ML20058K047
| ML20058K047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Pell C, Jeffrey Reed HOUSE OF REP., SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058K051 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR50859, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9312140372 | |
| Download: ML20058K047 (12) | |
Text
.
/
r%
($p nc.k f
UNITED STATES j }k' & f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'; 4 (
j WASHINGTON D C. 20555-0001 J
~s October 22, 1993 The Honorable Jack Reed United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Reed:
I am responding to your letter of October 1,1993, written on behalf of your constituent, the State of Rhode Island's Nuclear Science Center (RINSC),
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.ippeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Allied Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 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.
While RINSC does not meet NRC's definition of nonprofit educational institutions for fee purposes, the Commission is requesting information on the educational use of the reactor in order to determine whether to grant an exemption from fees.
Sincerely,
/
b Jpes M.
lor fxecutiv Director for Operations
Enclosure:
i i
Proposed Rule
)
n g21g372931022 171 5BFR50859 PDR
f* **%
UNITED STATES j 'j '/>
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
WASHINGTON. D C. 20555-0001 yv,/
Octoter 22, 1993 The Honorable Claiborne Pell United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Pell:
I am responding to your letter of October 1,1993, written on behalf of your constituent, the State of Rhodc Island's Nuclear Scie.nce Center (RINSC),
regarding NRC fees.
In accordance with the requirements of 0 BRA-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 -
l 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 l
the Federal Register on September 29, 1993, for a 30-day comment period.
l While RINSC does not meet NRC's definition of nonprofit educational institutions for fee purposes, the Commission is requesting information on the educational use of the reactor in order to determine whether to grant an exemption from' fees, y
g-Sincerely,
/
. _,gg
~
. TMor_
es ecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule
The Honorable Jack Reed United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Reed:
I am responding to your letter of October 1,1993, written on behalf of your constituent, the State of Rhode Island's Nuclear Science Center (RINSC),
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 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.
While RINSC does not meet NRC's definition of nonprofit educational institutions for fee purposes, the Commission is requesting information on the educational use of the reactor in order to determine whether to grant an exemption from fees.
Sincerely, Origir.al signed by N s Y Yaylor i
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Pioposed Rule DISTRIBUTION:
Congressional Correspondence FY 1993 DBDandois GJackson EBlack
)
JFunches RScroggins OC-93-417 E00-9389 j
CRC-93-0879 SECY-93-0879 OC R/F DAF R/F LFDCB R/F (2)
ED0 R/F 0FFICE:
Lf0h
/[(/f DAF D
OC 0
EDO BDindois EBlack ller J unches RS oggins JTafor NAME:
g/ /93 fc/g/93
/ P 93
/g/93 p/g /93 g / /93 DATE:
DBD/A:\\ED09389
)
~
October 22, 1993 The Honorable Claiborne Pell United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Pell:
I am responding to your letter of October 1,1993, written on behalf of your constituent, the State of Rhode Island's Nuclear Science Center (RINSC),
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 i
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.
i While RINSC does not meet NRC's definition of nonprofit educational institutions for fee purposes, the Commission is requesting informatio.1 on the i
educational use of the reactor in order to determine whether to grant an exemption from fees.
Sincerely, Original signed oy l
hNes' k.
or Executive Director i
for Operations i
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule DISTRIBUTION:
Congressional Correspondence FY 1993 DBDandois GJackson EBlack JFunches RScroggins OC-93-417 E00-9389 l
CRC-93-0879 SECY-93-0879 OC R/F DAF R/F LFDCB R/F (2)
ED0 R/F EDO bdM OC k ~ OC 0FFICE:
3 DAF DAF rhois
~~~~~~ l EBlick LH r
JPude es RScroggins JTa or NAME:
- 9J /93 h
/
DATE:
(vg793 P/g/93
( O'
/93 p/q/93
/ /93 DBD/A:\\ED09389
Federal Register / Vol 58. Mo.187 / Wednesday, September 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules 50859 l
Regulatog Flexibility Certification 938,954. 955 as amended (42 U.SC 2132 10 CFR Part 171 As required by the ReguWory 2133,2134,2135,2233,2239). Section 2.104 Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). also issued under sec.193. Pub. L 101-575.
RIN 3150-AE83 the Commission certi5es that this mle, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S C 2243). Section 2.105 if adopted, will not have a significant aho issued under Pub. L 97-415,96 Stat.
es o n 6e he4 EmnMon economic impact on a substantial 2073 (42 U.Sc 22391. Sections 2.200-2.206 M
M number of small entities. The proposed also issued under secs.161 b.1. o.182.186, m W Ins e s rule sets forth the time frame within 234,68 Stat. 946-951,955,83 Stat. 444, as AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory which a person other than an apphcant amended (42 U.Sc 2201 (bt til. loh 2236, Commission.
must file a request for a hearing in a 2282h sec. 206,88 Stat.1246 (42 U.SE AcnoN: Proposed rule.
licensing proceeding held under the 58et Sections 2 600-2.606 also usued informal orocedures set forth in 10 CFR under sec.102 Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853. SUMe4ARY: On July 20,1993, the Nuclear part 2. subpart L The proposed rule, by as amended (42 U.SE 4332). Sections Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or itself, does not impose any obligations 2.700s. 2.719 also issued under 5 U.SC 554
" Commission") published a final rule Sections 2.754. 2.760. 2.770. 2.780 also establishing annual fee schedules for its on regulated entities that may fall withm the definition 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 sLijon 601(3) of the table 1 A of appendix C also issued under rule eliminated a generic exemption Regulatory Flexibility Act, or within the secs.135.141. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat 2232, from annual fees p:eviously applicable definition of"small business" as found 2241 (42 U.S C 10155.10161L Section 2.790 to nonprofit educationalinstitutions ciso issued under sec. tos. 68 Stat. 936, as in section 3 of the Small Business Act.
(educational exemption). Following ar.wnded (42 U.S.C 2133) and 5 U.S C 552.
15 U.SE 632. or within the small publication of this rule, the Commission Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under business size standartis contained in 13 received a petition for reconsideration 5 U.S C 553. Section 2.809 also issued under requesting reinstatement of the CFR part 121.
5 USC 553 and sec. 29: Pub. L 85-256,71 educational exemption. The Backfit Analysis Stat. 579. as amended (42 U.SE 20391-This proposed rule does not involve. Subpart K also issued under sec.189. 68 Stat. Commission views th request to conduct a new rulemaking to 955142 US C 2239h sec.134. Pub. L 97*
impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 425. 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S C to154L Subpart amend the Snal rule by restoring the any new provisions which would t also issued under sec.189.68 Stat. 955 (42 exemption. The Commission grants the 50.109ta)(1). Accordingly, no backSt U.S C 2239). Appendix A also issued under request for a new rulemaking. The new analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(c)is sec. 6. Pub. L 91-560, S4 Stat.1473 (42 rulemaking reconsiders whether required for this proposed rule.
