ML20002B718
| ML20002B718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1980 |
| From: | Voth M UNION CARBIDE CORP. |
| To: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012220624 | |
| Download: ML20002B718 (2) | |
Text
.*
h jC + l 7
,. n.:
,e " *h, i.
UNION CARBlDE CORPORATION q,- --p,Y"*- )-
h MEDICAL PRODUCTS OlVISION
- O. Bo x 324. Tu w ECO. NEW YO n g 10947 TELEpwCNE: 914 351 2131 Decemeer 2, 1980 William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Branen Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wasnington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Miller:
Your November 5, 1980 letter notifiea us of your intent to consider our facility licensed under SNM-639 as a 10 versus 1G facility. We have received invoices 0227N and 0228N implementing that decision. For a number of reasons discussed below, we do not oelieve the fees are justified and respectfully ask that your request ce withdrawn.
You correctly note that on March 26, 1979, Amendment 3 to License SNM-639 increased the total possession limit of U 235 from 4.6 kilograms to 13 kilograms. However, snortly prior to tnat time, we were issued on January 30, 1979, Material and Plant Protection Amendment MPP-3, which restricts tne aggregate quantity of unirraciated U 235 possessed under the license for our Hot Laboratory (SNM-639) and our Reactor (R-81) to be less than 5 kilograms. This restriction has oeen a severe operating limitation, wnicn does not allow the full range of operational flexibility of a Category 10 facility. Since we are not licensed for the full range of activities allowed under Category 10, it is inconsistent that we be charged for activities not permitted oy our license. Note that under tne R-81 license, tnis fact is considered in tnat 10CFR 170.24 assesses a lesser fee for safeguards inspections of facilities limited to fuel of moderate strategic importance relative to facilities allowed to possess fuel of hign strategic importance.
In our case, the aggregate quantity of special nuclear material under tne Hot Lab and Reactor license is limited to a quantity of moderate strategic importance.
A complication exists with your proposal of back charging, assuming it should remain your position that oilling under Category 10 is fair and justified. The majority of the proposed back cnarge is for 1979; tne ocoks for that year nave been closed. The portion for 1980 activity was not budgeted and is tnerefore not available. Furtnermore, the proposed increase for our fiscal year 1981 was not anticipatea in our oudget wnich has been approved for next year. Since the oversight was not the result of any error on our part, we consider oack charging to oe unjustified.
8012220 d
Aa24 J2lrlso L/>sR.
o 8
Page Two Decemoer 2, 1980 An important factor we would like to impress on you is the impact of regulatory expenses on the operation of our facility. Regulators frequently assume tnat charges such as you propose are insignificant and go unseen in an organization as large as Union Caroide. On the contrary, tne cost of regulation to tne corporation is a significant amount. Our concern with the matter at hand is based on the olvisional level. The Medical Products Division is a small operation, attempting to survive economically anile providing radioisotopes to patients at a cost whien is botn reasonaole and competitive with foreign producers. Regulatory fees charged by the NRC fGr operating our Reactor and Hot Laboratory under the proposeo category total 10-20% of the total salary budget for the professional operating staff of the facility. Our main competitor in tne production of reactor-produced medical radioisotopes is in Canada wnere no such cost penalties are known to exist. We consider it in the national interest to maintain this vital function, rather than regulate it out of tne country, as nas nappened to numerous otner components of the nuclear industry.
In-sunmary, we ask that you reconsider your suggestion to change SNM-639 from a 1G to a 10 facility. We find that maintaining 1G status is witnin tne scope of tne existing fee schedule.
It is the correct category since activities licensed under SNM-629 are limited in such a manner that tne full range of activities allowed under 10 are specifically prohibited.
We also ask tnat via0111ty of U.S. inoustry, burdened by oser-regulation, be considered in the face of foreign competition. Wa will place invoices 0227N and 0228N on nold, pending furtner communication from you.
Yours very truly, o
N Marcus H. Voth Manager, Nuclear Operations l
l
-