ML20206H444

Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 10CFR171 Re Rev of Fy 1999 Fee Schedules

ML20206H444
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point
Issue date:	05/03/1999
From:	Gianfrancesco FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-64FR15876, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 64FR15876-00030, 64FR15876-30, L-99-111, NUDOCS 9905110212
Download: ML20206H444 (3)

Text

-

30 i Florida Pcwer & Light Comp:ny, P. O. Box 14000. Juno Bzach. FL 33408 0420 MAY 0 31999 FK DOCKET NUMBER L.99 111 PROPOSED RULE N 170 / /7L (WIFRI5874)

Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary

, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission y~

a Washington, DC 20555-0001 ;p; ,g Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff 4 8 5 Re: Florida Power & Light Company Comments .y ~ "6 Proposed Rule - Revision of FY 1999 Fee Schedules u 64 Fed. Ree.15875 (April 1,1999)

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), the licensee for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2, and the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, hereby submits the following comments on the above-referenced rulemaking to assess licensing, inspection, and annual fees under 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171. As an operator of commercial nuclear power plants, FPL would be substantially affected by the proposed fees. FPL requests that NRC withdraw the proposed rule, and republish a new proposed rule that addresses the following comments.  ;

1. Annual Fee Component Unrelated to Reactor Regulation Under the proposed rule, each reactor licensee will be assessed an annual fee of

$2,769,000 or $2,775,000 (depending on the option ultimately selected by the Commission). Approximately $400,000 of this annual fee ($44 million divided by 104 operating reactors) is a surcharge to cover budgeted costs that (except for one item) have no relation to power reactor regulation. The components of this surcharge that have no relation to reactor regulation are fees for international activities, Agreement State oversight and support, Site Decommissioning Management Plan activities, non profit educational institutions, licensing and inspection of Federal agencies, costs not recovered I from small entities, and decommissioning / reclamation activities unrelated to reactors. l Notwithstanding the fact that power reactor licensees such as FPL receive no benefit from any of these services, NRC proposes to allocate 80% of these agency costs to .

reactor licensees.

All of these costs should be recovered through user fees assessed directly to the persons, entities, and/or Federal agencies receiving the benefits of these costs. The Omnibus \ n l Budget Recovery Act requires that "any person who receives a service or thing of value U from the Commission shall pay fees to cover the Commission's costs in providing any such service or thing of value." 42 USC 2214(b). Assessment of such fees against reactor licensees is arbitrary, capricious, and violates the Equal Protection requirements 9905110212 990503 l PDR PR I 170 64FR15876 PDR 1 an FPL Group company l

g .

r Msf Annette Vietti-Cook i - ' Page 2 of 3 o

of the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against reactor licensees without any rational basis.' Accordingly,~ the costs of such services should be -

assessed directly to the persons, entities, and/or Federal agencies that benefit from such l services.

l

~

2. The Remainder of the Annual Fee The proposed rule offers no description of the costs, other than the surcharge, included in

' the reactor annual fee. The only explanation of the proposed annual fee is that $103.5 million of NRC's total budget ($469.8 million) is being collected through user fees, and the remainder must be collected through annual fees. This leaves approximately $2.3  ;

million of the annual fee as unexplained. In a new proposed rule, NRC should provide a l detailed explanation of the amounts included in the annual fee, and should include why such costs cannot be identified with a specific regulatory service.

l

. 3. Full Cost Recovery of Project Managers / Resident Inspectors NRC also proposes to amend 10 CFR 170.12(b)(1)(iv) to recover the full cost for project -

managers assigned to a specific plant or facility, excluding leave time and time spent on I generic activities (such as rulemaking). FPL suggests clarification of the term " full cost"

in the context of the proposed nile, and as the term is applied to the full cost recovery of l resident inspectors in' 10 CFR 170.12(g)(1). The full cost of the project manager (as well as the full cost of the resident inspector) should include only that time spent working on

- activities that can be directly or indirectly related to the licensed facility or plant. This time should 'not include time spent for sick leave, jury duty, holidays, training, travel,

. industry conferences, or time in meetings not specifically related to the assigned facility.

i-Further, licensees should not be billed fer the time newly assigned project managers (or resident inspectors) spend in training in order to be qualified for those positions. These types of non-productive time should be considered NRC overhead and should be included ,

;in determining the NRC FTE hourly rate. -l i

4. ' Billing for Multiple Reactor Sites i ,

! . - . j i FPL also requests that NRC revise its current practice of billing non-task specific hours i spent by resident inspectors (and as proposed, project managers), so that such costs are

. assessed equally among each docket at a single site. The current billing practice creates a hardship for licensees that do not own 100% of one or more power reactors. As an i' l illustration, FPL' owns 100% of St. Lucie Unit I and approximately 85% of St. Lucie Unit'

. 2. There is one senior resident and two resident inspectors assigned to the St. Lucie site.

NRC currently bills all non-task specific senior resident inspector time and the time of one resident in'spector' to the St. Lucie Unit I docket. The remaining resident time is billed to the St. Lucie Unit 2 docket. A more equitable practice would be to split the non-inspection hours for each resident inspector evenly between each docket. In the case of St. Lucie, one half of the time spent by each resident in support oflicensed activities would be billed to each docket at the site.

L :i

y ,

Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook Page 3 of 3 '

In summary, NRC should withdraw the proposed rule and issue a new proposed rule that eliminates the power reactor surcharge that is included in the annual fee that has no relation to power reactor regulation.~ In the new proposed rule, NRC should also explain the basis for the remainder of the annual fee, make changes and clarifications with respect to full cost recovery of project managers and resident inspectors, and change

' billing practices for multi-unit sites as suggested herein.

. FPL endorses the comments filed by Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge on the proposed rulemaking. FPL appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

Very truly yours,

$lh -,b.

R. John Gianfrancesco, Jr.

' Manager Administrative Support and Special Projects i

_ _ _