U.S c 2135).
nenprofit educational institutions should receive a List of Subjects to CFR Part 2 from annual fees. generic exemption
- 2. In $ 2.1205(c). Introductory text is The, Commission Administrative practice and republished and paragraph (c)(2)is ests p ac cornmen procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct revised to read as follows:
, ),g ng p ng matenal. Classified information.
will address no other annual fee Environmental protection. Nuclear
$ 2.1205 Rguest for a hearing; pecuca for question.
materials. Nuclear power plants and w to intervene.
DATE: Comment period expires October reactors. Pena.lty, Sex discrimination.
29,1993. Comments received after this Source matenal, Special 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 hearin8 to do n.but the Commission is able to within-assure consideration only for comments preamble and under the authority of the received on or before this date.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; Aoonassss: Submit written comments the Ene Reo anization Act of1974 (2)If a Federal Register notice is not to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory as amen ed;an 5 U.S.C. 553 the NRC published in accordance with paragraph Commission. Washington. DC 20555 is proposing to adopt the following (c)(1) of this section, the, earliest of-Atta:
et Branch amendments to 10 CFR part 2.
(l) Thirty (30) days after the requestor PARf 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR receim actual noh of a pending Pike. Rockville. Maryland 20852.
DOMESTIC LICENSWG PROCEEDWGS *PP cation.or beween 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal li workdays. (Telephone 301-504-1968.)
- 1. The authority citation for part 2 (ii) Thirty (30) days aftw *be requestor Copies of comments received may be continues to read en follows:
rece yes actual notice n v agency examined and copied for a fee at the action granting an application in whole NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Authoriry: Seca.141.181. 64 Stat. 948.
or in part, or Street NW (Lower Level) Washington.
953. as amended (42 U.!LC. 2201. 223th sec. 191 as amended. Pub. L 87-415,78 Stat. 409 IIN One hundred and eighty(180)
(42 U.sn 224 th sec. 201,84 Stat.1242. as deys e.fier a8ency action granting an FOR PURTtER pdF0futATION 00NTACT:
amended (42 U.Sn 584th 5 U.SC 552.
application in whole or in part.
L. Michael Rafky, Office of the Ceneral Secuon 2.101 also issued under secs. 53 Counsel U.S.NuclearRegulatory
- 62. 63. 81.103,104.105,68 Stat. 930. 932 camm1=alon Washington, DC 20555, 933, 935. 936. 937,938, as amended (42 Dated at Rockvale. Maryland, this 23rd day telephone 301-504-1606.
tLS E 2073.2092.2093.2111,2133,2134
For the Nuclear Regslatory emn*lon.
SUPPLEhEBf'ARY DdFOMetAT10N:
2213. as amended (42 U.SC 10114(Oh sec.
Saemet J.Gilk.
L Background.
(42 U C 132ksE 2 (
I" C'
E U.S C 5871). Sections 2.102,2.103. 2.104 mocD13835 N F26-R 84 d
-W 2.105. 2.77*. also issued under secs.102, es.Lsea coca w N.Pa # W M M M M 103,104,105,183.189. 68 Stat. 936. 937 V. Regulatory analysis.
Sea 6e Federal Register / Vcl 58. No.137 / Wednesdas September 20. 1973 / Proposed Rules VI. Regulatory ficaibihty analyus.
institutions mrght be aMe to snake letter argues sitet ut is"imefBcrem4" and vil Bedf,t analysis.
individualind showutgs of financial
" socially and economically I. Background hardship and esternaliaed beneGin undesiraMe" to charga people for accese suffichent to justify a "public interest" to pure knowledge, because the benefits.
On luly 20,1993 the Commission exemption under 10 CFR 171.11(b)(58 of that knowfedge are largely pubbsbed its Gnal annual fee rule for FR 386691. The two dissenting unpredictable." Letter from Alfred Kahn FY 1993 (58 FR 36666). The final rule Commissioners took the view that the to Shirley Egan, Associate University pnncipaHy set out the Commission's fee Commission should continue in force Counsel Cemell University Gufy 15' schedules for FY 1993. but it also the genenc educational exemption (58 1993).
discussed in some detail the F2 FR 368751 The petitioners also stressed the harm Commission decision to revoke a Almost immediately the Commission to university nuclear programs as a genenc exemption previously began rueiving letters from many result of the newly imposed annual fees applicable to nonpront educational colleges and universities protestmg the (petition at 8-9). Using Cornell institunons. A court of appeals decision. c hange m its longstandmg poiicy. Many University's nuclear program es an issued in March 1993. had neceuttated of these letters were sent as comments example, thev asserted that Federal the Commission's rethinkmg of the regardmg the Commission's concurrent grants (in edifition to those already educational exemption. See Allied' fee policy study now bemg conducted provided) might be necessary to meet Signc!. Inc. v. NRC. 988 F 2d 146 (D C.
as reqtured by the Energy Policy Act of the additional costs of NRC annual fees Cir.1993). That decision cast doubt on 1992158 FR 21116L In these letters and (petition at 9-10). Finally, the the NRC's stated rationsle-which comments tavadable in the NRC Public petiti mers argued that the mcluded a purported inability to " pass Document Room ("PDR"lk educational Commission's longstanding exemption ihrough" costs--for exempt mR institutions descnbed the" externalized for nonprofit entional institutions nonprofit educational institut2cns from benents" 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 court decision, the annual fees. including the prospect of consistent with the already extensive Commission initially proposed to retain maior cuttscis in nuc! ear education.
direct Federal funding provided many the educational exemption. but with a Some licensees also pointed out that c'ollege and unrversity licensees fresh rationale. In its proposed FY 1993 their programs were already heavily (petition at 12-13).
annual fee mle. the Commisoon subsidized by the Fedaral govemment in August, while the petition for-requested comments on retaining the (in panicular by the Department of reconsideration was under exemption, and asLed specifically for Energy), precisely because the programs consideration, the Comnussion comments on the court's suggestion that were not sustainable absent public undertook an e%rt of its own to perhaps tbe exemption could be sector support.
develop guidance for considering justifled if education yields The Commission also received a individual "public interest" exemption exceptionally large extemalized benents formal petition for reconsideration of requests by colleges erad universities. As that cannot be captured in tuition 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 15L restoring the nonprofit educational a number of colleeen and universities to The Commission also requested exemption. $se Petition Ibr leam more about therr e4 rational comments on whether the exemption Reconsideration of Final Rule (July 30 activities and the benefits of non-power should be revoked.
