ML20058J271
| ML20058J271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/12/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Frank B HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR50859, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9312140029 | |
| Download: ML20058J271 (10) | |
Text
a
" p arco,
'r U
[ i ' /, ?g UNITED STATES i1 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3{'
j WASHINGTON. D C. 20 % 5 0001 kv
[
?.,,,.*
Octoter 12, 1993 l
The Honorable Barney Frank United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-2104
Dear Congressman Frank:
I am responding to your letter of September 20, 1993, written on behalf of your constituent, Wheaton College, regarding NRC fees.
In accordance with the requirements of OBRA-90 to recover 100 percent of our budget authority, the NRC published a final rule on July 20, 1993, establishing annual fee schedules for its licensees for fiscal year 1993.
The i
final rule also eliminated a generic exemption from annual fees previously applicable to nonprofit educational institutions.
The Commission's need to' revisit the generic exemption for nonprofit educational institutions was occasioned by a March 14, 1993, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Allied Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, No. 91-1407 and Consolidated Cases) which forced the Commission to acknowledge the weakness of, and abandon, the passthrough argument formerly made on behalf of these institutions.
Following the publication of the final rule, the Commission received a petition from Cornell and eleven other universities for reconsideration of the final rule and requesting reinstatement of the exemption for nonprofit educational institutions.
The Commission has decided to grant the petition to reconsider this matter and is issuing a proposed rule to amend 10 CFR Part 171 to restore the generic exemption from annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed rule which was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1993, for a 30-day comment period.
Sincerely,
/
23 a es M. Ta r
ecutive D rector for Operations i
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule q /
~
9312140029 931012 I'
PDR PR I
170 58FR50859 PDR
i Federal Register / Vol. 58, No.187 / Wednesd8y, September 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules 50859 Regulatory Flcubility Certification 938,954,955 as amended (42 U.S.C 2132, 10 CFR Part 171 As required by the Regulatory 2133,2134. 2135,2233. 2239L Saction 2.104 Flexibility Act of 1960 (5 U.S C 605(b)), also issued under sec.193. Pub. L 101-575 RIN 3150-AE83 the Commission certifies that this rule, 104 Stat 2835 (42 U.S.C 2243L Section 2.105 if adopted, will not have a significant also issued under Pub. L 97-415. M Stat.
es orahn N gem hem %on 2073142 U.S.C 2239L Sections 2 20t>-2 206 From AnnualFees for Nonpeofit economic impact on a, substantial number of small entities. The proposed also issued under secs.1st b.1. o.182,186.
Educationallnetitutions rule sets forth the time frame within 234,68 Stat. 948-951. 955,83 Stat. 444. as AGENcv: Nuclear P.egulatory which a person other than an applicant amended (42 U.S.C 2201 (b). (it fol. 2236.
Commission.
must file a request for a hearing in a 22a2L sec. 206. 88 Stat.1246 (42 U.S.C Action: Proposed rule.
licensing proceeding held under the 5846L Sections 2.604-2 606 also issued informal procedures set forth in 10 CFR under sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853.
SUM 6taRY: On July 20,1993, the Nuclear as amended 142 U.S C 4332) Sections Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or part 2. subpart L. The proposed rule, by 2.700s. 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C 554.
" Commission") published a fmal rule itself. does not impose any obligations Sections 2.754. 2.760. 2.770. 2.780 also establishing annual fee schedules for its on reguiated entities that may fall within the dermition of "small entities" issued under 5 U.S C 557. Section 2.764 and licensees for fiscal year 1993. The final as set forth in section 601(3) of the table 1 A of appendix C also issued under rule eliminated a generic exemption secs.135.141. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 2232.
from annual fees previously applicab?e Regulatory Flexibility Act, or within the 2245 (42 U.S.C 10155.10161). Section 2,790 to nonprofit educational institutions definition of"small business" as found l
ai,o issued under sac.103. 68 Stat. 936. as in section 3 of the Small Business Act, (educational exemption). Following amended (42 U.S C 2133) and 5 U.S.C 552.
publication of this rule, the Commission 15 U.S.C. 632, or within the small i
sections 2.800 and 2.808 also tasued under received a petition for reconsideration business size ci,dards contained in 13 5 U S C 553. Section 2.809 also issued under requesting reinstatement of the CFR part 121.
5 U.S C 553 and sec. 29; Pub. L 85-256,71 educational exemption. The Backfit Aral sis Stat. 579 as amended (42 U.S.C 2039L Y
Commission views the petition as a Subpart K also issued under sec.189. 68 Stat.
This proposed rule does not m, volve,
955 (42 U.S.C 2239L sec.134, Pub. L 97-request to conduct a new rulemaking to impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 425. 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C 10154L Subpart amend the final rule by restoring the any new provisions which would L also issued under sec.189. 68 Stat. 955 (42 exemption. The Commission grants the
$0.109(a)(1). Accordingly. no backfit U.S C 2239). Appendix A also lasued under request for a new rulemaking. The new analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(c)is rulemaking reconsiders whether sec. 6. Pub. L 91-560. 84 Stat.1473 (42 required for this proposed rule.
U S C 2135L nonprofit educational institutions List of Subjects to CFR Past 2 should receive a generic exemption
- 2. In $ 2.1205(c), introductory text is from annual fees. The Commission Administrative practice and napublished and paragraph (c)(2)la e[sp co' [ing p procedure. Antitrust, Byproduct revised to read as follows:
)e ing matenal, Classified informat2on, will address no other annual fee Environmental protection, Nuclear 92.1205 Request W a twenng; peWon W quesdon.
materials. Nudoar power plants and
'**ve to Mtervene.
DATEt Comment period expires October reactors. PenaltNSei discrimination, 29,1993. Comments received after this Source matenal, Spec =ial nuclear material. Waste treatment and disposal.
(c) A person other than an applicant date will be considered ifit is practical For the reasons set out in the shall file a request for a hearing to do so, but the Commission is able to within-assure consideration only for comments preamble and under the authority of the received on or befom this date.
Atomic Ene:gy Act of 1954, as amended, ADDRESSES: Submit written comments the Ene Reorganization Act of 1974.
(2)If a Federal Register notice is not to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory as amen ed: and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC published in accordance with paragraph Commission Washington,DC20555 is PtoPosinR to adopt the following (c)(1) of this section, the, earliest ci-Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.
amendments to IC CFR part 2.
(i) Thirty (30) days after the requestor Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville PARI 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR receives actual notice of a pending Pike, Rockville. Maryland 20852.
DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS application, or between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 301-504-1968.)
- 1. The authority citation for part 2 (ii) Thirty (30) days after the requestor Copies of comments received may be continues to read as follows:
receives actual notice of an agency examined and cop;ed for a fee at the action granting an application in whole NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Autbonty: Secs.181,181,68 Stat. 948 or jn part, or Street NW.,(Lower Level) Washington, 953. as amended (42 U.S.C 2201,223th sec.
DC 20555, 191, as amended, Pub. L 87-415,76 Stat. 409 (iii)One hundred and eighty (180)
(42 U.S.C 2241): sec. 201,88 Stat.1242. as days after agency action granting an g
,,, mgy.
amended (42 U.S.C 584th 5 U.S.C 552.
application in whole or in part.
L. Michael Rafky, OfBce of the General Section 2.101 also isrued under secs. 53, Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- 62. 63. 81,103,104.105. 68 Stat. 930. 932' Cummission, Washington, DC 20555, 933,935. 936. 937,938, as amended (42 Deted at Rockville. Maryland, this 23rd day telephone 301-504-1606.
i U.S.C 2073,2092,2093.2111,2133,2134
,of September.1993.
