ML20043G904
| ML20043G904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1990 |
| From: | Gerard Jackson NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330E503 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-55FR21173, RULE-PR-170 AD23-2-34, NUDOCS 9006210282 | |
| Download: ML20043G904 (5) | |
Text
...
/}D 25 JAN 31 U23 P%
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Files FROM:
Glenda C. Jackson, Chief Materials License fee Section License Fee and Debt Collection Branch Division of Accounting and Finance OC
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON PR080 SED REYlSION TO 10 CFR 170 A proposed revision to 10 CFR 170 was published in the Feoeral Register on December 1, 1989, and a copy was mailed to all Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, 71, 72 and 73 licensees, applicants and reactor vendors with a cover notice outlining the major changes in the proposed rule.
The December 1,1989, Federal Register notice and the December 1,1989, notice to licensees included information regarding two public meetings to be held in Region I ano Region III to discuss the proposed changes and answer any questions. A notice of a third public meeting to be held in Region !Y was published in the Federal Register on December 28, 1989. A notice of the third meeting was mailed to all Region IV licensees shortly thereafter.
In addition, press releases were issued December 1,1989, and January 2,1990, concerning the proposed rule and public meetings.
The public meetings were held January 8,1990, in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, January 11, 1990, in Rosemont, Illinois, and January 17, 1990, in Arlington, Texas.
A list of attendees at each meeting is attached.
I announced at the beginning of each meetins that the meetings were not part of the formal comment process but were being held for the purpose of discussing tre proposed rule change and answer any questions on an informal basis.
I encouraged the attendees to submit their comments in writing by January 30, 1990, as provided in the notice of the proposed rule change.
At each meeting, I sumarized the proposed changes and opened the floor to questions. The licensee representatives who attended the Region I ano Region III meetings did not have questions concerning the proposed fees. However, the NRC licensing staffs in attendance at those meetings had questions about the proposed category for full cost recovery for byproduct material decomissioning activities (proposed Category 14).
9006210282 900610 "h 5 R21173 PDR 1
2 Region !
John Kinneman was concerned about the mechanism for determining which applic-ations would be subject to the proposed new Category 14 in order for the technical staff to report the staff-hours expended on the review of those applications.
I explained that the new fee category would apply to applic-ations for decomissioning or decontamination activities at licensed facili-ties and that the technical staff would be responsible for identifying those applications.
I pointed out-that applications to terminate materials licenses where no decontamination or decomissioning activities are involved would not be subject to fee as currently provided in Footnote 1(d) of $170.31.
Region !!!
Mike McCann isked for clarification of the intent of proposed category 14, i.e., would it apply to the submission of the decomissionino plans required after the effective cate of the decomissioning rule.
I explained that, if
.the decomissioning plans are processed as license amendments, the amendment fee for the fee category assigned to the licensed activity would apply.
I further explained that the proposed new category would only apply to applic-ations for authorization to decomission or decontaminate a licensed facility.
I also mentioned that in the case of licenses with multiple categories, it is L
possible that proposed Category 14 would apply only to a portion of a partic-l ular license, and the fee would be assessed accordingly.
Mr. Wayne Kerr, with the State of Illinois, indicated that the States' comments had been submitted to the Comission. He said that although the State agrees with the Comission's effort to update the fee schedule for materials licensees they believe NRC should revise the fees to assure recovery of 45% of the budget for activities associated with materials licensing and inspection. He said they also believe that Illinois reactor licensees bear a disproportionate share of NRC fees because NRC recovers 455 in facility fees and there are a large number of reactor licensees in Illinois.
I explained that, under the Independe it Offices Appropriation Act (10AA). NRC could not recover the cost of many items included in the budget, such as rulemaking activities and staff effort expended in support of the Agreement State program, since these activities are not services provided to an individually identifiable recipient.
I also explained that many license applications are l
exempt from license fees under $170.11.
Ms. Betsy Salus, an attorney with the State of Illinois, suggested that the definition for fee Category 4 be changed to " Waste Processing" since 48 and 4C L
do not pertain to waste disposal activities. She also thought that it would be helpful to discuss in the rule why)certain categories are subject to full cost fees, and to change il70.11(a)(4 to specify that any licensed facility excepted from the exemption would be subject to the proposed new decomissioning fee.
r
. Region lY Much of the discussion at the Region IV meeting centereo on the economic impact the proposed fees would have on the licensees in attendance (mostly well loggers).
One attendee in the well logging industry stated that the increased fees would put him out of business.