1993). In this petition for reactors and the use uf nuclear materials Following the close of the comment reconsideration (which is being in education programs.h C-*Mn penod.the Commission faced a published as an appendix to this conchrded that the new annual fees dilemma. It remained committed to the proposed rule), a number of formerly
($62.100 for each research reader value of nuclear education and related -
exempt colleges and universities licenset lessar amounts for each research as a policy matter, but it had asserted with some specificity a number materials licornse) would 'copardize the received only a few cornrnents.and of benefas that educatinnalinstitution, educatxmal and related researr.h cursory ones at that, supportmg a research reacers provida to both the benefits provided by a number of continued generic exemption.
nuclear Industry and the public at larga. colleges and universitaes.
Additionally, some NRC licensees had Prominent was the continued training of As a result of the saw and mots submitted comments requesting nocieerrientists and engineers detailed information and arguments abandonme'nt of the exemption (petitices et 3-4). h loners also developed ht the podtton km alto 6 ether or a more 5'Wa spread of stated that nuclear t ology wee used recoarideration and in ttne other sources its costs to all licensees. Still other in fields as varied ao medicine, geology, described above, and after careful commenters urged that thesaem archaeology, food sce and tastilea reflectiorr.the Commission now fr be retained, but that it be to and that tEs publicwmnuity inclined to return toi+s previous include vanous other tie = mand activities. beneStted from people who could practkz of stempting nonprofit After considenng the material before provide knowledgeable opinions on educationalinstituttosa frous===a it, a split Commission, by a 3-2 vote, nuclear topics, es well as from tours of fees.'lho Commissiatr thervfore grards
" reluctantly concluded that in view of reseasch reactoss (petitlan at M}.
the petition for reonexlerstion of the the court dedsion and the "Be petitioners went on to sepse that FY 1993 final rule antf trow preposes to administr:tive reconi devaloped during education provides sigrnScant exempt nonprofiteducational the cornment period it cannotlustify a "axtarnalkaed benants" warrmatag institutions from smunalines.The generic
- educational
- exemption for PT public subsidy. by citada lenses fross Commi-ton does notintend tocreate 1993"(58 FR 3e064-66).Nrubsu,the economist Alfred Kahn (also available any othes generis exemption categanes Commission informed formerly exempt in the attached appendix) et=Hng that in this runemakirrg> &ies not propens nonprofit educational institutions that the knowledge generated by un!versi.
m Cesarmasies they would have to pay annnal fees related research is itself a public lig this fasdner shtft in a policy that begimning in FY 1993.Thec^
- W n that==t be quantified using marker has y tpas threagh a maior did point out that rnany of theos indices (petition at 6-7). b4r. Kaha's changs in a sbort tkse. The Commir.sfon -
i Federal Register / Vol. 58, No.187 / Wednesd:y, Septzmber 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 eliminaling the generic
. represent a final Commission decision educationel exemption, pursuant to its educational exemption. 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 171.!! Exemptions in jeopardy valuable educational proposing to restore a generic resources that are indispensable to the exemption. it is not necessary for Paragra h (a) of this section is nuclear industry, to numerous other formerly exempted educational amended adding nonprofit educational activities, to the NRC itself licensees to apply for individual public educationa institutions, as defined,m
.5 to e list of t entities and to the public at large.
interes,t exemptions. Therefore, the The Commission solicits public Commission requests nonprofit P,
y comment on its proposed rule that educational licensees not to seek such Commission. A discussion of th,s i
would restors the exemption. Comments exemptions at this time. If after change in fee pohey is found in Section on other annual fee issues will not be reconsideration, the Commission Iof this proposed rule.
entertained in connection with this decides that it cannot justify a generic III. Environmental Impact: Categorical proposed rule. The Commission already exemption it will provide educational Exclusion t
has received some information on the licensees ample time to seek mdividual The NRC has determined that this n abey nce s fn Qsed es action v dualexem tion a ors n h use ofI cen u ear g
matenals in various educational requests it alts..dy has received from CFR 51.22(c)(1). There' are, neither an g cati na ac s g,
{
s to nonprofit environmental assessnsent nor an activities and related research at colleges and universities. However, the Commission is mterested 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 prepared for the proposed and the use of licensed nuclear addressed. if applicable. in the final regulation.
materials in education in its broadest rule. Nonprofit educational licensees IV. Paperwork Reduction Act sense, in the exPSCtation that more data who have requested,termmation, Statement may well substantiate the argument m.
downgrade, possession-only or combined licenses to avoid the FY 1993 his proposed rule contains no the petition for reconsideration that non-power reactors and the use of annual fee will be advised accordingly information collection requirements hcensed nuclear materials 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 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 There is one final point warranting et seql.
" externalized be sefits" warrantm, g clarification. He FY 1993 final rule V. Regulatory Analysia pubhc support.
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 fbut 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 materialin FY 1991-92 and offer appropriate For FYs 1991 through 1995.OBRA-90 studies or research the number of refunds. The Commission now proposes requires that appmximately 100 percent faculty and students using licensed not to issue revised fee schedules of the NRC budget authority be material in their studies or research, the reflecting retraction of the educational recovered thmugh the assessment of type and availability of work for exemption because ofits inclination to fees. To aconrnpush this statutory -
graduates of nuclear pmgrams and other restore the exemption. Commenters. lf requirement, on July 20,1993 (58 FR programs in which licensed nuclear they choose. may addresa 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 'Y 1993 institutions of higher learning.he 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 lie====<l 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 Govemment agencies.
general) are " externalized" and would exemption.Should the Commission 09RA-90 and the Conference not be produced by market forces.The restore the exemption however, no new Committee Report specifically state Commission would appieciate detailed fee schedule for FYs 1991-92 will be that-information on the many non-nuclear necessary and no refunds will be made.. Commission's FY 1993 bud (1)ne annual fees be based on the fields of study that use licensed nuclear On the other hand, because of the material in the course of educating their timing of this reconsideration million less the amounts collected from students. no Commission has received proceedmg and if the Commission part 170 fees and the funds directly some information in letters addressing reinstates the educational exemption, no appropriated 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 described to make up any shortfall created for FY (2)neannual 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
58052 Federaf Bennres / Vol. 58. No.187 / ZMey. September 29'.1995 / NA mrfes n=gulatory enrvices provided by the List of Sobrets in 10CFR Part 171 Commession: and 104 c. of t!wrAtomicEnergy Actof1954 Annual charges. Byproduct matenal.
(42 ES.C 22MkJF for ope ation at e (3) The annual fees be assessed to Holders of cenificates, registrations, and thermal power level of 10 rnegawattr or those licensees that the Commission, in approvals. Intergovernmental relations.
less:ana its discretion. determnas can fairly.
Non-payment penalties. Nuclear (ii)If so licensed for operation at a eauttably, and practicably contribute to matenals. Nuclear power plants and thermal powerlevel ofmore than 1 th'eir payment.
reactors. Source material. Special megawatt, does not contam-nuclear material (A) A circulating loop through the an[a[f fo$ef ra$r p er actors For the reasons set out in the core in which the licer:see conducts fuel the NRC continued to consider the preamble and under the authority of the
- P*
vanous reactor vendors, the types of Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as aroended.