2135); sec.114(f). Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
22:3. as amended (42 U.S.C 10134(f)h sec-Sanaus! J.Chilk.
L Background.
102 Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S C 4332h sec. 301. 88 Stat.1248 (42
$8CF'8'18N IL Secuou-by-section analysis.
U.S C 58711. Sections 2.102.2.103,2.104
[FR Doc. 93-23835 Filed 9-25-93; 8.45 aml UL Environmenal impact: categorical exclusion.
2.105. 2.711. also issued under secs.102.
sumo cons rsso43.e IV. Paperwork reduction act statement.
103,104.105,181.189. 68 Stat. 936,937, V. Regulatofy analysis.
l
5G864 Federal Regmter / Vcd. 58. No.1$7 / Wada-ky September 29. 1993 / Ptopened Emiss a
vt #guleiory fleubility analysa.
institutions mrght be able to msk e letter argues timet at is "idad" are vtt Berkfit analysis.
individuahzed showings of financtak
" socially and economically I. BackP und hardship and esternahaed benefits undesirable" to charga people for access suffluent to sustify a "public intrest" to pure knowfedge, because the benefits On July 20,1993 the Commission exemption under 10 CFR 171.11(b)(58 of that knowfedge "are largely pubbsbed its fmal annual fee rule for FR 38669L The Iwo dissenting unpredictable." Letter from AIfred Kahn FY 1993 (58 FR 38666). The fmal rule Commissioners took the view that the to Shirley Egan. Associate University pnncipally set out the Commission s fee Commission should continue in force Counsel. Camell University (July 15.
schedules for FY 1993. but it also the genenc educational esemption (58 1993).
discussed in some detail the 3-2 FR 36875).
The petitioners also stressed the harm Commission decision to revoke a Altnost immediately the Commission to university nuclear programs as a generic exemption presiously bepn rounvmg letters from many result of the newly imposed annual fees applicable to nonprofit educational colleges and umversities protestmg the (petition at 8-9L Using Cornell institunons. A court of appeals decision. change in its longstanding pohey. Many University's rruclear program es an issued in March 1993, had necessitated of these ierters were sent as cornments example, they asserted that Federal the Commission's rethmkmg of the rwardmg the Commiss4on's concurrent grants (in addition to those already educational exemption. See AHied-fee pohg study now being conducted provided) might be necessary to rneet Signal Inc v. NRC. 988 F 2d 146 (D C.
as requaed by the Energy Policy Act of the additional cuts of NRC annual fees Cir.1993). That decision cast doubt on 1992 (58 FR 21116). In these letters and (petition et 9-10). Finally. the the NRC's stated rationale-which comments (avadable in the NRC Public petitioners argued that the included a purported inabdity to " pass Document Room ("PDR")) educational Commission's longstanding exemption t brough" cost +-for exempting institut.ons described the"extemahzed for nonproht =Arntional institutions nonprofit educational institutions fmm benefits" denved from their programs was rooted in sound policy, and that annual fees.
and the problems created by the new reinstating the exemption would be in reaction to the murt dension. the annual fees. mcluding the prospect of consistent with the already extensive Commissmn imtlally propmed to retain maior cuttecks in nuclear education.
direct Federal funding provided many ttie educational exemption. but with a Some licensees also pointed out that c'olless and unrversrty licensees fresh rationale. In its proposed FY 1993 their programs wem altsady heavily (petition at 12-13),
annual fee rule, the Commissim subsidized by the Federal govwrnrnent in August, wtule the petition for-requested comments on retaining th*
(in particular by the Department of reconsideration was under esemption.and asked specifically for Energy). precisely because the programs constdmition. the Comm ssion comments on the court's suggestion that were not sustainable absent pubisc undertook an effort of its own to perhaps the exemption could be sector support, develop guidance for considering justifled if " education yields W Conu nssion also received a individual "pubTic interest" exemption eueptionally large externalized benefits formal petstion for reconsideration of requests by colleges and universities. As that cannot be captured in ruition or the FY 1993 final rule with the aim of part of this effort, the NRC staff visited other market pnces." 988 F.2d at 151.
restoring the nonprofit educational a numberofmileges and universities to The Commission also requested exemption.See Petition foe team rnore about therreducational c onunents on whether the exemption Reconsideration of Final Rule (July 30 activities and the benefits of non-power should be revoLed.
1993). In this petition for reactors and the use of nuclear insterialw Following the close of the comment reconsideration (which is being in education programs. N Commission penod, the Commmion faced a published as an appendix to this conchrded that the new annual fees dilemma. It remained ommitted to the proposed rule), a number of formerly (562.100 for each resuarch reac2or value of nuclear education and related exempt colleges and universities license;1 esser amounts for sech research as a policy matter. but it had asserted with some specificity a number materials licarsse) would jeepardize the rer.eived only a few cornrnents, and of benems that educationalinst tution educational and miated research cursory ones at that. supporting a research reactors p ovide to both the Fernefsts provided by a me.mber of continued generic exemption-nuclear industry and the public at large. collegeaand univers6 ties.
Additionally, some NRC licensees had Prominent was the continued training of As a result of the new and mora submitted comments requesting nuclearscientists and engineers detailed information and arguments abandonmint of the exemption (petition at 3 4). De petitioners also developedin the pertefan be altogether or a more equitable spread of stated that nuclear technology was trsed in m hom and in the other se arces as costs to all licensess. Still other in fields as varwd as medicine, geology. descnbed above, and after careful commenters urged that thesxemption archaeology, food scaersca and textilsa reflectiori.the Commission nowis be retained, but that it be expanded to and that tfie public =AA%11y inclined to retunt to i+s previous mclude various other licensed edivities. benefitted from people who could practics of exempting nonprofit After considenng the material before provide knowledgeable opinions ort educattanalInstitutions froun arusnah it, a spht Commission. by a 3-2 vote.
nuclear topics. es well as fmm tours of fees. The Cornmission therefore gants
" reluctantly concluded that in view of research reectoss (petition at 4-51.
the petition for recensidermion of the the court decision and the The petittocers went on to argue ther FY 1993 final rule and trow pmposes to administrat!ve record developed during education provides sigmficant exempt nonprofit educational the comment period it cannot justify e "externalued benefita" warranting instttutions fmm annualIses.The genenc ' educational' exemption for FT public subsidy. They citada letane from Commisalon does not intend toueste 1993" (58 FR 3aeoo-osh Therebre,the economist Alfred Enhn Lalso available any otben generic exermption catogr. ries Commission informed formerly exempt in the attached appendix) stating that in this renomsking nonprofit educationalinstitutions that the knowledge genersted by university.
