ML20235J066
| ML20235J066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1987 |
| From: | Kintner E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| 0118P, 118P, 4410-87-L-0112, 4410-87-L-112, NUDOCS 8710010289 | |
| Download: ML20235J066 (4) | |
Text
--
g gg jy
. gg, w
w 1;,. '
r #
ys: Mcdonald Rehm.-
gg
- Stello Murley e
_ Taylor Russell,ll [. --
GPU Nuclear Corporation J Nuclear
- =,ome
- 48o s
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 0191 717 944 7621-TELEX 84-2386 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
(717) 948-8461 1
1 4410-87-L-0112-Document 10 Oll8P September 25,.1987 l
j
.y i
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
1 Executive Director of Operations US Nuclear Regulatory Commission M C:
]$
Washington, DC 20555 x
Dear Mr. Stello:
i
> c3 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2) 9P Operating License No. DPR-73 un Docket No. 50-320 10 CFR Part 171 Exemption Request Your letter dated March 18, 1987, granted GPU Nuclear an exemption from the l
annual fee requirements for TMI-2. However, the above referenced letter j
specifically stated, dThis exemption is limited to Fiscal Year 1987 and is not j
a permanent exemption for TMI-2."
Pursuant to 10 CFR_Part 171, Federal Register Notice 32625, dated August 28, 1987, announced that the annual fee to be assessed in Fiscal Year 1988 will be in the amount of $936,000; GPU Nuclear
)
i requests exemption from that fee.
l i
Further, GPU Nuclear requests exemption.from future 10 CFR Part 171 annual fee assessment for Three Mile Island Unit 2 for the remainder of the cleanup period and the period encompassing Post-Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS).
This letter is submitted pursuant to Section 171.11, " Exemption," which states:
The Commission may, upon application, grant an exemption, in part, 1
from the annual fee required pursuant to this part.
An exemption under this provision may be granted by the Commission taking into consideration the following factors:
/
,r 8710010209 87092 (a) Age of the reactor; PDR ADDCK 0 %
f P
e (b) Size of the reactor; (c) Number of customers in rate base; l
(d) Net increase in KWh-cost for each customer directly-related to the.
annual fee assessed under this part; and (e) Any other relevant matter which the licensee believes justifies the-reduction of the annual fee.
010' GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Corporation h______._m____
_mm--__
-____.2_
___a__
u._.
_m L
I Mr. Stello September 25, 1987.
4410-87-L-Oll2 Based on the rationale provided in the attachment relevant to'the above considerations, the requested exemption for TMI-2 appears tc be warranted for the remainder of the cleanup period and the period encompassing PDMS.
j Coincidentally, granting this exemption would permit the maximum resources j
available to TMI-2 to be properly directed to funding cleanup activities.
Sincerely, j
i In ner Executive Vice President
)
EEK/FRS/eml
]
Attachment l
l l
l cc: Director - TMI-2 Cleanup Project Directorate, Dr. W. D. Travers j
l
\\
q i
1 s
l.
A
=
ATTACHMENT i
4410-87-L-0112 Justification for Exemption from the Annual Fee Requirement of 10 CFR Part 171
'I 1.
10 CFR 171.11(b) states the size.of the reactor is a consideration in granting an exemption from the annual fee.
In its present condition, TMI-2 is unable to operate; GPU Nuclear receives none of the benefits atter,:iant to an operating plant. For purposes of the annual fee, TMI-2 should be considered a "zero" power reactor. Size is irrelevant.
2.
10 CFR 171.ll(c) states that the number of customers in the rate base is a consideration in granting an exemption.
Since TMI-2 is not in the rate base, fees associated with TMI-2 are not passed on to. customers. Regulatory fees paid by'GPU Nuclear for TMI-2 are provided from designated cleanup funds resulting in a net decrease in the funding available for-the cleanup.
Therefore, it appears that consideration of the lack of a rate base should be considered.
3.
