ML20009D103
| ML20009D103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/15/2020 |
| From: | Clay Johnson NRC/OCFO |
| To: | Cole K NAC International |
| smh | |
| References | |
| Download: ML20009D103 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. Kent S. Cole President and Chief Executive Officer NAC International, Inc.
3930 East Jones Bridge Road, Suite 200 Norcross, GA 30092
Dear Mr. Cole:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter dated September 11, 2019 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession (ADAMS) No. ML19256A011). In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 15.31, Disputed debts, your letter disputes $632,398 in licensing fees the NRC assessed to NAC International Inc. (NAC) for its review of the MAGNATRAN spent fuel transportation package between September 2016 and May 2019. Your letter states that these fees were inappropriate because the duration of the NRC review was extended due, in part, to the results of a confirmatory thermal model provided by an NRC contractor which contained an error in the model of the basket corner geometry. You also stated that this error contributed to the contractor misleading the NRC into protracting the review and amplified the NRCs skepticism of NACs model.
Regarding the criteria in 10 CFR 15.31(a) for the fee dispute, the NRC determined that fees were correctly assessed to NAC for the review of the MAGNATRAN spent fuel transportation package based on hours the NRC staff charged in reviewing the application. Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12, which explains that applicants must pay licensing fees to recover the full costs of the review of applications for new licenses and approvals, the charges for review of the MAGNATRAN application were for work the NRC staff believed to be necessary at the time the work was performed.
The NRC disagrees that our contractors thermal model had an error and that this error resulted in the contractor misleading the NRC into protracting the review. However, the NRC acknowledges that our review process was complicated by the need for revisions to the initial package submitted by NAC, and NRCs efforts, including those of the NRC contractor, to identify and understand the differences in the results between the NRC and NACs normal conditions of transport thermal models.
The NRC recognizes that, after NAC provided the October 6, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17291A395), submittal responding to NRCs concerns discussed at the July 2017 meeting, which corrected NACs initial modeling errors, the NRC had enough information to complete its review of NACs thermal model for the MAGNATRAN package. As a discrepancy still existed between the peak clad temperatures calculated by NACs and the NRCs thermal models, the NRC continued to question NACs model, and then performed a third-party independent review of the MAGNATRAN thermal analysis to reconcile the NRC and NAC temperature differences.
The results of the third-party independent thermal analysis indicated that the fuel cladding temperatures for the MAGNATRAN design were in-line with NACs acceptable temperature September 15, 2020
criterion. After re-reviewing its model, the NRC contractor revised its thermal model and the results exhibited temperatures similar to those determined by NAC.
After considering this specific review, I have determined that while some fee reimbursement is appropriate, I do not agree that the matter warrants the entire amount requested in your letter.
Considering the information discussed above, the NRC acknowledges that a specific portion of the time spent to perform a safety review leading to approval of the MAGNATRAN package was not necessary to complete the review of this particular application. As a result, I will grant NAC a partial refund of $330,475 (NRC staff and contractor costs) in licensing fees that had previously been assessed to NAC. This partial refund is for 100 percent of NRC thermal reviewers staff time, 50 percent of the project managers charges; and 100 percent of the contractors charges, from October 1, 2017, through the end of January 2019. However, the NRC is not refunding fees that were assessed to NAC prior to October 1, 2017, since NACs thermal model submittal prior to this timeframe contained errors. In addition, licensing fees after October 2017 were assessed related to the other NRC staff reviewers ongoing work to draft their respective portions of the safety evaluation report (SER). Furthermore, fees were also assessed after October 2017 for the shielding reviewer and project manager to resolve the outstanding issue on inclusion of drawing tolerances in the shielding evaluation. All charges from February 2019 through issuance of the certificate on April 5, 2019, were solely related to completing and issuing the certificate of compliance (CoC) and associated SER, which the NRC would have performed had it issued the CoC earlier. There were no charges for the review of the MAGNATRAN spent fuel transportation package after April 5,2019.
If you have any technical questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Bernard White at 301-415-6577. For any fee billing related questions, please contact Ms. Jawanza Gibbs-Nicholson of my staff at 301-415-5245.
Sincerely, Cherish K. Johnson Chief Financial Officer Cherish K.
Johnson Digitally signed by Cherish K.
Johnson Date: 2020.09.15 15:56:21
-04'00'
ML20009D071 package; ML20009D103 memo; ML19256A011 (incoming)
- via e-mail CFO-0009 OFFICE OCFO/DOB/LFPT OCFO/DOB/LFPT NMSS/DFM/STLB NMSS/DFM/STLB NMSS/DFM NAME JJacobs*
WBlaney*
BWhite*
JMcKirgan*
AKock*
DATE 05/05/2020 05/05/2020 05/05/2020 05/05/2020 05/05/2020 OFFICE OGC OCFO/DOC/LAFBB OCFO/DOC/LAFBB NMSS OCFO/DOB/LFPT NAME GKim*
JGibbs-Nicholson*
MBlair JLubinski*
ACRossi*
DATE 05/13/2020 05/14/2020 05/14/2020 05/06/2020 05/14/2020 OFFICE OCFO/DOB OCFO/DOB OEDO CFO NAME RAllwein*
JEShay*
MMDoane*
CJohnson DATE 05/19/2020 05/19/2020 09/10/2020 09/15/2020