B g' nd M Ming or,
centainment and the location of the and 5 U.S C 553, the NRC in prom (C) An experimerrtal facility in the operat ng power reactors. The annual to adopt the following amendrnents to core in excess of18 square inthes in fees for fuel cycle licensees. materials 10 CFR part 17L cross-section.
licensees, and holders of certificates.
PART 171-ANNUAL FEES FOR Dated at Rociville, MD. t!as 23d day of registrations and approvals and for laenses issued to Government agencies REACTOR OPERAUNG LICENSES, Septemtrr 1993.
AND FUEL CYCLE LICENSES AND For the Nuclear Regulatory Comrmss.on.
take into account the type of bcility '
approval and the dasses of the MATERIALS UCENSES, INCLUDING Samuel T. ChiIL.
Iwenwes.
HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF Secresuy of the Comnuuon.
COMPLtAWCE REGISTRATIONS. AND t o CFR pan 171, which established QUAlfTY ASSURANCE PRCGRAM Appendix Te Prepasd * '- Mn of annual fees for operating power reac2crs APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT ReconsideratWes ad Final kmbs effective October 20.1966 (51 FR 33224: AGENCIES UCENSED BY THE NRC
- 1. Intmductfon September 18.1986), was challeeged and upheld in its entirety in Florida
- 1. De auhty ritation for Part 171 The Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion Power end Light Company v. Uruted is revised to read as fo!!cws-("NRC" or " Commission ~) has long exempted nonprofit educationalinstttutions States. 846 F.2d 765 fD C Cir.1988).
Authority: Sec. 76at. Pub. L 94-272.100 from paying anmzat feas> Although the cert derned,490 U.S.1045 (1989).
Stat.146, as amended by sec. 5001. Pub. L Commasion traditionaHy ltrsrtfled thie 100-203.101 Stat.1330. as amended by Sec.
exemptkm on the grmmds that coIlegar and 10 CFR part 171. which established 3201. Pub. L 101-239.103 Stat. 2106 as universttas could not reeddy pass the smet of fees based on the FY 1989 budget. were amcodel by sec. 6101. Pub L 101-509.104 the fees on to studerrts thmugh tutmo and also legally cha!!enged. As a result of Stat.13 sad 42 UE 2713): sec. 301. Pota L other charges. a mata tsderal coun decision the Supreme Court decision in Slinner 92-214. so Stat. 222 (42 U.1C. 2201(w th sec. questioned this rationaia.a The court
- v. Mid Amenran Pipeline Co.,109 S. Ct. 201, sa Stat.1242 as amended (4z U s C.
explained, however, that the extemaland 1726 (1989), and the denial of certiorar 5841k sec. 2901 PutL L 1o2486. Wi Stai-in Flonda Power and Light. s11 of the
' #' A'
- U' #~ *'* "#'L benefits of educatino potentially supponed
- "'b ** * * ** Pti**
- lawstuts aere withdrawn.
- 2. In $ 171.11, paragraph (a) is revised Although the Commission at first defended to reed as followsr its eduenenal emopoon in a ruhmking The NRC's FY 1991 annual fee nde proceeding pmmpted by the amrt's decision.
was largely upheld recently by the D.C
$ 171.11 W&=
st abandoned tbe emarmption in the flas!
Circuit Court of Appeals in Allied (a) An annual feeis not required for:
veremos ed us anrmal Sur rules Factoners Signal v. NRC (1) A construction permit orlicense contend that in no doing the Conumismen a phd for by orissued to a non rofit
'"'d'Sd
'P'"I"31 '*9"'**th*'th' educationalin'etitution for a{ rod Comsma mansMs W and 7
VI. Regulatory flexibility Analys.La on reinstate the exemption for nonpso64 or idmenen facil4 other a
As required by the Regulatory educational Ucensees.s flexibihty Act 5 U S C 605(b) the Power reactor. or for the
'on and Commission certifres that this M use of byproduct f%f sonarce 7
a rule, if adopted, will not have e materhel, or special amelaar material significant peonomic impact on a This ausptm does not spply to thaos 5ducatwmUinstenticas f2d Th pro a
a 10 hich operating power reactors which a:e not (i) Human use:
considered to be smallN (ii) Ramunerated services to ollum C e m - M
- m pt W Sude' mal Mti@ m suggested a valid reason for exernpting VII. Backfit Analysis
)Distriharion of isce material. source m
.or special The NRC has determined that the
,see so cra trrritaf uesst nuclear material or We <*n
- bzcifit rule. to CFR 50.109, does not bypeoduct material, sourts masterial, or segahme,ycanna w. see F.2d ses (DC Cr. t enl.
,3,,gw3j,nor, w,. en, uocr or apply to this proposed rule and that a sp(ecial nuclear meesnt a di.c= e4 hr-a- a snet backfit analysis is not twy tred for this i,) Actiens pacianned medara a u. as sse - a.mps.
proposed rule. The beckLt analysis is Governrment razoract.
.n seas and paa maa RC - ~.- inw not required because these amandments (2) Federally owood annma,ch reenocs u gpmaIs gee and do not require the muuWon of or used primacity for mar,esieeni training uses. sesse-se #4ectaar argviniary canum's. My p,,
,yy additions to systems, structnres.
and academaic aseensch purpeses. Poe so. russit rtman anwt components, or design of a facthty or purposes of this a== =Pa. the teria e Pounamme Cornell" -
,hassubuntmed the design approval or amanufacturing research reactor raeems a nuclear reactor
- g g l"**PP""'"* j ',
g license for a facility or the procedures that-g or orgaruzation requised to deisigs (i)la hconsedby the hudens t,n e. sem to secreery smt rw
- .m
, t,, pe et.mm sim.m4 tw construct or operate a facility.
