners, and they could i
have assumed implementation of h rogen control systems. While the NRC l
j can agree that the choice befo the co-owners in August 1981 was a i
difficult one, the co-owners not denied either a free choice or a j
meaningful opportunity to exe is their option to continue or withdraw their CP application.
i Prior to the THI-2 accident the reg atory environment was subject to uncertainties related to e lying rements. This was to be expected inanewindustryandpartfeularlyone complex as the nuclear industry where safety is a major concern and the ission's top priority. At no time should the Cannission's safety rehuirements be considered final.
r The THI-2 accident resulted in a thorough reevaluation of the ertire power plant licensing process and requirements. This has been and' continues to be a difficult and time-consuming process. There was no unfairness in the treatment of the BFS application. The NRC's practice I
was and remains to process every application in an expeditious and fair i
manner with the overriding concern the protection of the public safety.
j The decision to apply for a pemit, expend the funds, and withdrew the application was solely that of BFS project management. The Consiission i
is limited to regulation of safety for the nuclear facilities built j
and/or operated by applicants.
On November 10,1980 the Commiission published a notice of 1ts intent to charge a fee to recover its costs when the review of an application is completed, whether by issuance of s pemit. license or other approval.
or by denial or withdrawal of an application, or by any other event that brings an active Commission review of the application to an end (45 Fed.
Reg.74493,1980). The Canesission proposed to charge the fee for any i
1 1
j o'"" >
~
ptSRC FO RM 318 (10 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
-.~.
~.
Public Service Company of Oklahoma 3
withdrawal dating back to March 23, 1978. The co-owners of GFS knew, or should have known, of the Comission's intent to recover its costs for withdrawn applications a year before the effective date of the rule and sixteen months before filing a preliminary notice of withdrawal.
(Fomal notice of withdrawal was not filed with the ASLBP until April 6,1982, five months after the effective date of the rule.) In New England power
- v. HRC, 683 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1982), the court held that the Camission may charge for the review of withdrawn applications prior to issuance of a pemit, license or approval, under the promulgated regulation, but only for review of applications withdrawn after November 6,1981 (effective date of the rule). An understanding that owners of BFS might not have been liable for the fee if the application had been withdrawn prior to November 6,1981, was not possible until the issuance of the court's opinion in New England Power on July 19, 1982. Thus, contrary to the assertion in your letter of June 12, 1985, and the brief of your attorneys, the Comission's licensing actions could not have deprived you of an opportunity to avoid the fee by withdrawal before November 6,1981, since that opportunity was not apparent until July 19, 1982. The rule s
as published gave no lead time lo withdraw without a fee.
N With respect to the question rais M as to value of HRC services, it was held in Hississippi Power and Lig t v. U.S. Nuciear Regulatory Commission, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.197Q), thatj review work perfomed by the NRC at the request of an applicant \\ constitutes substantia'! and particularized benefit to the applicant to 3 stify the imposition of fees under 10AA.
The work perfomed was clearly ttributable to the applicant co-owners of BFS. Accordingly, the Comi ion finds no basis to exempt the co-owners of the Black Fox Station payment of fees or to waive the fees which cover the costs incurr in the review of the withdrawn construction permit application.
Th efore, request for waiver of fees is denied.
The Comission does not consider the BFS qnstruction permit application as a unique situation meriting special treaNtuent. The co-owners of BFS freely chose to apply for the permit and LUA. The extensive investment made by the co-owners in construction at the site prior to the issuance of a construction permit was a BFS managment decision. Likewise, the decision ano timing to withdraw the application was a decision of management.
The facts are undisputed as to when the rule imposing fees for withdrawn applications became effective and as to when your Company withdrew its application. We also note that PS0 was billed by the NRC on llay 8, 1984, for $884,275 (after a prior notification on May 3 that the bill would be forthcoming). This amount, plus the $125,000 application fee (previously paid by BFS) covers the NRC costs incurred in the review of the construction pomit application for the Black Fox Station. There followed additional correspondence wherein your Company asked for waiver of interest (denied), a meeting (granted), a letter (February 1,1985)
"'C'>
5->
onu re o somncu o2" OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
W i
c.
i Public Service Company of Oklahoma 4 L
infoming the NRC that your any would apply to the Chaiman f NRC for a waiver of fees, etc., and letter and brief to which <
is letter responds.
(It is further tad that you were specific ily acvised by letter dated February.1985, that "there have no walvers (exemptions) from the fee trements of Part 170 rented applicants for Part 50 constructi permits or operating 1 conses!) It has now been over one year since y r Company was first 11ed and the fee has not been paid. As should clear from the enc ed NRC procedures, i
the NRC assesses and collects fees er a statutory ate, duly implemented. It is of singular impor that any f assessed becomes a debt isusediately due and payable to United Sta when billed.
The statute entitled " Interest and pena ty on clai
." 31 U.S.C. 3717.
does pemit non collection of interest for first 30 days, which period may be extended by the NRC. As 1 icated ve. the original 30-day period was not extended by the NRC in this e.
Accordingly,when your Company did not pay the debt by July
- 1. 1
. interest began accruing retroactive to the original bill te. With the failure to pay the bill within 90 days after July 21
. a statutorily mandated penalty charge for the delinquent bill atta
, also retroactive to the
)
original billing date.