I suggested that he submit his concerns in writing and referred him to the provisions of the Pegulatory Flexibility Certification section (pg 49766 of the December 1,1989, Federal Register Notice) which describes the information which should be submittee to the Comission if a small entity determines that it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse economic impact as a result of the proposed changes.
I also pointed out that the licensees present at the meeting would not in most cases, be subject to application fees and that the renewal fees ge,nerally cover a 5-year renewal period.
There was concern among the well loggers present that they would be subject to multiple fees if inspections of their various temporary job sites are considered separate inspections. Mr.
William Fisher, Region IV, stated that if multiple locations are inspected during separate visits, they are considered separate inspections; if they are inspected during a single visit, they are considered a single inspection.
I explained that inspection fees are assessed accordingly. Mr. Fisher said that to the extent possible the inspection staffs try to limit the inspections to a single visit.
The decomissioning rule and proposN fee category 14 were discussec at the Region lY meeting from the standpcint of the applicability of the rule to the licensees present, how they could reduce their authorized possession limits to avoid being subject to the rule, and at what point they would be subject to the full cost fee (Category 14).
Mr. Fisher discussed the implication of the decomissioning rule and said that, whenever possible, Region IV is adding a statement to licenses which places the licenses outside the scope of the decomissioning rule.
There were also questions as to whether changes in users or places of use constitute amendments and therefore require a fee.
Mr. Fisher and I explained that certain licenses include conditions which authorize the licensee to l
appoint users or change location without obtaining a specific license amendment, but most licenses reouire amendments to make these changes.
We suggested that the licensees review their licenses carefully for these conditions and also to determine if their license is subject to the decomissioning rule. Mr. Fisher encouraged the attendees to take action to 1
4 4
lower their authorized possession limit if possible to avoic being subject to the decommissioning rule.
Signed by:
Glenda Jackson Glenda C. Jackson, Chief Materials License Fee Section License fee and Debt Collect. ion Branch Division of Accounting and Finance, OC
Attachment:
List of Attendees DISTRIBUTION:
R5croggins, OC LHill?r, OC JHolloway, OC GJohnson, OC/DAF EBlack OC/DAF DDandois, OC/LFDCB GJackson, OC/LFDCB DWeiss, OC/LFDCB VMiller, GPA/SP JFunches, tiMSS PMcLaughlin, HMSS JGlenn, NMSS LBettenhausen, R1 JKinneman, RI JMcGrath, RI McCann, RIII BJHolt, RIII WFisher, RIV CHackney, RIY RFonner, OGC RSmith, OGC TRothchild, OGC Scrockett, OGC OC DAF R/F LFDCBR/F(2)
DW/GJ/Public Meeting s.I' M d
- 1. lo f s 0FFICE : LFDCB (
LFDC83M SURNAME: GJacks'on DDandois DATE
- 1/.y/90 1/p/90 7
l l
m___-_-____-_-___
r-wr
- e 4
=
List of Attencees - Public Meetings Re: Proposed Revision to Part 170 5
January 8, 1990 - King of Prussia, PA Public NRC 1.- Richard H. Gropp, Jr.
~I"'
Eleanor Black, OC/DAF Philadelphia Electric Co.
2.
John Glenn, NhSS/IMAB 3.
John Kinneman, RI y
4.
John McGrath, RI 5.
KenRaynor,NMSS(Detail)~
o 6.
Doris Foster, RI 7.
Diane Dandois, OC/DAF/LFDCB 4
8.
Glenda Jackson, m
9.
Marnella Rodriguez, ""
{
10.
Cheryl Phillips, ""
2 11.
Sandy Kimberley, ""
12.
Brenda Green, ""
January 11, 1990 - Rosemont, Illinois w
Public NRC 1.
Bryan W. Baker, Amersham 1.
B.J. Holt, RIII
- 2.
Sam Pontillo, Nuclear Medicine 2.
G.M. McCann, RIII Assoc.
3.
Glenda Jackson, OC/DAF/LFDCB r
3.
Wayne Kerr, Illinois Dept. of Nhelear Safety 4.
Betsy Salus, Illinois Dept. of Nuclear Safety January 17,-1990 - Arlington, Texas
=
Public NRC 1.
Jeff beekins, Computalog 1.
Bill Fisher, RIV
^
.'dreline Service, Inc.
2.
Charles' Hackney, RIV 2.
F.L. Weedon, Frontier Logging 3.
Glenca Jackson, OC/DAF/LFDCB Corp.-
3.
Bill Stowe, Southwestern Laboratories-4.
Ken Jeek, Halliburton Logging Sen ices 5.
Bill Hoffman, Davis Great Guns Logging E
6.
Rick Borgus, Wedge Wireline, Inc.
E c
m r,
<i.
a c
.