%e Comnnasies does not propons they would have to pay annual feea related research le itself a pubtfc g.ood lightby this fuether shth in a pokcy that begmnmg in FY 1993. The F^=%n that twemt be quantified trsing market-has stree:iy peethrongbamais did potat out that many of these indices (petition at 64). Me. Kalur's change in a short skue.& Commission
Feder:1 Register / Vol. 58. No.' 187 / Wedn sday. Septsmber 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules 50861 was sharply divided from the outset on This notice of course, does not licensees the shortfall resulting from the the wisdom of eliminating the generic represent a final Commission decision educational exemption, pursuant to its educational extmption. New to reinstate the educational exemption, current statutory mandate to recover 100 information and fresh thinking have but simply the Commission's proposed percent of its budget, persuaded the entire Commission that resolution of the question based on its restoration of the exemption reflects a current best information and best II. Section-by-Section Analysis sound policy choice that avoids placing thinking. But, with the Commission Section 27. 21 Exemptions m icopardy valuable educational proposmg to restore a generic resources that are indispensable to the exemption,it is not nemssary for Paragraph (a) of this section is nuclear industry, to numerous other formerly exempted educational amended b adding nonprofit educational activities, to the NRC itself licensees to apply for individual public educationa institutions, as defined m and to the public at large.
interest exemptions. Therefore, the
[17 jfe 5t $
,d f o The, Commission solicits public Commission requests nonprofit comment on its proposed rule that educational hcensees not to seek such Commission. A discussion of this would restore the exemption. Comments exemptions at this time. If after change in fee policy is found in Section y g;,
g-on other annual fee issues will not be reconsideration, the Commission enterained in connection with this decides that it cannot justify a generic III. Environmental Impact: Categoncal reposed rule. The Commission already 8xemption it will provide educational Exclusion as received some information on the h.censees ample time to seek individual The NRC has determined that th"s
" externalized benefits" of non. power exemptions. The Comraission will, hold proposed rule is the type of action reactors and the use of licensed nuclear in abeyance all ir.dividual exem ion descnbed in categorical exclusion 10
- 7ests it already has received CFR 51.22fc)(1). Therefore, neither an materials in various educational m
g,'j,,"ue o) f u$s to nonprofit activities and related research at
'"Vif0""*"I'l assessment nor an colleges and universities. However, the Commission is interested m more data educational licensees who may have environmental impact statement has on the benefits of non-power reactors paid the FY 1993 annual fee will be been prepareu for the proposed addressed.if applicable,in the final regulation.
ma er 1 in ed i in i rondest rule. Nonproht educationallicensees IV. Paperwork Reduction Act sense, in the expectation that more data who have requested, termination.
Statement d0 "
P may well substantiate the argument in c9m i ice o o the FY 1993. This proposed rule contains no the petition for reconsideration that non-power reactors and the use of annual fee will be advised accordingly infonnation collection requireinents hcensed nuclear mater;als in what action,if any,is needed if they and, therefore, is not subject to the educational activities are prime choose to rescind those applications as requirements of the Paperwork examples of activities that provide a result of this proposed rulemaking.
Reduction Act of 1960 (e4 U.S C. 3501 There is one final point warranting et seql
" externalized benefits ' warranting clanfication. The FY 1993 final rule V. Regulatory Analysis Pubhc suppon.
eliminating the educational exemption The Commission expects commenters indicated that, because of the remand With respect to 10 CFR part 171. on to address the " externalized benefits" from the court of appeals, the November 5,1990, the Congress passed question by providing data on (but not Commission would issue new fee Pub. L 101-508, the Omnibus Budget limited to) the size and subject areas of schedules retracting the exemption for Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90).
classes using licensed matenalin FY 1991-92 and offer appropriade For FYs 1991 through 1995. OBRA-90 studies or research, the number of refunds. The Commission now proposes requires that approximately 100 percent faculty and students using licensei not to issue revised fee schedules of the NRC budget authority be matenal in their studies or research, the reflecting retraction of the educational recovered through the assessment of type and availability of work for exemption because ofits inclination to fees. To accomplish this statutory graduates of nuclear programs and other restore the exemption. Commenters,if requirement, on July 20.1993 (58 FR programs in which licensed nuclear they choose, may address this point.
38666). the NRC. in accordance with materjais are used, and the relation As the final rule made clear (58 FR
$ 171.13. published in the Federal between education and research in 38669). the Commission did not intend Register the final amount of the FY 1993 institutions of higher learning.The retroactively to charge fees to nonprofit annual fees for operating reactor Commission has particular interest in educational institutions for FYs 1991-licensees, fuel cycle licensees, materials comments on the extent to which the 92, but did intend to make refunds to licensees, and holders of Certificates of benefits of nuclear education and other those licensees (power reactors) that Compliance, registrations of sealed programs using licensed nuclear made up the shortfall in 100 percent fee source and devices and QA program materials (not simply education in recovery created by the educational approvals, and Government agencic 1 general) are " externalized" and would exemption. Should the Commission OBRA-90 and the Conference not be produced by market forces. The restore the exemption, however, no new Committee Repon specifically state Commission would appreciate detailed fee schedule for FYs 1991-92 will be that-information on the many non. nuclear necessary and no refunds will be made.
(1) De annual fees be based on the fields of study that use licensed nuclear On the other hand, because of the Commission's FY 1993 buo'ge.t of $540.0 material in the course of educating their timing of this mconsideration million less the amounts collected from students. De Commission has received proceeding and if the Commission pan 170 fees and the funds directly some information in letters addressing reinstates the educational exemption, no appmpriated from the NWF to cover the the fee policy study required by the licensee will be assessed additional fees NRC's high level waste program:
Energy Policy Act of 1992 descnbed to make up any shortfall created for FY (2)ne annual fees shall, to the above. but more data is needed for the 1993. For future fiscal years, however, maximum extent practicable, have a Commission's deliberations.
the Commission will recover from other reasonable relationship to the cost of
l 58e32 FadsenF Begister / Vol. 58 !9a 187 / "it/. September 29= 1995 / Rc d Rirles e
repletory samces primded by the List of Sobrects in toCFM Part171 104 c. ef theAtomic Enemy Actof 1954 Comndsswn: arrd Annual chary,es. Hyprodud rnatntal.
[42 U.S C. 21}e(c7? for operation et a (3) ne annual fees be assessai to Holders of certificates. registations, arxi thermal owerlevel of10 megemtts or those licensees that the Commission, in a pprovals, latergovernmental relations. less;an its discretion. determansa can farrly.
Non. payment pnalties, Nuclear (illif so licensed for operation at a equitably, and practicably contnbute to materials.Nuc. car power plants and thermal powerlevel ofmore than I their payment.
reactors. Source material. Special megawatt, does rrot contain-Therefore, when developing the nuclear material (A) A circulatingloop through the annual fees for operattr g power reactors For the mm dut in b c re in which the licensee conducts fuel the NRC continued to consider the preamble and under the authoraty of the opniment9 d
h f
Atomic Energy Act ci1954. as arnended.
(B) A hquid fuelloading; or r,and be o and 5 U.S C. 553 the NRC is proper.3 (C) An expenmental facility in the onta t on o t e operatmg power reactors. The annual to adopt the following amendments to re in ex s of18 square int.hes ut fees for fuel evcle hcensees, materials to FR pan 171.
laensees, and holders of certificates.
PART 1Tf-ANNUAL FEES FOR Dated at Rochilfe.MD. t!as 73d day of registrattons and approvals and for htenses issued to Govemment agenc2es REACTOR OPERATING LICENSES, Septemtrr 1993, AND FUEL CYCLE LICENSES AND For the Nuclear Regulatory Comm9s.on.
t3 e it.to auount the type oI facahty '
MATERLALS LICENSES. INCLUDING Samuel f. ChiIk, apprm al and the clams of the HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF k Pr"S-secretary cf the Commisuon.
COMPLIAWCE. REGISTRATIONS. AND t o CFR pan 171, which established QUALfTY ASSURANCE PROGRAM Appendix To Proposed Rule. -Per rien of annual fees for operatma power reactors APPROVALS AND GOVERv4 MENT Recauderstson of Fmal tale effective Octoter 20.1986 (51 FR 33224: AGENC&ES UCCMSED BY THE NRC
- 1. Intmducrton September 18.1986). was challenged
. 1. He authority citation for Part 171 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and upheld in its entirety in Flondo Power and Lig,ht Company v. United is revrg to read as fo!!m
("NRC' or " Commission ~1 has long exempted nonprofit educationalinstitutions States 846 F.2d 765 (D C. Cir.1988).
