ML19332B547
| ML19332B547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/16/1988 |
| From: | Holloway C NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | Miller V NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332B436 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-54FR49763, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-170-MISC AD23-1-18, NUDOCS 8902230213 | |
| Download: ML19332B547 (2) | |
Text
_
c t.
U w
SEP 1 s 198.g
\\
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vandy Hiller, Chief I
~
Nedicci, Academic and Connere?al
.I Use Safety Branch, NMSS FROM:
C. James Holloway, Jr., Chief License fee Management Branch, ARM
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON 10 CFR 170 i
As you are aware, on June 27, 1988, proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 and 171 were published in the Feoeral Register (53 FR24077). Most of the consents received from materials licensees related to the proposal to charge for each routine inspection rather than. based on the current prescribed frequencies. Although we did not propose any changes.to the license fees for small materials programs, Lixi, Inc. and Health Physics Associates commented on the current materials license fees. Copies of their. comments, aated July 19,1988 and July 22, 1988, respectively, are enclosed.
In ordor to' evaluate the issues raised by Lixi and Health Physics Associates, we would appreciate receiving information on the
'following:
l A.
Lixi, Inc.
e 1.
Lixi has cor.mented that they believe doctors should be charged the same as an industrial user for the review of s
L an application for a new license to use a Lixi device.
~
h Is the staff effort required to review an application for use of the Lixt devices on humans the same as that reqeired to review an application for the industrial use L
of the same device? If not, in what respects do the l'
staff effort requirements differ? Currently, the fee for L
a doctor is $580 (Category (Category 3P).
7C) while an industrial user 1.
is assessed a fee of $230 2.
'Is. the staff effort required to inspect a licensed program the same for the human use of the Lixi devices as that for the industrial use of the same devices? If not, how do they differ? Currently, the routine 7C)pection. fee assessed for human use is $480 (Category ins while the inspection fee for inaustrial use is $530 (Category 3P).
3.
Is the staff effort required to review an application for the human use of the Lixi devices less than the staff effort required to review an application for the human use of other devices? If so, is the difference significant enough to support a new category as Lixi suggests?
ou30A XA,n
.. -.. ~
i G
O t
' 5 h
4.-
Did Policy and Guidance Directive FC 85-1 result in a decrease in the staff effort' required to review applications.for use of the Lixi devices? If so, to what extent was it lessened?
5.
Did Policy and Guidance Directive FC 85-1 result in a decrease in the staff effort required to inspect licensed programs authorizing the use of the'Lixi devices? 'If so, to what extent was it lessened?
B.
Health Physics Associates, Inc.
r
\\
1.-
Health Physics Associates objects to.the fee of $g30
+
\\
(Category 3N) for a license that authorizes services
}
t for other licensees when compared to other types of licenses. How does the staff effort required to review an application for a license to provide services to other licensees (such as installation, calibration,_and relocation) compare with the staff effort required to review applications for the following types of licenses:
(a) Manufacturing of items containing-byproduct
[
material for-comercial distribution to specific-
-licensees?
(b) Distribution of devices _ containing byproduct' I
material which require a device _ evaluation to.
J
-persons exempt from licensing?. (Note:
This refers to the "E" license only; separa.te fees are assessed-
)
for licenses to manufacture these products and for l
the safety evaluation of the products).
(c)
Industrial radiography at field sites?
(d) "Large" gauge programs authorizing the licensee to install his own devices, to calibrate his own survey eters, and to test his detection system in several m
states?
We would appreciate receiving a response 'to this request by September 30,~1988 in order to address the comments in the final rule, t
W bp
]
C. James Noganay,g, C. James Holloway, Jr., Chief License Fee Management Branch I
Division of Accounting and Finance Office of Administration ard Resources Management
Enclosures:
i
'1.-.7/19/88'Ltr., Lixi' a
m
x-I;
')
4
+f 1
!O O
x 00CY,ET UU!.iBER 7
~"
T FROP0ne.M.E.. /70 M/
/
HEALTH PHYSICS ASSOCIATES, INC.
[ MP07 RADIATION PROTECTION CONSULTANTS J*
80K 796 LENHARTSyrwLE, PA 19534 (215) 756-4153
'N JL 26 N1'01 J
22,,(1p48'g'.
Secretary 8Jht.EW US 441 clear - Regulatory Comeission
~ Washington, DC 20555 r m-i
-Attna Docketing and Service-Branch y:
" ' 7l.
