ML20153D183
| ML20153D183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153D187 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809240351 | |
| Download: ML20153D183 (1) | |
Text
-
t cb- ((
[(
4 UNITED STATES e
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!M001
, [i ['y
- f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
j September 17, 1998 CHAIRMAN Mr. W. R. McCollum, Jr.
Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Site P.O. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679
Dear Mr. McCollum:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is in receipt of the July 9,1998, letter of Duke Energy Company (Duke) inviting reconsideration of the denial by NRC's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Duke's exemption request from the annual fee requirements for the general license under 10 C.F.R. 171.11(d). While the NRC does not have an official appellate mechanism to review denials of exemption requests, the Commission has considered the views set forth in your letter and believes the issues you raised should be addressed in the Commission's user fee rule for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999.
It is our understanding that the standardized NUHOMS 24 P casks would not be ready for use until sometime in Fiscal Year 1999. Therefore, the current FY 98 fee schedule would not be applicable. Instead, the FY 1999 fee rule would govern whether the agency would charge for Duke's use of both general and site-specific licenses.
The Commission has directed the staff to reexamine the annual fee policy relating to spent fuel storage in time for inclusion in the proposed FY 1999 fee rule. This ongoing review encompasses the important issue that you raise. Due consideration will be given to your comments on the proposed rule and, if you are dissatisfied with the approach ultimately adopted by the agency, you would be free to renew your request for an exemption at that time.
\\
Under the circumstances, since fee policy for FY 1999 has not yet been established, we do not believe it is appropriate to act on your exemption request at present. The NRC will not assess h}
Duke an annual fee for the use of a general license, before the final fee rule for FY 1999 has been published. That rule will establish whether an annual fes is due for use of the general license.' We look forward to receiving your views on the proposed 1999 fee rule. Finally, the Commission acknowledges that the deferral of a decision on your exemption request does not prejudice Duke's ability to seek judicial remedies should it be aggrieved by the Commission's FY 1999 fee rule.
- ncerely, e
9909240351 980917 PDR COMMS NRCC i
CORRESPONDENCE PDR t
FM
%