ML20206D316
| ML20206D316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos Nuclear Center |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1999 |
| From: | Stimmell G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR15876, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 64FR15876-00011, 64FR15876-11, NUDOCS 9905040048 | |
| Download: ML20206D316 (3) | |
Text
p
) DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE O 110 + 11i GE Nuclear Energy h
(W FR16876) UCCFFJ[t US;RC
, s i
,. .n ,
_ s t 1 Mbb April 30,1999 0
l Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 [*
) ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
References:
- 1. Proposed Revisions tc 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 on License, j inspection and Annual Feer for FY 1999.
- 2. License DPR-1, Docket 50-18
- 3. License R-33, Docket 50-73 i
This letter is in response to the opportunity to comment on the proposed fee revisions outlined in the referenced document (Ref.1).
Specifically, we wish to address the annual fee which is proposed for shutdown, l possession only power reactor facilities under a Art 50 license. Our Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR, Ref. 2) is one of the facilities which might fit into this category ofincurring a fee. Section 171.15(c)(1), Annual Fees: Reactor licenses and spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning, states that:
i
! (cV1) The FY 1999 annual fee for each power reactor holding a Part 50 license tLt is in a decommissioning or possession only status and each independent spent fuel storage Part 72 licensee who does not hold a Part 50 license would be the amount shown in Option A or Option B as presented in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and ,
l (ii) of this section. j O
(i) .)ption A (Rebaselining without a cap): $199,000.
l l
(ii) Option B (Rebaselining with a 50 percent cap): $199,000.
l
-(2) This fee is comprised of a base spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning annual fee (this fee is also included in the operating power reactor annual fee show(s;c) in paragraph (b) of this section), and an additional charge (surcharge). The activities comprising the surcharge are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the F~ i999 spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning base annual fee are:
(i) Generic and other research activities directly related to reactor decommissioning and spent fuel storage; and 9905040048 990430 PDR PR 170 64FR15876 PDR _
\.
flO
_ _ _ _ _ -_ _ ~. - -
f' i Secretary USNRC April 30,1999 l
l (ii) Other safety, environmental, and safeguards activities related to reactor decommissioning and spent fuel storage, except costs for licensing and inspectien activities that are recovered under part 170 of this chapter.
l l The fee fbr a facility like the VBWR is considered to be not applicable for the following reasons:
l
- 1. VBWR has been licensed as a possess only reactor since 1965 with all fuel removed and transferred off-site in 1966. VBWR appears to be included as one of the 125 power reactor licensees for the recovery of spent fuel storage and reactor l demmmissioning fees. With no spent fuel in the reactor or on-site, VBWR clearly .
l denves no benellt from NRC activities related to spent fuel storage. Charges assessed I for safeguarding or spent fuel storage purposes are not applicable to the VBWR .
- 2. A reason cited for imposing the fee across all power reactors in a decommissioning or )
possession only status was to assure consistent fee treatment for licensees that store I their spent fuel in dry cask facilities, currently assessed a fee, and those that store spent fuel in pools, currently not assessed a fee. VBWR does not fit in either category,
- having no fuel stored at all. j
- 3. The portion of the VBWR facility licensed by the NRC is limited to the containment J building and its contents, and a very small amount external to the containment. The
- remaining portion of the VBWR facility was ultimately transferred to the California l By-product license. Essentially all of the facilities, structures, and systems, external to the containment vessel, associated with VBWR operation have been removed l (under state license) leaving a very small containment structure and internal components subject to future decommissioning under NRC license. Again, VBWR derives no comparable benefit from the NRC's decommissioning activities. l
- 4. VBWR was the first licensed United States power reactor, used for research and i development of the design for commercial boiling water reactor technology. VBWR
( was initially licensed for a maximum thermal power of 20 MW and later increased to l a maximum of 50 MW. The electrical power produced by VBWR (5 MWe), although i supplied to the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) power grid in a very limited test, l provided no appreciable income to compensate for the cost of design, construction, and operation of the plant during its relatively short operating lifetime (six years, l 1957 through 1963). This differentiates VBWR as unique from typical commercial power reactors, which receive compensation through the consumer fee process during a significantly longer operating period. Therefore, it is inconsistent to categorize the VBWR with commercial power reactors when setting fee bases.
L_
r 1 i
- =
W i
1
\
l Secretary USNRC April 30,1999 l
- 5. The VBWR regulatory licensing responsibility was transferred from the NRC Office I of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and j Safeguards (NMSS) in 1989. It was subsequently transferred back to NRR from NMSS in 1995. liowever, the fact that it was transferred to NMSS at all indicates the l
J unique nature of the VBWR and the fact that it doesn't fit the licensing definition of a commercial power reactor. 1 i
The other category of significant fee increase applies to our Nuclear Test Reactor (Ref.
3), under the nonpower reactor category. Our Nuclear Test Reactor is one of the four nonpower reactors identified for the recovery of the $343,000 NRC budgeted costs. This significant increase is due to the reduction of the number oflicensed reactors in this category. The NRC may wish to consider other options to reduce budgeted costs, consistent with the reduction oflicensees in this category. It is inequitable to assess the {
significant fee increase to the remaining few licensed facilities in this category with no increase in benefits.
We respectfully request the NRC reconsider application ofits proposed fee structure to the VBWR,in possession only status with no spent fuel stored on-site. We recommend the fee structure for this facility remain unchanged from current regulations. We also l request the NRC not impose the proposed significant fee increases on the few remaining l licensed nonpower reactors where the influence of a reduction in the number oflicensees results in fee increases disproportionate to any benefits derived by these facilities.
)
1 If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact C. W. Bassett, ;
Manager, Regulatory Compliance on (925) 862-4469. !
Sincerely, bbN G. L. Stimmell, Manager Vallecitos and Morris Operations l
l u .-