Regulatory Commission under section is. toen
Feder J Ragister / Vol 58. No.187 / Wedmeedry. Septernber 29, 1993 / Ptoposed Rules 59983 eduational reactor licenseen Imre annual research providee en vnponant beoent to the b undesnble for km to do so."
fees. The court merely asked the NRC to nuclear industry and the public et large and marshal a rationale based on " externalized should not be discourage 1"r A "vibmut Id. Insteed, he reesens. "a Get charge on benefrts" of education "that cannot be nuclear education sector also is important as business beneSciaries is supenor to a specific captured in tuition or o6er market prices."
a source of talent and ideas for the NRC ItseM charge by the University for particular pieces Id. at 151. Indeed, the Allied-Signal court and for the whole government." the of knowledge."Id.The Commission's explamed that "there is et least e eenous Commission svowed in the course ofits misuvely small costs meisted 4 possib lity that the Commission can rulemaking process. ld. ne wide array of g;,,,;
c,g g
" substantiate" such an exernption. Id.
externalized benefits generated by nuclear MM hm e WM in its Final Rule. however, the Commission reactor programs et nonpro6t educational imrnessurably from the activities of b
" missed an opportunity to consider senously institutions is thus apparent from the distinguished tendung and research the classic
- externalized benefits' argureont" Commission's statements and fmm the many community et our nation's univerrmes. and pmposed by the courte While Peutionero comments submitted in support of the tboos who. in the Commission's discretion believe that the Commission should have contested exemption.a deuded to continue the exemption et issue can fairty, equitably, and practica!!y make and should have based its decision on the m Economic Theory Suppcrts the Nonprofit such payments.
courfs discussion and on the many Educotional Exemption V. The Proposed Annual Fees Threaten comments supporting the exemption, they The thhn's long-standing SermusInjury to Universsty Nuclear seek in this petition to provide the exemption for nonprofit educational facthttes Progrunes Commission with additional infonnation is wholly consistent with " externalized atx>ut the considerable externalized benefits benefits" ecxmomic theory. As Not only is it economically indScient to of nuclear reactor programs et nonprofit Commissioners Ramici and DePlautue levy annual fees on university researt.h educational institutions, explamed in their opinion. " education. like reactors, it also placer an undue financial Ill. Nuclear Peactors of Nonprofit nabonajde la burden on nuclear science education and
- EducationalInstitutions Pronde Signifacent d
threstens to chill nuclear research vital to Benefits to the Commercio/ Nuclear industry d pensabla be fits to e who16 accasey industry and the general public alike.ie W to purchasers." Final Rule 58 FR y situation at Corne!! is illustrative of these and th, General Pulac not 38675. Indeed, the " exceptionally laras" Pa'"""I.h." Cornell uses two P
Univeruties, including the Petitioners.
benents of nuclear reactor programs at reactors for M ag and research. The larger, train scientists and engineers who enter the universities are recounted in section !!! above s 600-k21owett TRIGA. is used most mmmercial nuciser industry and government and in the many mmments submitted to the frequently. A staff of four-two engineers and reguletary agencies such as the NMC itself.
Distinguished faculty, many of wham have Commission daring its rulemeling pmcent*
two lab techniciane-maintains the reactors.
From ground-breaking discovers to vital worked in the field, sincs its trJency, instmet core data. university nuclear renserch is N annual operating budget runs the students in basic research and new ayy.- # $230.0003:The proposed f
technologies. Without study at educational openly published and imely debetod to NRC annual fue for Cornell's reactors-ensure the h academic standards and reactors, these students would inck th*
widset om
'tity. SuWure knowkdge su4.200-chus represents over half of the e a wp.
th etBciency sa.
of wYet no Indeed, the federal somsunent is the sole con nuciser industry, Nuclear engineering programs. whlch can incremsstof enst. Imttw from Afted i. Kahn source dgrsat m* suW CorneWs thrtwe anty by including band >cm laboremry to ShHry K. Egna Ouly 15,1993) %
nuclear amance and engmeering programs, study at a working reactor, assist the 14tter") et t As Geraradselomste Hendck and and federal resserch dellers coni.prwe eserly DePlangise reasosd. the free merlait aney fag half of the nuclear science and engtnamnas commercial nuclear industry directly thrad "to suppiy the meessoary ammount of pure and opptled adencs.Carnall
~'s esmael ressesch bud est. m t
researchers, for exsmple. have analysed the educmenssi" and other public goods ----
Departrnant of Emergy not only contributes n
behavior of reactors under severe accident h "W" or studests lack idarmados substaansel grant==== but also donnees all moditim Unlmsttles motribute e the sufBeient to set the "right prica" or are ed the font for the reecers. Cbraell truclear power reactor ladustry by dewing unable to pay that price. Final Rule. 58 FR mocePts for brtter cooling rystems at 38675. b inefBciency of chargirq for
,cm.,,
,,,,,,cg ang
,ene Mion has also wed aban a swy moderstors. and other compnamaa ofpower hties thus p M somd g,,
reactors systems.
MM W WW du Wh University researchers also ase r==*s to economist Alfred Kaha calls "the sesong and develop new applications of tmcleer universaDy sad case lar OfScus Approprtettes Act("IDAA"L on nonpro8t eduamusant hcumeses, see rimes male, se nt er technolo hang of pure research."
latner as t 3eene. saoit trtistw1(10e21:
geology gy in Belds as verted es==^+=-Kahn explains that it would be " futile for 88"F'*8' *d*'*W I"uesttoae frees IOAA imumL archaeology, food science, and wxt hoe I h1 turn unimsm try to recove h met by B-= thmes ines wary wth the ocat of iam charging potentaal users" for resserth and h,,
h P
OP
[
odocation, as well as"sociaDy and g,,
estimene. no econende and public peticy By opersung imclear rescurs 4% i rueimeine kr exempting consess and untversities institutions assist gover m e r ry teen and tse2 Pr e--.4 mm6e hap % from Nnc essmal asas eppty =tth armel lares to in othw important ways, pewide a the U.S. Coon of Appenis Dectmies and br=6stener IOAA less, however
- 'aurce of respected. I and Fee Schedules: 100% Fee Racovery. FY 1983. 54 TA
- a See Nuclear Haector Budgets. Use. and Federal independent opinion on the benetes and 21ea2. 2 3664 (Nuclear R=gM**y Casmse*a.
Fundens as Petp6 amer lasonsmans anschad as
- 23. tes3H-Proposed Rale") k;hustamm gzhasm A.,
burdens of nuclear technology for e modsty eSee ejeo descstpuess of W* =^*
- sne ressasse are used premmerely by thras addrnesing its implications. Studsats and
,uncur programs anached as Exhibt 5.
nadear scamune and engtsmartsg incapy and members of the puhhc who tour the
- Deczone the Afhed Signoicart gave so 8Pgroskassety tisuiveyedusas stadsmas per year, educztional reactor incihties insight inte explanettom of what bundunerk enernansed w$th oddathenn! thnitee mee by as sansy as tea the varied uses of nuclear nology and beoefks should to measured by. it is encnear wher imEmerf and 8Ames ginshanu stedanis ham Ase corne to ap
'ste the aantnbution of the court mammt by %Mi egL* A#lesi-8*cb es peakugg.shamnusy. esannus, sad l
nudear ustnee m the
- of eedt signet oss F.2d at 151. pwthen,ne.re, k is.e y_,
ansching and UN-
,mo, is,_m. t.
a,
..see
,e -
-~.
b Canm>a h hse N M W that masserairy==4 < acaessa and accxsans Ier about a guarar of the suscaer's cuand man, its continued belief that "M propurra make se asumarcaal aanre elsece2
's A toes sandy c6mered by Dr. Musese M. Work energy. His itica topodser with the umany found than of tbs 3r univerapy rescsses them cornments so tied by educatkeaal licensees, does opusettag, as encaned assau comes betow essace.