J re Proposed Revisi'bn gN".a
-Fees, '10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 l
l June-27, 1988 Federal Register a
Vol 53,n,No.
- 123, Pages 24077 through 24093 3
i l
Dear Gentlemen l
Health Physics Associates would like to register its opposition to' the l
L proposed elimination of the easteue inspection-frequency in ' Part 170.32.
The PRC has not offered any real justification for l;
eliminating this protection to the licensee and we are concerned-with the -- poten tial' for abuse.
As presently
-written, Part 170.32 lists a easieue inspection frequency for routine inspections for each license. category.
Non-routine f
inspections have no easteue.
This arrangement satisfies the needs of both the.- Commission which can inspect any number of times as a rectit
.of a complaint, and the licensee who knows that-if he.providen a good radiation. control-program,- he will be inspected a etnieue nuoter of j
times.
.In. a discussion on a recent listing -of records retention l
periods,.
the Comeission answered commentors that -were asking for permanent rcccrds roter. tion by stating that the periodic inspections, averaging about once every five years, for most licensees was sufficient to determine if recores were being properly maintained.
We j
assumed from this that the Coseission was not anticipating increasing its inspection frequency.
While the proposed change t'a Part 170.32 does 'not indicate an actual-increase in inspection frequency, we are c.oncerned that this ear become a defacto situation for,certain licensees.
i
-Should a 'ilicensee have a good radiation. protection
- progras, the licensee. represents a relatively easy inspection, both technically and
-psychologically for an inspector who knows that the inspection will
. prob &bly be a non-confrontational one.
There could easily be a tendency to inspect such licensees more frequently.
Since we are a l
l:
small
- business, grossing less than s100,000 per year, such a practice would have a severe financial impact on us due to both the actual
, inspection fees and the lost productivity of our primary employee who would have to accompany the inspector.
Mr. LaMastra performs management
- audits, akin to your inspections, at various ' facilities around the country for several clients.
He too j
N,_eust' efficien11y arrange-travel.
We - are, therefore, sure that with 1some ingenuity,;
the $dtC,can
- - - - - - - efficiently-work-out A@C( m M ~a N
.~-.-..-.~. -.~.- -. -.. ~ - - - - -
..2 v
01 O
L 2
?
so that easieue inspection frequencies 4
combined.
and travel optimization I-are Since the Comeission has not provided any-real justification
- change, and-the potential for abuse would-have an impact-for' this
[
potentially penalizing those with.
that the eftC retain the manimum inspection frequencies in 170.32.
good progrees, licensees, on we strongly requestz t We also 'would like to take.this opportunity-specific license. category (3N).
It appears that to object to a fee for a used by the 68tC in regard to specific fees is that those licenses the justification L
. requiring more-review time should ; be assessed larger-fees.:
We are a licensee that detection-uses our. Own b
- systems, calibrate byproduct material to test and install devices survey meters for ourselves
.containing byproduct
. material.
For -this and clients, required to; pay $930 for_ the initial license,-
of30 for the renewal:
and
$120. for / an amendment.
we are A manufacturer specific devices to fart 30 licensees (38),.has a 6460 initial who. distributes several L
renewal: license fee' which j
distrioution.-
covers both the manufacture and and A 'wanufac turer.
i who distributes byproduct eaterial that
- requires device review,. to persons licenses- (3H)- has a 9580 iditial
~ '
esempt fros' specific Part 30 p
f eagine'- that -it takes twice as such time - to review and a $230 renewal fee.
We cannot opposed to < a 3B or. 3H application.
our application as
-Or compare the 3N fees with a license radiography.
at field sites (30),
carrying. a $700 initial and renewal authorising industrial fee.
Having prepared both types of no difference in preparation time.
there cortainly is applications, If we - were installing our own devices at our own facilities, testing our own detection systemt in several states and calibrating survey instruments, our license fee would be. $230 for the inittai
. application end 4120 for' a renewal..
our own program and resulting application is. at least as estensive as our 3N For a large gauge user, the
. program, and we assuee, would take the same amourt of time to review.
- However, there is a substantial disparity in fees.
We would appreciate it if the Commission j
disparity and provide some equity to the fee schedule.
[
would review this apparent l
~Thank you for your consideration of these coseents.
Sincerely, A.
LaMastra
~
p _ _.. _ _ - _.--
~ ~~~