ML20058K321

Responds to Written on Behalf of Constituent, Tp Toepker,Re NRC Fees,Per 10CFR171.Proposed Rule Published in Fr on 930929 Encl

ML20058K321
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/12/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Portman R HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20058K324	List: ML20058K321 ML20058K331
References
FRN-58FR50859, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9312150142
Download: ML20058K321 (10)

Text

..

.~,

.c

~'

.m s

f 1

l g,nRfcp I' i.

'/)-

t UNITED STATES

.,f lW j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

~

2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001 8,

\\ [,,,, *#

October 12, 1993 I

I i

l The Honorable Rob Portman i

United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3502

-l

Dear Congressman Portman:

l I am responding to your letter of September 21, 1993, written on~ behalf of your constituent, Dr. Terrance P. Toepker, Professor, Xavier University,-

a 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 educationel institutions. The Comission's need to l

revisit the generic exemption for nonprofit-educational. institutions was.

l 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 j

Commission and the United States of America, No. 91-1407 and Consolidated i

Cases) which forced the Comission'to acknowledge the weakness of, and.

l abandon, the passthrough argument formerly made on behalf of these.

institutions.

t Following the publication of the final rule,.the Comission received a.

i petition from Cornell and eleven other universities.for reconsideration of the final rule and requesting reinstatement of the exemption for nonprofit' educational institutions.

The Comission has decided to grant the. petition to i

reconsider this matter and is issuing a proposed rule to amend.10 CFR Part 171

.i 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 coment period.

I Sincerely, i

W [s. /

l aspet'71. Tay. r E cutive D rector l

l for Operations

Enclosure:

i Proposed Rule 1

i l

l

.i h21 142 931012 f

I m

g

.[

October 12, 1993 i

3 The Honorable Rob Purtman United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3502

Dear Congressman Portman:

I am responding to your letter of September 21, 1993, written on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Terrance P. Toepker, Professor, Xavier University, 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 l

final rule also eliminated a generic exemption from annual fees previously l

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 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.

l Following the publication of the final rule, the Commission received a I

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 i

to restore the generic exemption from annual fees for nonprofit educational J

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 JuansILTaylor James M.. Taylor Executive Director

. f' for Operations f

i

Enclosure:

i Proposed Rule OFFICE:

QDCEJ DAF' DAf/ / OCM OC 0

ndois EBlack

' ler JFunches p///c /931/d/

DBDj/93 (C/(/93

/93 NAME:

Sc ins JT or.

DATE:

.fg/ /93 6

/93 scn J

_Np

i V

j Federal Register / Vol. S8. No.187 / Wednesd3y. Sept!mber 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules 50859 Regulatory Flexibility Certification 938.954,955 es amended (42 U.S C 2132 10 CFR Part 171 As required by the Regulatory 2133,2134,2135,2233,2239). Section 2.104 Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.SE 605(b)). Mso issued under sec.193. Pub. L 10h575 RW( 3166-AE43 the Commission certiSes that this rule.

104 Stat 2835 (42 U S C 22431. Section 2.105 if adopted, will not have a significant

,j,o issued under Pub L 97-415,96 Stat.

Ih'

"'*E*"

economic impact o?. a substantial 2073 (42 U.S C 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 number of small entities. The proposed also issued under secs.161 b. i, o.182.186 rule sets forth the time frame within 234. 68 Stat. 948-951,955. 83 Stat. 444, as AGENCv: Nuclear Regulatory which a person other than an apphcant amended (42 U.S C 2201 (b). (il. (o). 2:36 Commission.

must file a request for a hearing in a 2282); sec. 206, sa Sta.1246 (42 U.SC ACTION: Proposed' rule.

licensing proceeding held under the 5&461. Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued intormal procedures set forth in 10 CFR under sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 SUldenARY:On July 20,1993, the Nuclear as amended (42 U.SC 43321. Sections Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or part 2. subpart L The proposed rule, by 2.700s. 2.719 also issued under 5 U.SC 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 i

on regalated entities that may fall issued under 5 U.Sc 557. Section 2.764 and licensees for fiscal year 1993. De final within the defmition of "small entities" 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 applicable Regulatory Flexibility Act.or within the 2241 (42 U.SC 10155.101611. Section 2.790 to nonprofit educational institutions i

definition of"small business" as found also issued under sec.103. 6s Stat. 936, as (educational exemption). Following in section 3 of the Small Business Act.

amended (42 U.Sc 21331 and 5 U.SC 552.

publication of this rule, the Commission i

15 U.S.C. 632, or within the small Sections 2.800 and 2.80s also issued under received a petition for reconsideration business size st.ndards contained in 13 5 U.Sc 553. Section 2.809 alsoissued under requesting reinstatement CFR part 121.