- thfloring VWrwe of fW
- Rasasch and however !!1uatrete the extent and variary of such lacier troen Marcus H. Veih end Edward R Devans DePlanque Final Rule. 54 rR st 3ee7s,
- benmots, to Samuel I. Outh guly 12. tes31 at 2.
50864 Federal Repsser / Vol 58. Nectar / Wednesday September 29,1997 MWfRules researr.herueceive grants from the Nat6onal n TheEducatyonelEmsnpcioarReflects-Manhettae Colley.
Scaence Foundation as wellu Sound Pubhe Pecyand a Tmdttson of if the Commisskon abandons the Support for Educatson Walter Marystik.
ed to $
g,,,,,,,,p,,,,,, y,,g,,,o,ggg,g,4,,,
1 ts to the 1 ind ni y
cover the NRC charges. Rather than 0'
accomplishing the budgetary goals of the
"",d
- j {'
I*Po**d 7
Massachusetts lastitute of Technology.
Omnibus Reconciliation Act. Public law No.
gg,u 101-508.104 Stat.1388 (1990), the associated with conprofit educational
' 'B' "A"*
Director.O$ce ofSponsored%m a
mo on eral poc et o ther.
Commercial power reactors have historically Massachusetts insterute of Technology. 77 As a federal cousi has logically noted. Milt been the only NRC licensees asked to absorb yM ghusetts A{nue.rmm 4-!10 is self-evident that a transferof funds from the mst of supporting educational reactors.
one agency to another fails to incesse federag The $7.1 million in fiscal year 1993 costs By-revenue." Mondo Power Flight Co. v.
associated with licensmg nonprofit North Carolina State University.
United States. 646 F 2d 765. 771 (D C Cir.
educational reactors. if divided equally among the 109 commercial power reacton Dr. Larry Monteith.
1gul.
If Cornell attempted to recoup the NRC fees now in operation, amounts to only 565.000 gg,,,,;;0, go,,y (,,,,,, S,,,, yn,,,r,,,y.
through general tuition increases rather than per commercial reactor and adds a mere 2%
A HolladayHall.Som 7001.Botergh.NC '
through grants. all students. many of whom to the proposed average fee for commercial N69WI*
receive extensive financial aid from the reactors. See Proposed Rule. 58 Mt at 21674.
By-government and pnvete funds. would be The costs borne by power reactor limnsees Reed College, forced to subsidize a relatively small could, in the Commission's discretion, be Steven Koblik, department at the university. Alternatively, a deceased somewhat by spreading them President. Reed Collete. J203 Southecsf mapor increase in laboratory fees imposed on equitably among all commercial licensees.
woodstocA Blvd., Portland. OR 97202.
nudear sc>cna and engineenng students alone would place the program utterly That federal sources already support beyond their financial reach. Cost increases extensive nuclear research and education et Dr of such magnitude would make any both private and public Institutions speaks to wnity of Rhode Ishd.
institution s nuclear program a prirne target the national importance of this discipline.
buis 1. Smio, I f 'I'mination-The Commission's traditional exemption for AssistantlegalCounsel.Corforti Since the Commission's Final Rule seeks to nonprofit educational facilities reDects a Administratson Bldg.. Office of the Censrol coifect annual charges for fiscal year 1993, it history of federal support for higher Counsel. Universsty of Rhode lsland, also threatens to disru niversity budgets, education reDected in universities' nonprofig Kingston.Rio2481.
tax status and exernplified by the Mornli Act.
By.
w h a me which fint established land-grant colleges significant lag time required for approval of such as many of the Petitioners. The efforts The Board of Trustees of The University of Illinois.
grant proposals, it may take as long as two f Congress and the NRC to redua the Ikmald A. Henas, years for univenities to learn whether federal budget deficit am praiseworthy. but monies newesary to cover the major expense only if die efkirt eeurages gmwth by Associate UniversityCounsel. Uniersityof of NRC fees will even be available. This stnnsthening the nation s long-standing
- linois. Suite 258. Henry Administmtion financtal strees comes as a shock to the supenonty in scienm and technology. In the Bldg.. Sos South wnght Street. Urbar2.14 educational cximrnunity in the wake of the long term. the loss of the Commission's
- 81801, Commaasion's vigorous argument supporting educational exernption will hinder the.
BT the exemption in its Proposed Rule...
advancement of nuclear sciena, the nuclear The Curstors of the Ooswrsity of Missouri.
Although the Commission proposes to industry, the NRC itself. and the national Phillip J. Hoskins.
alleviate the financial burden on colleges and interest univenaties by considering individual Counsel. University of Missouri Sys*stn. 227 L
g.g, g,m Uniwrsary Ha#. Catumbia. MO65221.
requests for exemption fmm annual fees and for installment payments. these suggestions For the foregoing reasons. Petih B
provide small consolation. Installment request that the th=~ reconsider its University of New Mexico
- payment plans fall to address the real Final Rule and reinstate its annual fee 01arles N. Estes. Jr..
problem confronting universities--how to exemption for nonprofit educational UniersityCounsel. UniwrsityofNew pay for such annual fees at all. Furthermore, lastitutions.
any attempt by the Commission to examine Mersco,150 Scholes Hall. Albuquerque. NM nranerous Individual exemption requests RespEtfully submittd 8 I f' BI By:
could consume more NRC administrative F
resources than a blanket educational Comell University.
The University of Texas System.
esemption. The sheer number of universities Shirley K. Egan.
"8**
joining in this petition unAarscores this Assocarte Counsel. Cornell Uniwrstry. 500 (O
concern-DayHa#, fthoco.NY 14853-2801.
M 2.
By:
- Grants troen the Atarnic Energy Cornmissaan and the Neuonal Science Foundation first enabled tw Cwnell Univwsity*
U iversity of Utah.
Cornou to etnata its two reactors See Devid D.
Joseph C Bell.Melisse R. lones.
Williams T. Evans.
Cark. The Nuclear Fronts CorwFe hegmas of Wh. Camen Wg %
Hogan & Hartson. 555 Tfurteenth Semet. AW.,
EducationotDivision Olief. Utah Attorney sac Washington. DC20004-1100-Cenerol's Ogia, seneficia/ Ufe Tower. 22 th n 38 South Sksse Street,SaltMe City, u see Plaal Rale. Sa FR et saars; Proposed Rule.
By:
UTofffI.
So FR at 2teH ("The M==on pro to r
R.anses State University.
Servics may be made upon:
N fross for FYs se 1992 and knnifer Joseph C BeWelissa Rdones, as it two hit snany years in the pas * * * (and)
Ass 4stant Unhersity Attorney, Kansas State Hoget & ferrtson. $$$ Thrteenth Street. NW..
contlause so beheve that 'educaikonal reemerch Uniwesity.111 Anetson Hall. Manhattan.K5 66506-0!!5.
Woshington, DC20004-1209. Counselfor provides as insportant benefit a the nuclear industry and the public at large and should not be Cornell Uniwrsity d.aa>urageC"](cnarkens onutted),
By:
I
Federal Register / WI. 55, th 107 / "-iMy, September 29, 1993 / Propeeed Rtries 50065 EshMt 1 produced at can be ranade emisb6evuovo and I have nothing to odd to yowe stoewomt.
July 15.1993.
m to widely at zero int remmal cost. His except to point out that rmrvery in the form Mdhirky K %
means that it is inefficient to charge people of a flat cha se on busmess beneficianes is access to it-Assacrate Uniwrsity Cocmsel. 503 Day Holf.
superior to a specific charge try the Cornell Uniwrsary, fthoca. NY t 485y.
That fact taken together with the difficulty University for partecular p. ems of Deer Ms. Egan: Your draft of a possible d the pmducer d pun knowledge knowledge.
submission to the NRC captures most of the 8PPropnating the benefits ofit m charges to I urge you to consider expanding the argument that I and ! arn sure, the Circuit Potennel uhse those benefits am arEument slightly along these lines. mainly Court had in mind.
largely unpredictable-4ogether make the because I think I can assure you that anyone There is one observation you make, strong and universally reuignized case fo' who raises the possible consideration of however that I think can usefully be public financing of pure researth.De externalities will be receptive to such an expanded. and it is an argument that anyone University s pohey, which you do correctly familiar with the literature on externahties emphasize. of conducting researth on a non.
expansion to embrace the concept of public ds would quickly a preciate. It has do with the Proprietary basis is therefore-as you clearly g.E
&1 d e n"8a b imply but do not. I think. stress adequately-social benefits o the non-propnetary ure research to which you allude, and of e socially highly desirable, and n would be minur errors on the draft you sent me and associated practice of not c) ing possible both futile for universities to try to recover raising a w two miw specific quesom.
users for eams: to the know that it the cost by chargmg potential users and Please call on me if you think I can be of produars.
socially and economacally undesirable for any additional assistanca.
Pure knowled e is the archetypal"public them to do so.
With best regards, 6
gocxt." in economic terms. the essential This does not answer the question of who Sincerely, characteristic of which is that, once should pay the charges in question: on this Alfred Kahn.
ExmsfT A--NUctf.AR REACTOR BUDGETS, USE, AND FEDERAL FUNOfNG AT PETmONER INSTITUTIONS Arinual reactor No, persons usalg reador Percentage of dept. tunet histituhon budg-numi teos (tecumpgrei students /urder.
1 rom lederal sources (per.
et (
)
0' * )
C8"tl (ooamrs) 1 Comes Urve 5240.000 124.200 3R12G
$2.
Kansas State Urev 134,462 62.100 4FITGoeu 67.
Mareimmart Cotage 15.000 62.100 3R30GODU Not A=d=Ha a M.LT a 1.270.000 62.100 35Rt9G43U 63.
N. Casohna Sasse Ursv 435Am) 62.100 K-/SOGE7U 25.
Reed Conege 80.000 62.100 8FiOGr13U 31 Unrv. Ilknon-Urtaans s200.000-124.200 4R14G 75.
Urev. Missourt-Roma a 101,350 62.100 GRt2Goeu Not Avadab6e.
Unrv. New Mexco 27.000 62.100 8662Gr2$U 89.
Unrv. Rhode island 533.769 62,100 22R12G e.5.
Urve, Texas-Austin.
267.183 62,700 AF/1TO
- 100, i
Urev. Utah 50.000 62.t00 SFf16GrTU 48.
i Comitaned Egure br the two readors at Comet.
2 Facibty operates at a defot of 5650,000.
s Corrbned Egure for the two reacers et Iginoo-Urt>ana.
- Does trom she Roma campus rescer any.
- Total 1992 toonral grarvs har rue Deparemove equated $40.000.
l rMoa a studied by determining residues of labeled NationalTessaportation Safety Board. Within Nuclear it-tre Pru6 rems at Petitioner ons on tmeted spechnass. Mocisar artimds the University, the roedor is used mostly by Institutions of chamm A for tram elements han chemistry students, fo!! owed by nuclear been a key to resoMeg many meterlata engineerm8 students. Ramsarch is %_w' Comc4 Uniwrsary quaftty issues fur silkxan M==e "
in a wide smage of Sekis inchading geology.
In its 30 years of
, the Cornen device febdcation.
biolay, animal se-tatdas and grain TRIGA has been u extsastvely la Cornell has the only cnid neutron besan sciences.
1 undergraduate and gradente courses and program at a university reacter in the United gg g
research by nout+;-._
_ la one project.
States.
, L is used to Add!tional nuclear methods that will The college's ansching and research reactor 1
neutron-induced --
i map the location a(=r-eha to shortly come into use at Cornell include program is privata and prumarily reveel knages ha the sessassles pmrnpt garnma-ray neutron activat6on undergraduanet it is very small but 1
painted by artists as a painting eeohne frami analysis and neutron depth peo& thug based economicaDy run. As time only teaching and preliminary sketch to final version. This non. on rnononnergetic conversion electrons research reactor La the snetropolitan New destructive technique allows the art histories produand by neutron esections as well as the Yori area swsilable to =Ararhal i
to infer the artist's developing intentiona,la familiar method based en alpha particle or institutions. It provides a tah resource l
another, neutron radiography is used to study pmton production.
for the ases. Three to four ares institutions of
]
the distribution of water between soils and higher learnang regularly use it far tasching the roots of living planta. Neutmo activation Kansas Sasse Udsers#y and reemarch. Conegas such as New York i
analysis is widely used in archaeology to ne program et rena== State is valeable to Maritime College won!d otherwise have no characterias elemental cxznpositions of institutions without researck and teachlag eccess to such a facility,in additaos.
articles such as pactory shcrds and obsufwa reactors.The schotfs reactor under the hundreds of ares high school and middle and metallic artifacts. Suficzent difirrences Department ofEnemy Reactor Sharing school students enjoy tours and in elemental composition among clay sources program, is used by 13 dIfferent instftutions, demonstrations at the res; tor each year as disttmruish local wares fmm imported ones.
including Stanford. louisiana State, the part of their science curriculum. De school i
The effediveness of deteqpets has been University of Southern Califorrria and the district la whicIn the coDege is located has
50866 Federal Regista / Vol. 58 No.187 / Wednesday, September 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules the highest proporuon of minonty students (2) Synerpstr Effects on Carbon Lmnets of any mmmunity school distnct in New Project to assess synergistic effects of both water content. Ttus work has application in both the oil well core logging industry and York City, and among the highest in the peutron exposure and ion bornbardment to nation.