Authonty: Sec. 7601. Pub. L 99-222.100 from pering anmrat fees
- Altimagh the cert. derned. 490 U.S.1045 (1989).
Stat.146. as amended by sec. 5001. Pub. L Commimon tradrtionalty brsttSed thie 100-203.101 Stat.1330. as amended by Sec.
exemptims on the gnamds that colleger and 10 CFR pan 171 which established 3201. Pub L 101-239.103 Stat. 2106 er universtoes could not seedily pass the saw of fees based on the TY 1989 budget, were amemhj by sec. 6101. Pob. L 101-50s 104 the fees on to sendems thmugh ruirma and also legally chat!enged. As a result of Stat.1388. (42 U ftC 7213): sec. Jet. Putz L other charges. a recans hieral cowt decisson the Supreme Coun decision in Skinner 92-31a. as Stat. 222 (42 U.5JC. 22:ntw th sec. questioned stas cataomales The coun
- v. Afid.Amencan Pipeline Co.,109 S. Ct. 201. sa stst.1242 as amesed (42 U.S C.
explamed. howeva.that the uternaliad 1726 (1989). and the denial of certiorari W1 h wc. 2903. Pub. L 1o2% mtst benefits of education potentially supponed M2 2
2B* M-m Flondo Power and Licht. sll of the web an nemption.s lawsuits were withdrawn.
- 2. In $ 171.11, paragraph (a) is rwiped
. Although the Commission at first defended to reed as follows:
its eduartional.,
o to e rulerneking The NRC's FY 1991 annual fee rule proceeding pmmpt by the coun's decision, was largely upheld recently by the D.C.
$ 171.11 Eaemptions.
it abandoned the surnption in the final Circuit Court of Appeals in Alhed (a) An annual fee is not required fon vemum od its annual Ese ruis.* Pectmcars S gnal v. NRC.
(1) A caustruction permit orlicense contend that in so doing the Cornmiseson VI. Regulatory flexibility Analysis appbed for by. or inaued to, a nonproSt erred and respectfully request thas the educational institution for a Preduction CommMan romh M W and As required by the Regulatory or utihnmics facihty.other taan a reinstate the exeroption for nonpsoEt educational licensees.s F:exibihty Act 5 USC 605(b) the Power re.ctor, or br tha ion and Commisdon cenifies tNat this pmposed use of byproduct man sourcs d.y{.gn Ce n the rule. if adopted ml! not have a matenel, or special maclear material EducarmalInstataticas significant pconomic impact on a
'Illis ammptam does nas apply to thous substantial number of small enttties.
byproduct. source orspooalnuclear Although the eacsms in Alhed.Sigresd.
The proposed rule affects about 110 material hcenses orhich authorizm I" h' N
operatirrg power reactors which ant not (i) Hsman use:
p2 C
p considemd to be small entftfes.
(ii) Retrrunerated services to other g
g g
)
nonpmfi educational facGities, the coun t
suggate a va mam tnemp 8 VII. BackSt Analysis i ) Distr 4ction of uct material. nourcn ma
.orspecial The NRC has de* ermined that the
,see nocn trt ntannert nuclear matenal or purvharia containing
,3.,m3g e,e,. vs Nucteur backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109, does not byproduct u.aterial, souras material, or segusurerr conna n. sne f.:d see rp c. CIr i999, apply to this proposed rule and that a bacLEt analysis is not required for ths sp(ecial nuclear instensi:or 6aamaast ur sacs== 8 =#=.
i,) Actavities peciosamed madar a
- h 15 5 e==== E =h=.
proposed rule. The backfit analysis ia Governrnant contract.
- FY 281 ar.419e2 Final Rmle kapiemanting the not required because these amendments (2) Federally owned research reecsoes u g
1.o. cts an n wis ao F do not require the modification of or used primas 21y for ark =,usional trainang uses, m P4mciar anguiaiery conme vr. My additions to systems, structures, and academmiciencesch purposes. Poe
- 20. nem t-rimes air 1.
components, or design of a f.arshty or purposes of this asesempeaen, the term 8 Peuunnes corned Umsvensky hae estawassi the design approvalor marmfmunng research reacsor rneses a mucteer reactor
'und*' """~ *uPP"*** 'h' s"*"'F'""
license for a facility or the procedures that-
"f"dNN""
[d"#~
~
i or ornaruzation requised to design.
(ilis bssa.ed by the Nuc. lear cor.umanioners te re.p,. mew am riss Ars4 rpnit construct or operate a facility.
Regulatory Commission under section sa. toen
m Federal Englaest / Vol. 54. No.147 / W-t
' y, September 29. He3 / Proposed Refes 2 003 7,.
educational ruector licensass frers annual renomsch provedes em isaportmot boosAt to the
' % undestrobie for them to do so "
less. h court memly asked the NRC to nuclear industry and the puhne et large and Id. Insteed, he reasons. "a Det drarge on rnarshal a rationale based on " externalized.
should not be discourasjed."* A "nbr st benefits" of edumtion "that cannot be nuclear education sector also is important as business beneSciaries is superior to a specafic i
captured in tuition or other market prbs."
a source of talent and ideas for the NRCitasil charge by the University for particular pieces Id. at 151. Indeed. the Allied. Signal court and for the whole government." the of knowkdp."Id.The Commission's emplemed that "there is at least a sonous Commission avowed in the course ofits relatively small costs associated with possibihty" that the Commission can rulemaking process. Id. The wide array of licens5detional mes g M k Y
"substanuate'such an exernption. Id.
externalized benefits generated by nuclear rec vered from those licensees who benefit In its Final Rule. however, the Commission reactor programs at nonprofit educational anmeasumbly from the activmes of the
" missed an opportunity to consider senously institutions is thus apparent from the distinguished teaching and research -
l the classic 'e xternalized benefits' argument" Commission's statements and fmm the many community et our nation's universities, and proposed by the court.* While Petitioners comments subraitted in support of the those w bo. in the Cornmission's discretion.
bebeve that the Commission should have contested exemption
- can fairty, equitably, and practically make decided to continue the exemption et issue and should have based its decision on the IV. Econormc Theory Supports the Nonprofit such payments.
I court's discussion and on the many Educatsonal Exemption V. The Proposed Annual Fees Thnoten comments supporting the exem;%on, they The Commissaon's longstanding Sermusinjury to Uruverstry Nuclear seek in this petition to provide the exemption for nonprofit educational facilitsee Progra m Commission with additionalinformation is wholly consistent with "externalised Not only is it economically inefficient to i
about the considerable extemalized benefits benefits" econornic theory. As levy annual feet on univeissty research of nuclear reactor programs at nonproSt Commissionerg Remick and DePleagse reactors. it also places an undue financial educational institutions.
explained in their opinion. " education. like Ill. Nuclearlianctors of Nonprofit nanona1 defense. land) b admin atration of burden on nuclear science education and i
EducationalInsututions Provsde Sigrufimat and g, g g gg, y,
o,,,g3,7 industry and the general public shke.i6 h Benefits to the Commercal Nuclearindustry and the GeneralPutdic not just to purchasers " Final Rule. 54 FR aj situstion at Cornell is illustrative of these P"'"""1 mbim." CorneH uses two 38675. Indeed. the "excepdan=Hy lags" P
Universities. including the Petitioners.
benefits of nuclear reactor programs et reactors for dag and research. The larger.
tmin scientists and engmeers who enter the universities are recounted in section !!! aboos a 500 kilowett TIUGA. is used most '
tommercial ouclear induswy and goveravnent and in the many comments submitted to the frequently. A staff of four-two supineurs and reiseory apanctes such as the NIIC itself.
