ML20151L962

Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Revs of Fee Schedules.Requests That Commissioners Reexamine NRC Current Budgetary Processes in Order to Provide Greater Assurance of Reasonable Correlation Between Svcs & Costs

ML20151L962
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook, Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, 05000000
Issue date:	07/26/1988
From:	Denise Edwards Maine Yankee
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR24077, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 53FR24077-00016, 53FR24077-16, AC80-2-30, FYC-88-011, FYC-88-11, GLA-88-095, GLA-88-95, NUDOCS 8808040197
Download: ML20151L962 (2)

Text

DOCKET HUMBER PROPOSED ROLE /= .PR /70 171 O

,,,,s,7, sru,co (s '5 F E Wo77.) r , nu rrowra re YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY erC eveni-GLA 88-d95' f g 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 017% JL 28 p } :34 CF'*

July 26, 1988 '[,,f ,

Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments Concerning Proposed Revisions of the Fee ScheduleJ in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.

Dear Sir:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the oppo.tunity to comment on the proposed revisions of the fee schedules in 10CER Parts 170 and 171.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company owns and operates a nuclear :.ner plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineer-ing and licensing, services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee and Scabrook.

The law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowaridge is filing detailed comments concerning the proposed rule on behalf of the NRC Users Fee Group.

We are an active member of this group and fully endorse these cc:ments.

We also wish to offer the following comments.

A general premise of section 7601 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Recon-ciliation Act (COBRA) is that if the NRC is to collect annual charges from its licensees, such charges should be reasonably related to the regulatory service provided by the Commission and fairly reflect the cost to the Commission of providing this service. We question whether the proposed fee schedules of Parts 170 and 171 accomplish this goal.

To cite severas examples of our concern, proposed Section 170.32 would retain fixed fees for most, if not all of the services provided to material licensees. We see no basis for the assertion that ceilings on such fees will not be r moved "since the ratio of NRC coste to fees collected is approximately equivalent to the percentage of the budget to be collected into the General Treasury." We also question the proposed Section 170.12 which would defer the assessment of costs for the review and certification of standard reference designs until such time as the design is referenced or for a period of 5 (or potentially 10) years. If the developer of an approved standard reference design is unsuccessful in markotis.g his concept and subsequently defaults on his payrants for the regulatory review, it GGOOO40197 000726 PDR PR 170 53F R24077 PDR u fJD

+-

e e

is not cicar as to how the cost of these services would be absorbed. Likewise, if parties are allowed to pay for services rendered in 1988 with 1993 (or 1998) dollars, how is the true value of these services recovered? If the Commission's policy is to be consistent with section 7601 of COBRA, the proposed change to Section 170.12 should assure that the applicants for certification of standard reference designs bear the full cost of the regul-atory review and none of these costs, either direct or indirect, are passed on to the present power reactor licensees. We feel that this is most likely to be acco=plished if the cost of services is assessed in the same fiscal period that the services are rendered.

With respect to the proposed Part 171, we seriously question whether current power reactor licensees are the solo "beneficiaries" of the programa which are identified as the bases for the Part 171 fee schedule. To cite just one example, is it reasonable to assu=e that material licensees derive no benefit from the considerable resources expended in research related to radiation protection and health effects?

The Co= mission requested co: cent on an optional course of action whicn would not change Parts 170 or 171 other than to raise the annual fee levied under 10 CFR 171.15 to a level that would assure that the total Part 170 and Part 171 fees are not less than 45 percent of the NRC budget. We oppose this course of action. However, we request that the Commissioners reexamine the liRC's current budgetary processes in order to provide greater assurance that there will be a reasonable correlation between the regulatory services rendered and the cost to the individual licensee.

Very trul your .

.b Donald W. Edwards Director Industry Affairs JDS/asd

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _