ML20002D227
| ML20002D227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001821 |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1980 |
| From: | Donoghue O NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Boskey B VOLPE, BOSKEY & LYONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101200094 | |
| Download: ML20002D227 (3) | |
Text
.
/l( O
~.
1 DOCKET NO. 70-1821 s?
a Volpe, Boskey and Lyons DEC 2 2 600 World Center Building ATTN:
Mr. Bennett Boskey
- j
' ' 9; i
91816th Street, N.W.
ii C
i Washington. D.C.
20006 0
m R
-J Gentlemen:
In accord with your request the staff has again reviewed the history of the application filed by Allied-General. Nuclear Services (AGNS) for the proposed Pluttnium Products Facility, and based on the facts in the record concludes that there is no basis for a discretionary refund of any part of the application fee.
To provide the cost detail you wanted, it was necessary to contact the Department of Energy, who in turn had to go to their contractor, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories (LASL) who had participated extensively in the review.
Recently, we received manpower data covering most of LASL's effort on the AGNS application.
LASL was primarily concerned with facility design and accident analysis. Enclosed are copies of the following data which descri!rn the i
Commission's specific costs associated with review of the AGNS appik.ation:
1.
Memorandum dated January 17, 1980 from W. Dircks. Director, NMSS, to D. Donoghue. Director, ADM. which listed 718 man-hours of review effort for the July 1.1974 revised application, and less than 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> for the July 2,1973 application.
2.
Memorandum dated February 25, 1980 from F. P. Schauer, Chief Structural Engineering Branch, to W. O. Miller. ADN. which reported 384 man-hour" of review time.
3.
Letter dated October 22. 1980 frem LASL to W. O. Miller, ADM. with attachments of cost data.
In earlier correspondence on the subject, I informed you that costs for the review exceeded $100.000. At the time the AGNS application was undergoing review, the fees in 10 CFR 170 were based on average costs to process a particular type of application.
Using the average-cost method to detemine the fees would mean that in some instances the costs for any one application could either exceed or be less than the fee.
In developing its costs for the purpose of assessing fees to be charged-license applicants, the Cowenission used reasonable approximations, not precise calculations. The Fifth Circuit i
01200 o o,,. 4........
su - 4..
i Volpe. Boskey and Lyons ;
i Court of Appeals in its w9ust 24.1979 decision, upheld this approach.
l (Mississippi Power and Light v. NRC, 601 F.2d 223, 232; cert., denied _
444 U. S. 1102 (1980)). Based on ths manpower and cost data provided to us i
l by those involved in the review, the costs of the AGNS review are:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards - $ 30.134 (793 m-hrs G i
$38/m-hr) i 14.976 (384 m-hrs 9 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
$39/m-hr l
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories 84.200 y 5129.310 - Total i
You will note that LASL's submission contains minimum cost figures. e.g., only actual travel time was included for the on-site review at Barnwell. S.C., in l
February 1975 by LASL staff members. This would mean that the time and costs required to prepare for this visit have not been included. Likewise, the time j
and casts of writing follow-up reports and briefings were not included.
The costs incurred for review of the July 1973 application, which AGNS had improperly filed under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50. have been included as part of our cost computations. Because the application inked sufficient information for the licensing staff "to determine specifically what AGNS is connitting to construct....". the Commission prepared detailed questions and connents to assist AGNS in preparing supplemental information in support of their application.
(See ociosed copy of letter to AGNS dated January 9.1974.)
Upon review of the revised application, the licensing staff was able to detennine that the proposed facility did not meet the definition of a production and utilization facility as defined in 10 CFR Part 50.2. and subsequently infonned AGNS that the review would take place in accordance with 10 CFR 70.
Consequently. I see no.iustifiable reason why the costs incurred by the commission for review of the July 1973 application should be excluded.
Under Section 170.12(a) of 10 CFR 170, it has been Commission practice to charge application fees " irrespective of the Commission's disposition of the application or a withdrawal of the application".
In this instance, the applicant elected to suspend design work for the plutonium facility pending an outcome of the GESMO proceeding which in turn, led the Connission to discontinue review of the application shortly thereafter. Notwithstanding'the provisions of Section '
170.12(a), where an application is withdrawn prior to the staff connencing the -
review, the fee would be refunded to the applicant as an exercise of agency 1
i l
4 Ly Includes $.2.000 charged by LASL for providing backup cost data.
'.s.
omcc)..
su - c>......
occ>
..:. (
~
O C)
Volpe, Baskey and Lycns discretion under 10 CFR 170.11. However, in this instance, the Commission had incurred considerable time and cost in processing an application which had been voluntarily filed by AGNS. The record shows.these costs to be approximately
$130 thousand, and apparently this figure does not include all costs from the contractor who participated in the review. Accordingly, I find no basis in equity in the record to support return of any part of the application fee.
Sincerely.
ORIGINAI, stGNED DZ, DanielJ.DonoAju Daniel J. Donoghue, Director Office of Administration
Enclosures:
1.
Memorandum dtd 1/17/80 fm W. Dircks to D. Donoghue 2.
Memorandum dtd 2/25/80 fm F. Schauer to W. O. Miller 3.
Ltr dtd 10/22/80 from LASL 4.
Ltr to AGNS dtd 1/9/74 5.
9
.,