Distinguished faculty, man
- of whom huee Commission during its rulemaking process.*
two laa :
-.dntains the reactors.
From ground-breaking discovers to vital
'the annualoperating budget runs l
worked in the field sincs its ladancy,isotruct the students in besic research and om core data. university nuclear resserch is a -
$230. coo.u The pupposed openly published and freely debetod to NRC annual [se for Cornell's rencoursr-technologies. Without study at educational ensure the h sesdannic standards and reactors. these students would lack the 3124.20tHttrus represents over half of the.
widmet svm HtyM knowledspr and skill nemmessy to adequately is b archdypal'pubHc %:e i-
"w entire mector budyt.n -
maintain the efficiency and smisty of the In b
gownment k b sole nucimer induen7' produced. R can he distri widely at no incement A cost. fmeser drara Afted B. Kaba source d grant monies supponing CaneH s
=
Nuctur mganaaring progrens, which as thrive osdy by inciuding hanskma W ci to Shirir K. Epm Outy 15.1953)("Kabe nuclear amance and segmaanng prgress, t
Imesme% 1. As 'a==damaa=== ltem6ck and and fodsel ressusch dollars mapnse meerly r
study at a working seector, assist the commercial nuclear industry directly thrussh 9,pg,
,=iad the tres murhat may hdt half of the nuclear sciemos and ensiasaring pure and applied -4=am. Cosnell to suppiy thm====ary amount of deremment's enmuel mesusch bedget. The
~
researtbars, for example beve analyamd the odiscusan** sad other pubhc gasde husamme Departrasut dEmessy met endy contributes.
behavior of reactors under severe a dont g..biryas ar susdness Imk t=8===
subsessmal gmat aw.m6es but also An=i==== aH cxmdatious. Univoretties cootribute to the sufnchret to sset b right pr6ce or we d the emot for b ruectors Ownell nuclear Powenemaer laduary by developing unable to pay that price. Final Rule 58 FR l
concepts for better cooling systems.
at 3a675* The inetBcie"*Iof for "D' esini w.issa has also suegamd ihme it may moderstors. and other er"f"= man of 8"
oc 888 888P Posemy meersh in the foress tapans ticanse and inspection Isen.
P renams rycems.
educaties thus suppens what aseed esiehtished meshr esserity of the ladsysadest University researthers also noe venctors to economast Alfred Kaha calls ",the sessmg and Oraces Appsopseseum Assr10 i
i
,33,,,,33,
,,,, g, 4 g,,,,,n,,,,, 3,, p;,, n,3, p,
1 develop new applications of nuclear Bn d pure researck'* Kahn Isaur a 1.
saeans toatt trattlastel(tensiesammesamig technology in Belds as varied as medicine.
geol gy(archaeology food scienca,and Kahn explains that it wondd be " futile for
- "F'eae edumesmai smamenam tem noAA w terules. These new research ondings to tura universities to try to recover the cxist by 88'*"" **" I'"as"es'14:ess theirT "is se mal 8U8speam panicular rammer carcelt end other unnrernattes is gimpen an charB ns Potential unase for mensch and i
provide op ittes Imr preGembio to commerc tures.
education.as WI as"sociaDy and 3
entlasse.no and public policy B
reting nuclear reactors C C 8'r esemprima cmHeems and entvestates las ons assist i and goverassent
'FY tett and test Peopmend Dmis y from NIIC anomal fem opply wte agesi Iwts to in other imponent ways, providea es u.s. coun of Appenas p-*= e and neeemme el 80AA feu. ho=ever source of nopected,i and res scheduiss; ioos re iteco.ory. ry 1 sea. se rm si see Nacimer itameter Budgets. Usa, and raderal independent ordalon ce the homeGee and stes2. 21ase (Nucient Reguissary Camma'a.
rundlag as lw-=rImanteessuna anested as 21, total tPropamed ames") W Enhihm A.
burdens of nuclast technology der a nadasF 6 See also descdystems of Pestemmass* *
- sne sammense emed M by 4ses addressing its impincations. Studsats and reacier programs attached as Embibit B.
nucsser sammes sad sugg issuhy and members of the pubhc who tour the
.g.c.nasits Amad.striniesort save no appremamey tuuhe peduss enemum per year.
educational ruector Incilities pua lasight note saplemettua of what humemunart emmemnmed wie additismal timHee ass by as easy a een the varied uses of Duclear tarnanlagy and benents should be ammeured try. It is anciemr use Isenhy and atmen giudmass stiadame tem Amish come to apprudets the conenbutice of the coun mamme by "amespeamsey Imus." Amad-such as seeing.shundsmy usatus sad -
nuclear industnes to the quattry of thser Myisi, ses F.2d at is1. rusthersesse. n is arctammiser eaussimusend s
gg pr-*.ny tem to quanesy ese emmassumman h puhuseenm6andimmedsmedtuas The (%nmi== ion itself bas ad that umsantry much seen and mesmal k h aagenereMus e amo mas gto me ggA pfp make le commescial asse mamanar 88A R MS mhdy M byIb.I4ssW E hlfh smarmy. nis pointion. iassiher with the mesy found the af ehe ar uneemony veneme them commmmmmes submutted try educattomal 16consses, does opensang. Is tasmused umsent cases boepw te8 Ame.
- Dtfiertag Views of Comnummesmess Res6ci and bowoour illustrese the artest and verlery of sucit tener ben Mercus K Dash and Edward K IGrus'to Dernmequa. Final Rule. 54 FR et 38575.
beh to Samund J. OdA Quly 12.19e31 et 2.
3
\\
=
Federal Ragns6et / Vol 58, No<187 / Wedenaday. September 29,1997 /" Proposed Rules 50864 researcherueceive grants from the National VI. The Educatxmel EmesipdoarReflects-Manhattae Co!!ega.
Scienai Foundation as well" Sound Pt:6he Pbisey and a 7'rodttsom of Walter Marystik, if the Comrnission abandons the Supportfor Educotwa educational exem ption. Cornell will be g
3 g
forced to seek mcreased f6deral grants to Given the significant benefits realized by Manhatton College Pkwy., Brons. N Y 10471.
cover the NRC charges. Rather than the nuclear industry fmm university research accomphshing the budgetary goals of the and education, any additional fees imposed Omrnbus Reconcihation Act. Pubhc 1.aw No' on commerttal I censees to cover costs 101-508.104 Stat.1388 (1990). the associd with nonprdit educahonal George H. Dummer.
Commission s action will merely shift reactrws are a bargain, not a burden.
D: rector. Office o/Sponsomd Progmms.
sIfEi court aN Commercial poAt reactors have histoncally Massochusetts Institute of Technology. 77 lly not it been the only NRC bcensees asked to absorb yM sg serts Awn e.rmm4-a is self+vident that a transfer of funds from the mst of supporting educational reactors.
one agency to another fails to increase federal De 57.1 milhon in fiscal year 1993 costs By-revenue." Flor,da Power & Light Co. v.
associated with licensing nonprofit North Camlina State University.
United States. 846 F 2d 765. 771 (D C Cir.
educatenal reactors, it divided equally Dr. Larry Monteith, t 9ss1.
among the 109 commetaal power reactors If Cornell attempted to recoup the NRC fees now in operation, amounts to only $65.000 Chancellor. North Carolina State University' rbrough general tuition increases rather than per commercial reactor and adds a mere 2%
A HollodOF Hall. Box 7001, Ro/cigh. NC '
27695-70d!'
through grants, all students. many of whom to the proposed average fee for commeretal retene extensive financial and fmm the reactors. See Proposed Rule. 58 FR at 21674.