carbon litn ters in fusion reactors by in the waste disposal area. In a third prorct foils of different materials are activated to Massachusetts Institute of TechnoloEY p
jin determine their responses to thermal sa n
- (
utmn a on A lan:e rescan.h prutram is carried on at many quantitative analysis needs such as neutrons and to analyre content particularly she MIT Research Center. In Nuclear environmentalmonitoring forensic and with respect to impunties that may be Engineenng there are studies in (1) Dose enminal work, certification of material present. A recent doctoral research prowet Beductson in which pressunted loops that punty. rare-earth tagging for study of manne examined the role of funy logic controllers stimulate both PWR and BWR ef'vimnments larval dispersion. analysis of mercury in fish in nuclear reactor control The conclusion hase been constructed and operated in the tissue. analysis of fossil power plant was that fuuy logic controllers appear to be core of the reactor for the purpore of reservoirs for selenium, and industnal identifymg coolant chemistnes that will tagging; and (4) Neutron Depth Profiling feasible and useful when applied to *od minimize corrosion; (21 frmderion-Assisted Prefect consisting of characterization studies positioning and timing.
Stress Corrosion Cmclung to investigate the of borosilicate glass films on silicon wafen.
Ur:iwrsity ofRhode Island formation and growth of crads in reactor structural alloys: (3) testing the efficacy of in.
Reed College Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center has a i
core sensors. known as the SENSOR Prefect.
Reed College is the only educational Iong history of conducting environmental involving in< ore sensors that detect changes mstitution in the United States to operate a research. The Univen:ty of Rhode Island in electro <hemical potential (ECP) and the reactor without a graduate or engineenng Graduate School of Oceanography uses the effect of water chemistry additives on the pmFam. Althwgb under the Chemistry reactor m perform neutron activation analysis halting of crack growth, and (4) Diptal Department. the reactor is used by six faculty on environmental samples mllected from Contml to develop and eupenmentally venfy I r classes in physics. natural science, and art locations all over the globe. Important a genenc methodology for the Josed loop history, as well as chemistry. Undergraduate digital mntrol of neutonic power core and faculty research involves about 5 research discovenes in acid rain, geology, temperature, and other plant pararneters. In students each year. however in the last 2 and environmental polluuon have been over a decade of work results have included year approumately 20 facultymh achieved over 6 years because d 6 demonstration of signal validation, the 1 d itionalcol an umversit a evallability of the reactor. The URI physics development of a supervisory co lle department conducts extensive neutron research in the 6 elds of biology chemistry.
scattering expenments at the reactor and tro c
form I for the t physics, environmental science. forensic usually has several post <!octoral researchers optimal trajectory-tracking of reactor power.
science and art history. Each year as many as at the facility on a full time basia. As the only the on-line reconfiguration of control laws, 20 high school students use the facility for nuclear facility in the state, RINSC proeides automated power increases from subcntical.
classes and research. A non<:redit. semester a significant number of tours to students from and the use of various forms of feedbeck.
seminar series on " react r, radiat'on and the high schools and universities. & positive en onmerat9s offered to the public.
uses of nuclear technology in environrnental Parallels between control strategies for Between 30 and 50 le attend it each reactors characterimd by :bta'at dynamics and materials researth can be observed on a YearQ&irds d om not a!5 hated wie and contml of multi-modu reactors have g
first hand basis.
also been studied.
Space Science nloo beneSts from the University ofDjinowUs%
Universsty of Tenns Research Center with studies to determine the feasibility oflow-temperature annealing h UnMty ofIIIbss Nuclear Reacmr Reseasth currently under way at the i
uborst is a two-rooctor facihty, using the Nuclear Engineering Teoching Lab includes
[
of radiation-induced defects in electronic Advan TRIGA and LOPRA reactors.
the (1) Terns Cdd Neutron Source Profect for coroponents such as will be used on a spacecraft for interplanetary missions of Neutron Activation Analysis, materials the development of a neutmo source with several years duration, and an upcoming damage studies and nuclear laser low neutron energies for research in prompt research are the research of
- facihty, pzumaaug%m study to investigate thermionic energy a
conversion in specocafi reactors.
in addition to its teaching goals.
Depth ProfUing Pmiset for the measurement Neutron activation analysis and track etr.h University of MissourMollo of baron and oder (n.e) reactions to techniques are being used in Earth Sciences-The primary uses of the reactor at the Rolla determme depth concentrations in various to in to fundamental questions about, campus of the University of Mlamouri are materials such as glass and si!Icom (3) the earth meteorite mmposition, lava education and training of graduate and Neutron Capture TherapyProfoct for characteristigs, and crack growth in granitic undergraduate students and nuclear-related measurements of the does to head phantoms rock to continental drift Neutmn activation la also being used to study the movements reessach.The reactor is used mostly by from the neutron activation of gadolinium; students from the Selds of nuclear (4) venous Neutron Actrvation Projects in and tracs the origins of atmospheric engineering, chemistry,lijs science, and support of investigators, including irradiation pollutants.
physics. In addition, about 540 students and North Carolino Stoer Uniwredty instmeton fran o6er instheons use the of biolo61 cal Buids pologhi samples, and Since 1973 the university's rencsor has reactor through the University Reactor others: and (5) Dissent A-w ControI Project r the m--
. dan artiScial Sharing Program.
been used to support "Rosserch Reactor intelligenes software tool to provide software Train' " for local utilities
- training of Unhorarty ofNewMstico functional diversity.
lice reactor operstars. Newly available in Four resserch protects have been carried 1990 are training programs kir individuals in out using-the AGN-201M reactor over the UniersityofUakh the mdustrial community, such as engineers. past seven years. One of the major resserch The program at the University of Utah is supervisors. and maintenanos personnel, to prop involves measurement of basic multidiedplinary in nature, allowing strengthen their understanding of how a physics parameters in a thermal researchers la a variety of Selds to discover power reactor operoems. Representative of the: system. No other thermal ty systman has the potential of nector usa.The reacts is research uses or the university's reactor are the Sexibility and low intrinsic souse' used mostly by nuclear engineers, I
the (1) frrodiatfon of Asoctor Vessef Sweds strength required kir this research. This I
ma,wi,,gh-s, chemical engmors.
Profect for long term irradiation i-U in feature is unique to the universi facilities, and electronic engmeers.
specially designed baskets in the reactor, a A second protect is a small samp reactivity i
propect seekig a better understanding of measurement technique that is being applied (TR Doc. 93-23836 Filed 9-28-93; 8.45 aml degradation os the physical
.ies of steel to geologic semples to detwmine their i
m coes w in the reactor vessels at n ear power plants, thermal neutmo cross sections and relative
-