In sum, the United tes is owed the balance of the applicable fee in the enount of $884.27 nterest charges of $100.298.40
)
and penalty charges in the amount of $53
.2 for a total of $1.038.356.60 through August 10,1985. The interest a pena ty charges will continue to accrue at the rate of $363.40 per da until p t is received.
Enclosed is a revised bill. You shoult consider is letter the final agency action with respect to review the debt the United States.
Accordingly, we expect to receive ful payment f you within 15 days from the date of this letter.
i i
- incerely, i
j f
i
{
Patricia G. Norry. Di tor Office of Administratio
Enclosures:
As stated i
DISTRIBUTION:
EDO MSpringer, ADM CJHolloway, LFMB ED0 R/F (#000738)
GJohnson,RM/A RMDiggs, LFMB 4
JRoe, E00 RSmith, ELD o
l A d'( "
=
-N i
TRehm. ED0 LFMBR/F(#85-21)
VStello, ED0 WOMiller, LFMB bp(. M a
i HDenton, NRR Regulatory Docket File 4 L Alh~..
l GCunningham, ELD Actual Manpower - Black Fox Ldtm PGNorry, ADM Reactor File j
- See previous concurrences. attached.
Q iomce LFI DM ELD
- RM/A*
ADM Q
...ADM f
Wa=
enJp... RSmi th,,,,,,GJphnson,,,,,, MS py,i ng,er,,,,, ggd #D.....PM0Try.....
./M/.85
.../.2/85 8/6/85 8
.....j.f. /85
. 8/..
/.85 8/
../.../.85 8
j oAn >
""S "" " * : "ac" 2a __ _o m cg L R E C O Rp CO PY_ _._._
..J.
i I'!
Public Service Campany of Oklahana 4
i infoming the NRC that your Campany would apply to the Chaiman of NRC for a waiver of fees, etc., and the letter and brief to which this i
letter responds. (It is further noted that you were specifically advised b waivers (y letter dated February 6.1985, that "there have been no examptions) from the fee requirements of Part 170 granted j
applicants for Part 50 construction pemits or operating lice,ises.)
has now been over one year since your Company was first billed a l
fee has not been paid. As should be clear from the enclosed procedures.
the NRC as and collects fees under a statutory mandate
.uly
{
.impiegented.
t is of singular importance that any fee as ed becomes a debtNimmedia ly due and payable to the United States billW.
t The stathe ont led " Interest and penalty on claims "
U.S.C. 3717 does persi c 11ection of interest fees for th '
t 30 days, whic'1 period may by the MC. As indicated
, the original 30-day period we t
tended by the NRC in this Accordingly,when n
your Company di not y the debt by July 21 1
. interest began accruing. retroac ve the original bill te. With the failure to pay the bill within ys after July 2. 1
. a statutorily mandated i
penalty charge for linquent bill At
, also retroactive to the t
original billing date.
sun, the Up1 States is owed the balance of the applicable fee in th t of A 275. interest charges of $100.298.40 l
and penalty charges in the n,M,e' t f
.783.20 for a total of $1.038.356.60 through August 10, 1985.
re and penalty charges will continue to accrue at the rate of $36 p
day until payment is received.
Enclosed is a revised bill.
s 1d consider this letter the final agency action with respect to rr of the debt owed the United States.
erely.
l 1
Patric
. Norry Director Office Administration i
Enclosures:
As stated i
l DISTRIBUTION i
E00 RSmith, ELD EDO R/F (# 00 8)
LFMB R/F (#85-21) 4 JRoe, EDO WOMiller, LFMB j
TRehm,Ed0 d_Bggplatory Docket F1 e.
- VStello, 0
Actual Manpower - Black Fo HDenton, NRR Reactor Files GCunningham, ELD CJHolloway, LFMB 4
PGNorry, ADM RMDiggs, LFMB l
MSpringer, ADM i
i GJoh
\\ # nson, RM/A 4
n
!om=>..LfM(,ADM
,,,, ELD [ [,,,,RM/A g%t,,,,,A,DM,,,,,,,,,,,N,R R,,,,,,,,,,,ADM,,,,,,,,
wan= >.W.0,M,1,11,e,r.:jp,. R,S,m,1,th,)
,G,J,o,hn,spn, g 4,, N,Sp,r,1,nge,r,,,,, }ip,ep, tsp.....
PEN.orry......
7/ \\
l
....h../85 8/ k /85 8/ v /85 8/
/85 8/
/85 8/
/85 o^">
1
......... ~.... - ~. ~ ~ -
~ " ' " ~ " -
inne ronv ais ito so> nncu o24o OFFICIR RECORD COPY
f' DISTRIBUTION:
EDO EDO R/F (f000738)
JRoe. EDO-TRehm. EDO VStello. EDO
'HDenton, NRR GCunninghan. ELD PGNorry, ADM HSpringer, ADM GJohnson RM/A RSmith. ELD LFH6R/F(iES-21) biOM111er LFMB 64-IId g latory Docket File tual Manpower - Black Fox Reactor File CJHolloway. LFMB RMDiggs. LFNB j
SECY TRothschild III, 0GC RFonner, ELD PDR LPDR i
oF FICE )
SURNAME)
DATE) nnc ronu ais oosai nnc*
- OFFICIAL RECORD COPY