By:
government and private funds, would be The costs borne by power reactor licensees Reed College, inrred to subsidize a relatively small could. in the Commission's discretion. be Steven Koblik.
department at the university. Alternatively, a decreased somewhat by spreading them President. Reed College. J20J Southeast ma,or increase in laboratory fees imposed on equitably among all commercial licensees.
woodstock Blvd, Portland. OR 97202.
nudcar science and engineenng students That federal sources already support alone would place the program utterly extensive nuclear research and education at Of beyond their Snancial reach. Cost boenses of such magnitude would rnake any both private and public institutions speaks to nimity bode Island.
institution's nuclear program a pnme target the national importance of this disciplin6.
Louis L Saccoccio, for ehmination.
na Commission's traditional exemption for AssistantlegalCounsel. Carlotti Since the Commission's Final Rule seeks to nonprofit educational facilities reflects a Adminsstmtson Bldg-. Offsce of the Geneml colfect annual charges for fiscal year 1993 it history of federal support for higbar Counsel. Universsty of Rhode Island.
also threatens to disru niversity budgets, education reflected in universities' nonprofig Kingston. R102881.
tax status and exemplified by the Morrill Act.
y wh2ch first established land-grant colleges The Board of Trustees of The University of e u e or th : yes B se s.gnificant lag time required for approval of such as roany of the Petitioners. The efforta
- Illinois, grant proposals. it may take as long as two f Congress and the NRC to reduce the Donald A. Henss, scars for universities to learn whether federal budget deficit are praiseworthy, but m' onics necessary to cover the maior espense nly if this e&n encourages gmwth by Associate University Counsel. Uniwrsiry of of NRC fees will even be available. This strmgthening the nat2on s long-standing filinois. Suite 258, Henry Administmtion financtal stress comes as a shock to the supenonty in sciencs and technology. In the Bldg. 506 South WrightStmrt. Urbana.IL 81802.
educational community in the wake of the long term, the loss of the Commission's Commission's vigomus argument supporting educational exemption will hinder the By-the exemption in its Proposed Rule.*s advancement of nucieer science the nuclear The Curators of the University of Missouri.
Although the Commission proposes to industry, the NRC itself and the national Phillip J. Hoskins, alleviste the financial burden on colleges and interest.
Counsel. Unwrsity of Missouri System, 227 unwersities by considenng individual requests for exemption from annual fees and 17L Conclusion Uni m q H m.MO65222.
for installment paytnents these suggestions For the foregoing reasons. Petitioners gf provide small consolation. Installment request that the thuma remnsider its Unimity M Mw Mexico, payment plans fail to address the real Final Rule and reinsta% Its annual fee Charles N. Estes. Jr..
problem confronting universities-how to exemption foe nonprofit educatenal University Counsel. University o/New pay for such annual fees et all. Furthermore institutions.
Meuco.150 Scholes Hall. Albuquerque. NM any attempt by the Commission to examine numerous individual ememption requests Respectfully submitted, could consume more NRC administrative By:
By' resoun.es than a blanket educational Cornell University, The University of Texas System.
esemption. The sheer number of universities Shirley K. Egan.
Robert Giddings.
joining in this petition underscores this
^ 'I##""""
- "I " M # #### b##"*
Assocaots Counsel. Cornell University. 500 concern.
DayHall. ithoca. NY t4853-2001.
- '" #"' '*"#^
'"A"#'"'
By:
" Grants from the Atomic Energy Commineaan and the National Scienca Foundanon first enah!
Counsel los Cornell University.
Univermty of Utah, Cornell to obtain its two reactors. See Devsd D.
Joacpb C Bell. Melissa R. Joses.
Clark The Nuchear frorvrier Corned s hmrman of EducationalDiviss.'on Osief. Utah Attorney
# "'##b Bone and Appimillenearch. Cornell Eng g Q-bprms 1992.et L Washington. DC20004-2209.
Genemi's Offke. BeneficnalLife Tower.12th F1. 36 South Saase Street. Sahinke City.
- See Final Rula. 54 FR et 38a75. Pmposed Rule.
By-UT 84111.
58 FR at 2tese ("The Comm=a on proposee to Kansas State University-h mYb d uP#E cont nue to esempt these Inonprofit eaucarbona0 hcensees trorn fees for FYe 1991.1992 and 1993.
Jennifer haA=~n Joseph C Bell.Melissa R. Jones.
as it has int many years in the past *
- Mand)
Assistant Uniwrstry Attorney, Kansas Sin *2 Hogan & Hanson. 555 Thirteenth Street. NW..
conunues to beheve that educauonal remessch Uniwrsity. til Anerson Hall.M:inhanan.JCS prendes as important twafit to the nuclear Wc,shington. DC 20004-1109. Counselfor 66506-0715-industry and the pubhc at large and snould not be Cornell UniwrsrtT' chocouragecL'~lichanons arrunedt By-Dated: July 30.1993.
o
+
Federal Resphaerr / Vol 58. No.187 / Wednesday. Sepmmber 39, 1983 / WW RMes SM f shh I produral. it can be runde eveiletAetwose and I have nothing to add to yo r stemment.
July 15.1993.
m m wWy et m sometal cost This emcept to pomt out that remwry in the form it is inefficient to cberge pop 6e of a flat charge on btrsmess beneheterres is means Ms. Shirley K. Egan, for access to it-Assacrate Unswrrety Cosmsel. 500 Der Hoff, supenor to a spectfic charge by the Corne# Uniwesity. fthocn. NY 14831 That fact, taken together with the difficulty University for partrcular pieces of Daar Ms F4an: Your draft of a possible of the producer of pure knowledge knowledge.
submission to the NRC captures most of the appmpneung the benefits of it in chartes to I urge you to consider expending the argument that I and. I era sure, the Circuit p tenbal us weeuw those bmfats am argument slightly along these lines. mainly Court had m mind.
18rBelv unpredictable-together make the because I think I can assure you that anyone There is one otaervation you make.
stmrig and universally remgnicad case for who raises the possMe consideration of however. that I thmk can usefully be pubbc financmg of pure research. The externalities will be receptive to such an espanded, and it is an argument that anyore University s pobey, which you do corrwily famihar with the hterature on enternahties emphasize. of conducting research on a non.
expansion to embrace the concept of pubhc would quakly appreciate. It has do with the pmpnetary bests is therefore-es you cleariy "g,g g g
g sonal tenefits of the non-pmpnetary pure imply but do not.1 think. stress adequate -
gg research to wnich you allude, and of the socially highly desirable. and it would +
assouated practece of not (.hargma possM.
both futile for universities to try to teu wr nusing me or two minor specific quese users for eccess to the knowiedge that it the cost by charging potential users ano e cau n me if yw thmk I can be of pmduces sooaily and economically undesirable for any addahnal assistance.
Pure knowledge is the an.hetypal "public them to do so.
With best rewards, good." m economic terms, the essential This does not answer the question of who Sincerely, charactenstic of which is that,on<.e should pay the charges in question; on this Alfred Kahn.
Emet A--NUCEAR REACTOR BUDGETS USE, AND FEDERAL FUNotNG AT PETmONER INSTITUTIONS g
Nes penone uung reactor Percentage of dem, t@et Annuedr= =
imtitubon opor taudg-g,,,,
(tecueyvasi stu3erts/uruser-trom teceral sources (per-et (
)
gr e est ceno gg Comse Ursy.......... _...
t 240.000 124.200 3Rt2G 52.
Kanssa Stase Urev 134.462 62.100 4RTGO90 67.
