ML19282A372
| ML19282A372 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000371 |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1979 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Kirk W UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. (SUBS. OF UNC, INC.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905230850 | |
| Download: ML19282A372 (2) | |
Text
.
PDR w-a
,8 UNITED STATES 3'e
,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 DOCKET N0.70-371 MAY 8 ' 1979 United Nuclear Corporation ATTN:
Mr. W. F. Kirk Nuclear and Industrial __
Safety Department 67 Sandy Desert Road Uncasville, Connecticut 06382 Gentlemen:
This refers to your letter dated March 30, 1979 (NIS:
79-3-74), con-cerning the fee for your Guard Training and Qualification Plan.
As we pointed out to you in our March 26, 1979 letter, the review and approval of the subject plan is not being done for the convenience of the Commission, but rather, it is for the purpose of determining whether a licensee meets the requirements of the Commission's regula-tions.
The Licensing staff has advised this office that the review and approval of such plans is to assure the licensee's compliance with the requirements specified in Section 73.50 and Appendix B of Part 73.
Compliance with the requirements of these regulations to assure that a licensee's activitie~s are conducted in a safe manner is not considered as complying with anJRC written request of the type referred to in Footnote 1(d) of Section 170.31 of Part 170.
Your submittal of the Guard Training and Qualification Plan cannot be construed as an action which is for the convenience of the Commission.
Accordingly, we do not believe that the review and approval of this plan is exempt from fees.
Even in those instances where an amendment is being issued for the con-venience of the Commission, Footnote 1(d) does not automatically allow an exemption; instead, the footnote states that the amendment "may be exempted from these fees at the discretion of the Commission".
As we' informed you in our previous letter, the Licensing staff has determined that the review of your plan will require a major review effort to determine whether the plan meets the requirements of 10 CFR 73.50(h) and Appendix B of Part 73.
The requirements specified in Appendix B of Part 73 are not for the protection of NRC's uranium,-as mentioned in your letter, but rather, they are for the protection of the nuclear materials at NRC licensed fuel cycle facilities, q905 230 Sf6 1
.~
United Nuclear Corporation It is true that the upgrade of physical protection of plants and materials may be in the interest of common defense and security and in the interest of the public. This fact, however, does not mean that no fee is to be charged. The Commission's staff must review the submission to determine that the operations authorized by the license are conducted in a manner that the health and safety of the public is not endangered, While your submittal may rot decrease the effectiveness of your Physical Security Plan, the Commission must, nevertheless, review the plan, make a determination and-grant its approval. The amendment will be subject to e fee.
Based on the foregoing and as requested in our March 23, 1979 letter, an amendment fee of $8,300 remains due and payable for your guard training and qualification plan.
Payment of the fee should be remitted promptly to this office. The final charge will be based on actual cost up to the maximum fee shown in 5170.31 of Part 170.
Sincerely, (O. D. Dbirv William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branch Office of Administration Enclosure-10 CFR 170
- .f.
I I
e
'e
/UDi U D3WED C U CE 'LMR C 0 R P o R A T 1 O N l'
y n P.c p l y, Please s7 sa n ov or.srst scan
'efer To:
UNC ASVIL L E. CON N ECTICU T Of 3 ft 2 IIS: 79-3-74 T E t. 0 4 D 1511 March 30, 1979 RECava > y.
..n
- 1 O
(
l j nm.,jlQty. t l
Mr. Um.
O.
Ifille r, Chief r 3,I,I License Fee 11a n a g eme n t Branch Cy h,
"l Office of Administration f,;, j,) g,g,,g f
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
{
~'N Subject.
Docket No.70-371, License SNM-360 Physical Security Plan - Guard Training and Qualification Plan
Reference:
(1)
Letter W.F.
Kirk to G.
McCorkle on subject, dated February 13, 1979.
(2)
Letter W.O.
Miller to W.F.
Kirk on subject, dated March 26, 1979.
Dear Sir:
We understand that under para. 70. 32 (8) (b) that the NRC may in-corporate additional requirements into any licence as it decms appropriate or necessary in order to:
(1)
Promote the common de fen se and security; (2)
Protect health or to minimize danger to life or property; (3)
Protect Restricted Data; (4)
Guard against the loss or diversion of special nuclear material; (5)
Rcquire such reports and the keeping of such records, and to provide for such inspections, of activities under the license as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the act and regulations thereunder.
Para. 70.34 states that applications for amendment of a license shall be filed in accordance with para.,0.21(a) and shall specify the respects in which the licensee desires his license to be amended and the grounds for such amendment.
This wording is consistent with para. 70. 32 (e) under which we submitted the Training and Qualification Plan.
+
a.
C.
r/ m.
O.
Miller Page 2 March 30, 1979 Reference (1) states that " licensees are required by regulation to file these plans for Commission review and approval".
We concur that the filing is being required by the Commission under para. 70. 32 (8) (b) and is not consistent with the voluntary nature of amendments as set forth by 70.34 and 70. 32 (e ).
Under such wording, it is reasonable to conclude that the Training and Qualification Plan is being submitted for the convenience of the Commission and not at our desire.
Reviewing the history of 43 FR 37421 (10 CPR 73.50.h and Appendix B of Part 7 3), it should be noted that the upgrade of physical pro-taction of plants and materials would be "in the interests of the common defense and security and in the interests of public health and safety (e.g., Part 73 Statements of Consideration 42 FR 10836.
In summary, our basis for determining that this submission should carry no fee requirement is:
1.
It is for the convenience of the NRC and at the request of NRC per 170.31 footnote (d).
2.
The requirements are specified in detail by the NRC for the protection of its uranium and the safety of the general public.
3.
It confers no benefit to the licensee. (43 FR 7211) 4.
It is a change to our existing Physical Security Plan that does not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan.
5.
All operations at this site are conducted in supplying the U.S.
Government with nuclear reactors.
6.
Amendments are denoted as being voluntary per para. 70.34.
Pending resolution of the question of any actual fee, please proceed with review as provided in 10 CPR 70.12(c) and 17 0. 31 ( d ).
To minimize NRC costs during review, our plan should be very similar to those submitted by other licensees which have been previously reviewed.
Should further clarification be necessary, please contact me.
Thanking you in advance, I remain Very truly yours, UNITED UUCLEAR CORPORATION AW W.F.
Kirk, Manager Nuclear and Industrial Safety Department
/cjm