ML20151M390
| ML20151M390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1988 |
| From: | Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR24077, FRN-53FR24077, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 53FR24077-00019, 53FR24077-19, AC80-2-42, NUDOCS 8808050141 | |
| Download: ML20151M390 (1) | |
Text
Indiana Michigan Power Congany DOCKU M M g g,O ) f 4 gj l$
f o Bo 1e Ph. MD RULE 1
au ca ws y
ir iff"
. m.. s
- mme INDIANA ANCNDOAN
'88 Jll. 29 A10:23 Powra fo h as. \\
- a < st Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear RegulatsbyTommission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is in response to the proposed rule concerning revision of the fee schedules in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171, published in the Federal Register (53 FR 24077).
We concur with the comments submitted by Jay E. Silberg of the law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, except as set forth below.
Indian Michigan Power Company, owner and operator of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, objects in general to the annual fee.
However, if these fees are to be raised, we propose that the "second" option, described on page 24079 of the reference Federal Register notice, be adopted. That option states, the commission at this time would not adopt any changes to'Part 170 or Part 171 other than to raise the annual fen so that the amount of fee collected by the Commission under 10 CFR 171.15, when added to fees that would be collected under 10 CFR 170 as currently codified, would approximate, but not be less than 45 percent of the NRC budget.
The proposed legislation (firs': option) calls for co11reting the annual fee increase in part by removing the fee ceilinga for reactor and major fuel cycle permits, licenses, amendments, and inspections, asserting that this would allow major users of NRC services to pay a larger share of the bill.
However, an q
individual utility has only limited control over the allocation of NRC resources, and thus, a disproportionate burden could be placed on one utility and its ratepayers.
The amount of NRC l
attention received by a plant is largely outside of the plant's control, thus making the form of billing described in the
{
proposed rule randomly unfair.
The option described above is, l
in our opinion, a more acceptable method of collecting the annual fee.
Sincerely yours, Mi ton P. Alexich Vice President 00000D0141 000729 pf / C) 4 PDR PR 170 D3FH24077 PDR i
-