Manhanan Comoge 15.000 62.100 3R20GODU Not Avedeb6a.*
MLT
- 1270.000 62.10e 35He8G630 61 N. Carchne Saase Urev 435.000 62.100 GF/50GsE7U 25.
Reed Comoge 63.000
$2.100 SROGtt3U 31 Urvv. Ilhnces4 Jet >ane 8200.000-124.2G) 4Rt4G 75.
UrWW. MtssourkRo6a*
105.350 62.100 6F/12Gt30ij Not Avadarna Univ. New Mexico 27.000 62.100 8F42Gf25U 89.
Uruv. Rhode Island 533.769 62.100 22H12G 85.
Urvv. Texas-Austin _.
267.183 62,t00 AF/1tG 10a Urvv. Utah _
sn rnn 62.100 SFf15Gr7U 48.
- Comtuned hgure lor the two reactors at Comet.
8 Facitty operates at a oe6 cst of $650.000.
8 Corttir'ned ingure lor the two reactors at lanons-Urt>ana.
- Dets from he AcAs cargus reactor orWy.
e Total 1992 toderal gresite tar suo Deposenert aqueAed $40,000.
F u h As 5 studied by determining residues of labeled National Treaspartathon Safety Board. Within Nudnar Rauctor Programs et Petiuanur oils on treated spucimens. Muc!cer methods the Univernty, the reecsor is used mostly by Institutmns of cham.heu. for trecs elements have chernistry atAnra followed by nudeas been a key to remotete.g many matertals en6ineeruag students. Rasseech is conducted Corne$ Unesity quality issues for udkna semicondiactor in a weis range of Lands including geckgy, in its 30 years of opersten, the Carpeft device fabrxation.
biology, animal er-tasules, and grun TRICA has been used extenstvely in Cornell has the only cnid neutron beam sciences.
undergradusw and grednese courses end program st a university reactor La the Untted g'I' research by non spedanseL in one pmenet.
States.
neutmn-induced or
- phy is used to Additional rusclear methods that will The college's teaching and research reactor map the location of spar 4M to to shortly come into use at Cornell include program as private and prumanly reveal images m the -dwe pmmpt gamma-ray neutron activat6on undergraduata. It is very small but pa nted by artists as a pointing evokes irone analysis and neutron depth peo611sg based economstally run. As the only teaching sad prehminary sketch to nnat version. This non-on rnonoenergeuc conversma electrons research reactor in the metropolitan New destructive technique allows the art histories pmduced by neatmo retc11ons en well as the York area ovailable to adearinaal to mfer the artist's developing intenuona,la farruliar method based e.n alpha particle or institutions,it providee e eche resource another, neutron radiography is used to study proton pmdection.
for the area. Three to four aree insututions of the distnbution of water between omis and higher learnmg regularly use it for teaching the roots c.f living plants. Neutmn activation has Samm UmimsU and resserch. Colleges such as New York analysis is widety used in archenology to The program et Kaname State is valasble to Maritime College would otherwise have no charactenze eiernental compositions of institutions without research and teaching access to such a factlity. In addition, amdes such as pottery shards and obsidiasi reactors. The school's reactor. under the bundreds of ares high schm! and middle and metallic artifacts. Sumcsent diflerances Department of Energy Reactor Shering school students enjoy tours and m elert. ental composition arnong clay sources program, is used by 13 dIfferent instftuticos, demonstrataans at the r=renr each year as distinguish local wares from imported ones.
including Stanford. laisiana State, the part of their science curriculum.The school The effectiveness of deterneerts has bane University of Southern Califorttia. and the distnat in wbich the :nIlege is located has i
a 50866 Federal Register / Vol. 58. Ns.187 / Wedneedzy. Septsmber 29. 1993 / Pmposed Rules the highest proportion of minonty students (21 Srnergestse f/fects on Carbon Lmiters wster content. This work has applicat on in of any community school distnct in New Profect to assess synergistic effects of both both the oil well core Icgging industry and York City, and among the highest in the neutmo esposure and ion bombardment to nation carbon limiters in fusion reactors by in the waste disposal area. In a third propct.
foils of different rnatenals are activated to Atassachusetts Institute of Technology
'"f
$s b '" * * 'b'i' "'P** ** * '* 'h* *I s
t n n a A large rnearth prw, ram is carned on at many quantitative analysis needs such as neutrons and to analyze content, particularly the WT Researth Center. In Nuclear environmental monitonng, forensic and with respect to impunties that may be Engineering there are uudies in (1) Dose cnmanal work, cert 2fication of matenal present. A recent dactoral researth propct Faductwn in whah pressunred loops that punty. rate earth tagging for study of marine examined the role of fuzzy log)c controllen mmul ate both PWR and BWR envimnments larval dispersion. analysis of mercury in fish in :tuclear reactor control. The conclusion have been constructed and operated in the tissue. analysis of fossil power plant wa.: that fuzzy logic contmilen appear to be tore of the reador for the purpose of reservoin for selenium, and industrial feasible and useful when applied to rod identifying coolant chemistries that will taggmg; and (4) Neuuon Depth ProfshnN positioning and timing.
miramaze corrosion.121 Irmdration-Assisted Pmpect consistir:g of characterization studies Srms Cormsson Crocling to investigate the of tsorosilicate glass films on sibcon wafen Unnmty of Rhode Island formation and growth of crack:in reactor uructural alloys: (3) testing the efEcacy of in-Reed Colleg, Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center has a tore sensors. known as the SENSOR Prorc1.
Reed College is the only educational long history of conducting environmental involving in< ore sensors that detect changes nstitution in the United States to operate a in electro <.hemical potermal (ECPI and th, reactor without a graduate or engineenng Graduate School of Oceanography uses the effect of water chemistry additives on the prngrain. Although under the Chemistry reactor to perform neutron activauon analysis halting of crack gmwth and (41 Dsgital Departrnent, the reactor is used by six faculty on envtronmental samples collected from Controlto develop and espertmentally venfy for classes in physics. natural science, and art locations all over the globe. Important a genenc methodology for the ck> sed-loop history, as well as chemistry. Undergraduate researth discovenes in acid rain, geology, agital contml of neutronic power. cor, and faculty researth involves about 5 and environmental polluuon have been temperature, and other plant parameters. In students car.h year however. in the last 2 over a decade of work, results have included years approairnately 20 faculty members achieved over the yeen because of the demonstration of signal validation, the from 11 additional colleges and umversities availability of the mactor. The URI physics department conducts extentive neutron a
ct ry co s t
le be n e d
em stry scam opas H b mas d controller, closed form laws for the ttme, physics environmental science, forensic usually has several post-doctoral rescasthers optimal tramctory-tracking of reactor power.
science and art bistory. Each year as many as at the facility on a full time bassa. As the only the on-hne remnngurstion of control laws.
20 high school students use the facility for nuclear facility in the state. RINSC prondes automated power increases fmm subcritical.
classes and research. A non codit, semester a significant number of tours to students from and the use of various forms of feedback.
seminar series on " reactor. radiation and the high schools and univemties. The positive Parallels between contml strat 'es for enytmnment' is offered to the public.
uses of nuclear technology in environmental reactors characterized by s ti dynamics Between 30 and 50 people attend it each and materials research can be observed on a and control of multi. modu at reactors have year. two-thirds of them not afSliated with Ent hand M also been studied.
Reed College.