10 CFR 171.11(e) states that any other relevant matter which the licensee I
believe; justifies the reduction of the annual fee will be considered.- GPO Nuclear opines that there are several factors unique to TMI-2 which warrant a TMI-2 exemption from the annual fee.
a.
As stated in the proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register (51FR24078) on July 1, 1986, the annual fee is based on the several regulatory services provided by the NRC to persons applying for or holding opearing licenses. In addition, in response to comments on the proposed rult which wem published in the Federal Register (51FR33224) on September 18, 1986, the NRC stated that a review of these services was performed
"...to ensure that only generic costs associated with all power reactors, I
with operating licenses, regardless of types, were included in the cost l
basis." Based on review of the information provided in those notices, it appears that the unique condition of TMI-2 was not considered. The unique condition of TMI d and the near total lack of applicability of those gencaic costs associated with the regulatory services addressed in those l
l notices appear to support a determination that TMI-2 should not be encompassed in the broad categorization of "...all power reactors, with operating licenses...".
l b.
GPU Nuclear acknowledges that TMI-2 does receive special consideration l
from the NRC in that a separate " Cleanup Project Directorate" has been l
l established to manage NRC oversight of TMI-2 activities.
This oversight i
L is provided by review of safety evaluations prepared to support major I
recovery activities and inspections performed by an on-site staff of NRC inspectors which exceeds the normal resident inspector staff assigned to nuclear power stations. However, the cost of these activities is recovered via the fees paid by GPU Nuclear in accordance with 10 CFR Part i
170. For example, 10 CFR Part 170 Licensing fees paid for services j
rendered in 1985 (the latest year for which complete data is available) l were approximately $591,000. Therefore, GPU Nuclear believes that the
.l fees paid pursuant to 10 CFR Part 170 meet the intent of Congress in that these fees are "... reasonably related to the regulatory service previded by the Commission and fairly reflect the cost to the Commission of I
l-providing such service."
)
i
]
,f.
ATTACHMENT 4410-87-L-Oll2 c.
The Final Rule provides i. hat applicants for operating licenses are not subject to the 10 CFR Part 171 Annual Fees. GPU Nuclear suggests that j
TMI-2 is similar in status with regard to benefits receivea from generic regulatory services provided by.the NRC. While regulatory services.from which the generic costs in the annual fee are derived may be of some future benefit, no benefit is currently realized. Thus, TMI-2 should not be subject to an annual charge based on generic regulatory costs; rather, 1
costs associated with TMI-2. support should.be recovered in accordance with i
10 CFR Part 170,'as discussed above.
1 d.
The Final Rule acknowledges that certain classes of license receive limited benefit from the NRC generic programs and should'not be subject to the annual. fees.
Thus, operating licensees subject to the annual fee do not include licenses for " possession'only" based on a licensee request to amend a license to permanently withdraw authority to operate or those for I
which the Commission has permanently revoked the authority to operate.
Both cases are closely analagous to TMI-2.
GPU Nuclear presently receives 1
the same limited benefits from NRC generic programs as'" possession only" licenses or operating licensees whose authority to operate has been j
permanently revoked by the NRC. Therefore, TMI-2 should be similarly excluded from the rule. Further, sufficient uncertainty exists concerning i
the feasibility of returning the TMI-2 plant to an operational status to' J
warrant consideration as permanently non-operating within the context of this rulemaking until a determination to the contrary has been made.
- q e.
The cleanup and evaluation'of the TMI-2 accident is providing information I
that is of benefit to the er. tire industry. The research programs funded i
by the Department of Energy (DOE) and others provide a significant contribution to many of the NRC generic programs.: Of special. significance is the evaluation of the radioactive source term which, as stated in thf
)
July 1, 1986 proposed rulemaking, "... lies at the very heart of the I
regulatory process." Thus, it is the GPU Nuclear viewpoint that TMI-2 is l
contributing significantly to~ NRC generic programs and payment of an annual fee to furtner support these programs is not appropriate.
1
(
l.
l l
>