ML20206E818

Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Revs to License,Insp & Annual Fees for FY99

ML20206E818
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/03/1999
From:	Mueller J NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-64FR15876, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 64FR15876-00019, 64FR15876-19, NMP1L-1433, NUDOCS 9905050252
Download: ML20206E818 (2)

Text

I~ MAY-03-99 MON 04:31 PM LICENSING FAX NO. 3153491400 P. 02 NiagarahMohawl8N John r(. Muelfer

• 00

vry

1. p O. - -

g' . g' ',,g Phonc 3Is 349407 Scnior Vice Pre $1 dent and "I'I; k F*L 31s 3491331 Chic / Nuclev 0/hct, PROPOSED Hu$ys 70s/7I g,. ... e mooc, coin, c o, 1 ,.

. TRisf(74) May 3, AS99 NMPll 1433 Secretary A'ITN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-220 Docket No. 50-410

_ DPR-63 NPF-69

Subject:

Pmposed Revisions to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 on License, inspection and Annual Feesfor FY1999 Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments regarding the proposed revisions, dated March 26,1999 to CFR Parts 170 and 171 on License, Inspection and Annual Fees for FY 1999. Our comments are specific to recovering cost of escalated enforcement actions.

As documented in Section II. A.1.d, escalated erforcement action fees serve the generic purpose ofindustry wide deterrence. The same section also documented that the proposed fee could be much greater than the civil penalty, which alone is intended to encourage a licensee to comply with NRC requirements.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation disagrees with the proposed revision, because the original reasons wl.y specific licensees are currently not charged remain valid. Under the proposed fee structure, licensecs would have to pay fees associated with pursuing due process for any enforcement actions a licensee disagreed with. This could be viewed by the industry as a penalty for exercising due process, and could result in a chilling effect on challenges to enforcement actions. Also, the current enforcement policy allows enforcement discretion when the licensee identifies and corrects violations. Under the proposed revision, a licensee would be required to pay for the review of a violation and associated corrective actions even if the NRC concludes that full mitigation of a possible civil penalty is appropriate. This could

'; also result in a different chilling effect. Finally, when the NRC withdraws an enforcement action, the enforcement effort would potentially still be billable to the licensee under the proposed fee structure. '

9905050252 PDR PR 990503 l 170 64FR15876 PDR Ninc Wu Point Nucle station PO Box 63, Lycoming. New YoA 13093 0003 i

5 MAY-03-99 MON 04:31 PM o

LICENSING FAX NO. 3153491400 P. 03 i

Page 2 Based on the information above, Niagam Mohawk Power Corporation requests that the NRC not assess the cost associated with the development of enforcement actions to specific licensecs. The current process for enforcement action fees is appropriate and should not be

revised.

Sincerely, l

John H. Mueller i Senior Vice President and l Chief Nuclear Officer )

JHM/SEC/ kap j xc: Mr. H. J. Miller, NRC Regional Administrator Mr. S. S. Bajwa, Director, Project Directorate I-1, NRR Mr. G. K. Hunegs, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. D. S; Hood, Senior Project Manager, NRR Document Control Desk Records Management