Space Science also benefits from the Univemty of Elknois-Urbana U"N*'Y *U**
Researth Center with studies to determine the feasibility of low temperature annealing The Univers:ty ofIllinois Nuclear Reactor Research currently under way at the laborat is a two-reactor facility, using the Nuclear Engmeering Teaching Lab includes of radiation-induced defects in electrome Advan TRlCA and IDPRA reactors.
the (1) Terns Cold Neutron Source Prefect for components such as will be used on a spacecraft for taterplanetary rnissions of Neutron Activation Analysis, materials the development of a neutron source with several years duration. and an upcoming damage studies and nuclear pumped laser low neutron energies for research in prompt research are the research foca of sne facthty, p.mma activation and scattering:(2) Neutron l dy o a e mio e energy in addinon to its teaching gosla-Depth Profiling Project for the measurement Neutron activation analysis and track-etch Univemry ofMissouri-Rolla of boren and other (n.a) reactions to techmques are being used in Earth Sciences ~
The primary uses of the reactor at the Rolla determine depth concentrations in various to investigate fundamental questions about campus of the University of Missourt are materials such as glass and silicon:(3) the earth imm metoonte composition, lave education and training of graduate and Neutron Capture Therapy Prorect for charactenstigs, and crack gmwth in granitic undergrsduate students and nuclear-related measumments of the dose to head phantoms mt k to contmental dnft Neutma activation researth. The reactor is used mostly by from the autron activation of gadolinium; is also being used to study the movements students from the Solds of nuclear (4) various Neutmn Actrvation Projects in and trace the angins of atmospheric engineering. chemistry. It's science. and support of investigators, including irradiation pollutants physica. In addition, about 540 students and of biological fluids, geological samples. and North Cornhna State Univoradry instructon imm mher insutuuons use the reactor through the University Reactor others; and (5) Drgstal Reactor ControI Profect Since t973 the university's reactor has Sharmg Program.
for the C"~""~- ' f"" "#* Scial teen tr" to support "Rasearch Reacts intelligence software tool to provide software Traini,. for loci utilities
- training of Unimity ofNew Menom functional dtverssty.
bcensed reactor operators. Newly available la Foi researth pmscts have been carried 1990 are training pmgrsms for individuals in out usugthe ACN-20tM reactor over the pguj,y of g the industrial cornmunity, such as engineers. past seven years. One of the major research (The program at the University of Utah is supervisors. and maintenance personnel, to prowcts involves measurement of beak multidasciplinaryin nature allowing stwngthen their undentanding of how a physics parameters in a h thermal researchers in a vanety of 6 elds to discover power reactor operates. Representative of the system. No other thermal ity systam has the potential of reactor use. The reactor la research uses of the univenity's reactor are the flesbility and low intrinsic sourm used mostly by nuclear en6tneers, the (1) Irmdiation of Reactor Vessel Steels stnmgth required for this researth. This rwL*1 engineers, chemical engineers.
Proscer for long tervn irradiation performed in featum is unique to the univeni facilities.
specially designed baskets in the reactor, a A second protect is a small samp e reactivity and electronic engineers.
pmpcct seeking a better undentanding of measurement technique that is being applied IFR Dcc. 93-23834 Filed S-28-93:8.45 ami degradation of the phyncal pmparties of steel to geolo6ic samples to determine their same come m in the reactor vessels at nuclear power plants: thermal neutron cross sections and relative O
O Cetoter 12, 1993 1
l The Honorable Barney Frank United States Mouse of Representatives 1
Washington, DC 40515-2104
Dear Congressman Frank:
I am responding to your letter of September 20, 1993, written on behalf of your constituent, Wneaton College, regarding NRC fees.
In accordance with the requirements of OBRA-90 to recover 100 percent of our budget authority, the NRC published a final rule on July 20, 1993, establishing annual fee schedules for its licensees for fiscal year 1993.
The final rule also eliminated a generic exemption from annual fees previously applicable to nonprofit educational institutions. The Commission's need to revisit the generic exemption for nonprofit educational institutions was occasioned by a March 14, 1993, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Allied Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, No. 91-1407 and Consolidated Cases) which forced the Commission to acknowledge the weakness of, and abandon, the passthrough argument formerly made on behalf of these Institutions.
Following the publication of the final rule, the Commission received a petition from Cornell and eleven other universities (7r reconsideration of the final rule and requesting reinstatement of the exemption for nonprofit educational institutions.
The Commission has decided to grant the petition to reconsider this matter and is issuing a proposed rule to amend 10 CFR Part 171 to restore the generic exemption from annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed rule which was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1993, for a 30-day comment period.
Sincerely, Originalsigned by Ames lL Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule OFFICE:
LFD; DAFM DAF OE OC E
DATE:
/-M./93
( % /93
//,y4/93 fFunces h
NAME:
DBDA is EBlack L
f Scroggins JTa 1 r l # 6 /93
/b/ ff 93
/P/ ' 93
$60 b
ocg
BARNEY FRANK 658 Ptsasant Gutti etw Disvaict. Massacnussrts Roou 309 Nr* BEDsozo. MA 02740
'],$y'25ll0*iO4 Congrtgg 0f 1IJe Eniteb &tatc#
- ~
w
,o J)ouge of Representatibeg
'ad"JIS'E272i 2' ca'" Sa'a Nrwton. MA 02158
{508)674-3551 (617)332-3920 hh Barosew ten. M 2324
,f (508)697-9403 l
U I
September 20, 1993 Cheryl Phillips Liscense Fee and Debt Collection Branch office of the Controller U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Ms. Phillips:
It has come to my attention that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is entertaining requests from institutions of higher education for an exemption from the new NRC license fees under CFR 171.11.
If NRC does agree to waive the fee for educational, non-nuclear applications, I urge you to include Wheaton College as exempt.
only two members of the Biology Department and students at Wheaton conduct research with radioisotopes and have used less than 2 millicures of radiation over the last ten years.
The purpose of this research is to teach safe laboratory techniques and to prepare students for advanced studies in medicino and other sciences.
Any NRC license fee at Wheaton should be proportionate to their level of isotope use.
According to the Biology Department Chair at Wheaton, the new NRC fee for their radioisotope research is excessive and the school is considering not renewing their license.
- Indeed, colleges and universities across the country may have to terminate research due to the new fees.
Ironically, one probable consequence of this fee is that the training of qualified scientists needed to work with the very dangerous elements we must regulata will be reduced.
I urge you to reconsider your application of the fee and approve the Wheaton College request for exemption.
Sincerely, v
bm B
YEY FRANK Member of Congress BF/sr EDO --- 009376 4g y, y[
TMi$ $1 ATIONEMY PRWTED ON PAPER M ADE OF FIECYCLED F'BER$
4 3-0W29 W r"#/
CONGRZSSIONAL CORRISPONDENCE SYSTEX DOCUMENT PREPARATION C3ZCILIST This checklist is ha submitted with each docu=ent (or g cup of G3/As) sent for.
-ing into the CCS.
I.
L
- ll!
////A l'
-)
/~
anIrr nzsc2TPTION OF DOCUMENT (5) 2.
TTPE cF-Dowasau Correspondancas EsaP4*gann (Qs/Aab.
3.
DOCUXENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)
/
Hon-sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTZE and SUBCCXXITTEEE (if applicable)
Congressional con.=ittse Subec="ittae 5.
SUBJECT 03 DES (a)
(b)
(c) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (docu=ent nano E
Scan.
(c)
Attachnants (b)
(d)
Rakey (a)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATTS Date OCA sent document to CCS (a)
(b)
Data CCS. Escaivese documant Data returned to OCA for additional infor:sation (c)
Data resubnitted by-CCA to CCS
~
(d)
Dato entered into CCS by f
~
(a)
Data CCA notified that docu=ent is in CJ" (f) 8.
COMMENTS 2OOO O
b
.