RC-99-0092, Informs That Util Has Reviewed Proposed Notice of Rulemaking & Fully Endorse Comments Prepared & Submitted on Behalf of Commercial Nuclear Power Industry by NEI

Informs That Util Has Reviewed Proposed Notice of Rulemaking & Fully Endorse Comments Prepared & Submitted on Behalf of Commercial Nuclear Power Industry by NEI

ML20206Q524
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	05/03/1999
From:	Gabe Taylor SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
RC-99-0092, RC-99-92, NUDOCS 9905190153
Download: ML20206Q524 (2)

Text

g ,

_; Q. Y N e i .f " j k.

p 2

Edd V 99-0092

' A SCANA COMPANY h .g>

Secretary '99 MY -6 P3 03 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

,t

, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Gentlemen:

4

Subject:

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION y4 DOCKET NO. 50/395 w,pf,3gg , OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 Alebroperations COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE i "

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 6

REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES; 100% FEE RECOVERY,

^

FY 1909 (64FR15875, April 1,1999)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) has reviewed the proposed p notice of rulemaking. We fully endorse the comments prepared and submitted on behalf of the commercial nuclear power industry by NEl.

p '

3 k- .

. ' Additionally, we submit the following comments:

isooth(motino tints & Gas Co :

il . 5ummer hiect Station Shiftina of Fees From 10CRF171 to 10CFR170:

Minsville, South (mot E

M65; O The NRC plans to expand the fee structure of 10CFR170 (i.e. hourly fees) to include incident investigations, performance assessments and evaluations (except 180324514344 1 those for which the licensee volunteers at the NRC's request and which the NRC

' B03345.5?09 accepts), reviews of reports and other submittals (such as Financial Assurance msem submittals, FSAR revisions and responses to Confirmatory Action Letters). These items were formerly under the fee structure of 10CFR171 (i.e. annual fees).

SCE&G agrees in part with this proposed rulemaking. Billing by the hour for

' services provided by the NRC would mean the licensee pays for only the services it receives while allowing the NRC to fully recover 100% of its operating cost, as mandated by law. However, as more services are shifted from annual fees or flat rates based on average review times to hourly rates, the opportunity for 4 inefficiencies in these reviews and billing abuse becomes greater. An analogy is

, , , hiring a consultant without having the contractual ability to review time sheets or .

M I

.,;  ; work progress for invoicing. There needs to be a cap on the hourly fees for a fiscal f ", year to allow licensees to make budget forecasts as well as a cap on the increase in total fees from year to year. g I '~

9905190153 990503

^

I

+

PDR ADOCK 05000395 l 4 P PDR ,

g . e < 4 yL NUCLEAR EXCELLENCE - A SUMMER TRADITION!

/}{y)l 7<

k 4 -TMT ;

j ja - . .

Secretary, U. S. Nucl::ar Regulatory Commission PR 990007 RC-99-0092 Page 2 of 2 Also, the trend needs to move toward lower NRC fees. For a mature industry such as nuclear power, where the performance and safety record has increased significantly over the years, the regulatory fee burden should be decreasing.

Increase in Professional HourIV Fees:

The proposed hourly billing rate of $141.00 per hour is extremely high. A typical multi-disciplined engineering consulting firm bills from $88.00 per hour for junior level engineers to $139.00 per hour for firm principais. The proposed NRC professional hourly rate for all  !

reviews and inspections under the jurisdiction of 10CFR170 equates to the billing rate of a '

consulting firm principal for every hour expended.

l Capturina 100% of the Cost of the Project Manaaer:

, The NRC plans to fully recover the cost of time expended by Project Managers, except time l spent on generic activities such as rulemaking and leave time. SCE&G firmly believes the licensee should not pay for training and administrative time and other time not directly attributable to a specific plant issue.

l l Spent Fuel Storace / Decommissionina Fee:

SCE&G does not maintain an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility (ISFSF) for the V. C.

Summer Nuclear Station nor do we pay 10 CFR 72 fees for such. We have the adequate capacity in our Spent Fuel Pool (SFP), considering rack modifications, and do not plan to l build an ISFSF for at least 15 years. However, under the proposed ru!emaking, will be

! obligated to pay fees for continuing to store spent fuel in the SFP until such time that an  !

l ISFSF is.needed, without any realized services or benefits for those fees, in succinct l terms, the NRC is mandating that we pay the ISFSF fees of other licensees. This is a fee i that we feel is not appropriate for our customers to pay.

- Additionally, had the DOE honored its court affirmed obligation to take possession of spent fuel by January,1998, this fee would not be an issue. i if you have any questions please call at your convenience.

Very truly yours, e

I Gary . i y l

DLJ/GJT/dr c: J. L. Skolds NSRC W. F. Conway RTS (PR 990007)

R.R.Mahan File (811.02,170.001)

R. J. White . DMS (RC-99-0092)

L. M. Padovan