NG-99-0616, Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Rev of Fee Structures

Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Rev of Fee Structures

ML20206E848
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	04/30/1999
From:	Peveler K, Tran H IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-64FR15876, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 64FR15876-00018, 64FR15876-18, NG-99-0616, NG-99-616, NUDOCS 9905050262
Download: ML20206E848 (2)

Text

7_l' g

e q,,.

i,

+ $ A 5 n + n- + + DD_D " + D + D}- + + + + ) - + rT + + )DO ' }n"6 + --)Ro' W Y*Y -l hi',B April 30,1999 NG 99-0616 i

t.

Secretary of the Commission AC.

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Washington, D.C. 20555 0001 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE N I@/ /7/

Subject:

Duane Arnold Energy C' nter e

[hMk/6870)

Docket No: 50-331 Op. License No: DPR-4D Comments for the NRC Proposal to Amend the Licensing, inspection, and Annual Fees (10 CFR Parts 170 & 171)

Reference:

64 Federal Register 15876, dated Apnl 1,1999. Proposed Rule Regarding Revision of Fee Structures File.A 100, A 119

Dear Secretary:

This letter provides comments on the referenced proposed rule regarding the NRCAs fee structure.

The statutory mandates governing the NRCAs assessment of annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 include:

charging a class of licensees for NRC costs attributable to that class of licensees allocation of generic costs that are attributable to a given class of licensees to such class; under the principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditures of the agency 4s resources should pay the greatest annual fee recovenng such expenses from heensees as the Commission, in its discretion, determines can fairly, equitably and practicably contnbute to their payment.

As a result of the statutory mandate, these costs would be allocated to the entire population of NRC licensees that pay annual fees, based on the amount of the budget directly attnbutable to a class of licensees This results in a higher percentage '>f these costs being allocated to operating reactor licensees as opposed to other classes of licensees.

/

O 9905050262 990430 i

PDR PR l

170 64FR15876 PDR 99 1

f

1 l

a Secretary of the Commission j

NG 99-0616 Apnl 30,1999 Page 2 of 2 Table til of the reference indicates that each power reactor licensee would be required, if approved, to pay an annual fee of

$2,769,000 under Option A or $2,775,000 under Option B for fiscal year 1999. This annual fee, either Option A or B, represents a fixed 6 flat 6 rate for the 6 Power Reactors 6 class of Ocenses, regardless of hcenseesA reactor capacity.

Allocation of costs equally to all operating reactor licensees regardless of reactor capacity is not f air and equitable. A more f air and equitable method of allocating the costs for NRC support of operating reactors would be to allocate these costs on the basis of hcensed reactor generating capacity, Allocating the costs on the basis of hcensed reactor generating capacity i

ke., per megawatt) would more f airly distobute the cost of NRC oversight on the basis of relative benefit conferred on each hcensee by NRC bcensing, and better support a deregulated utihty industry. Both the current and the proposed fee structures place a disproportionate burden on the ratepayers of utilities that have small reactors, and result in a competitive disadvantage to small reactors.

1 Therefore, IES Utshties Inc. urges that the cost allocation method for the operating reactor hcensees class be modified to allocate the Part 171 fee of $339.8 million by the total megawatt generation capabihty of all the operating reactors, and j

then assigned to each operating plant on the basis of their capabihty. This would be a more fair and equitable allocation of NRC costs for the protection of pubhc health ard safety.

Regarding Section d of page 15878, IES Utihties Inc. does not beheve the development of orders, evaluation of responses to orders, development of Notices of Wolation (NOVs) accompanying escalated enforcement actions, and evaluation of responses to NOVs should be included in the Part 170 fees. It is more appropnate that these costs continue to be distnbuted across the generic costs of regulatory oversight under Part 171. To further assign plant spec *ic charges for f acihties having difficulty will result in a de f acto additional civil penalty, and further challenge the economics of operation for that f acahty. In addition, such a pohcy would create an undesirable disincentive to challenge enforcement actions brought by the NRC.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Kenneth E. Peveler Manager, Regulatory Performance cc:

H. Tran Ehot G. Protsch John F. Franz Docu llb-_

4 i jUhnH CJCJ iU)'88 l = 'i' L ' abm-~ + 888

+_P_

$ $614 + 6_FT!$"$@& ! = "i*z_l_' abmqxyG + p_'eZl + '66*

0

=

1 + hiTU"j [ l + _88'_*_S_+-+-++++++++++".%6"'"

.