5 U.S C 553 and sec. 29. Pub. L 85-256. 71 educational exemption.The Backfit Analysis Stat. 579 as amended (42 U.SC 20391 Commission views the petition as a This proposed rule does not involve, Subpart K also issued under sec.139. 68 Stat.

955 (42 U.SC 2239h sec.134. Pub. L 97*

request to conduct a new rulemaking to any new provisions which would impose backSts as defined in to CFR 425. 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.SC 101541. Subpart amend the Snal rule by restoring the

{

t.. iso issued under sec.189. 68 Stat. 955 (42 exemption. The Commission grants the 50.109(a)(1). Accordingly, no backs!

U.SC 22391. 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. 84 Stat.1473 (42 rulemakir.g reconsiders whether required for this proposed rule.

U.SC 21351.

nonprofi' educationalinstitutions i

1.ist of Suojects 10 CFR Part 2 should r emive a generic exemption

2. In $ 2.1205(c), introductory text is from an aual fesa.De Commission Administrative practice and republished and parograph (c)(2)la requestr pubhc comment on that procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct revised to road as follows:

questi n. The rulemaking proceeding material. Classified information.

will address no other annual fee Environmental protection. Nuclear

$2.1205 Ageset for a heerms, pesson for question.

materials. Nuclear power plants and toeve to intervene.

DaTE: Comment period expires October reactors. Penalty. Sex discrimination.

29.1993. Comments received after this i

Source material. Special nudear ifit 18 Practical material. Waste treatment and disposal, (c) A person other than en applicant i

h*11 fil st fo b to do so. We Cmne. ia b aW to ss For the reasons set out in the r

within preamble and under the authority of the mceived on w before this date.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; A00 MESSES: Submit written comments the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

(2)If a Federal Regaster notice is not t0: Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory as amended: and 5 U$.C. 553, the NRC published in accordance with paragraph Commission. Washington.DC 20555 is Preposing to adopt the following (c)(1) of this section, the, earliest of-Atta: Docketing and Service Branch.

(i) Thirty (30) days after the requestor Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville amendments to 10 CFR part 2.

PARI 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR receives actualnotice of a pending Pike. Rockville, Mtyland 20852.

DoheESTIC UCENSMG PROCEEDMGS application,or between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 301-504-1966.)

1. The authority citation for p.et 2 (ii) Thirty (30) days after the requestor Copies of comments received may be continues to read as follon:

rece.ves actual notice of an agency examined and copied for a fee at the action granting an applicatfor in whole NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Authorary: Secs.141. th. 68 Stat. 948.

953.as amended f42 USC 2201. 223th sec.

nr in part, or Street NW. (Lowerlevel) Washington.

191. as amended. Pub. 1.87-615,7t> Stat. 409 (iii)One hundred and eighty (120)

DC 20555, (42 U.SC 224th sec. 201.88 Stet.1242 as days after agency action granting as F0st punTHan esFonesafson costTACT:

amended (42 U.SC 5841h 5 U.SC 552.

application in whole or in part.

L. Michael Rafky. Of5ce of the General Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53 Cansel. U.S. Nudear Regulatwy Commission. Washington DC20555, 3 35 9 9 93 n

42 Deted at Rockville. Maryland, this 23rd deY telephone 301-504-1606.

U.SC 2073. 2092. 2093. 2111. 2133,2134, pf S*Pternber. W3.

2135h sec.114(fl. Pub. L 97-425,98 Stat.

For the Nuclear Regulatory r%==i= ion.

3 ART peFomanAftoss:

l 2213. as amended (42 U.Sc 10134(flh sec.

Sa.aumi). O. ilk.

1. Background.

102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.SC 4332k sec. 301. 88 Stat.1268 (42 N C#88"'888"-

II. SG-D a= analys,a U.SC 5871). Sections 2.102. 2.103. 2.104 (FR Doc. 93-23435 Filed 9-26-03;8:45 ami III. Environmental impact: cate8orical excluswa.

2.105. 2.721. also issued under secs.102, enassa ones 7ssa.es.e IV. Paperwork reductboo act statement.

103.104,105.183.189. 68 Stat. 936. 937 V. Regulatory andysis.

5 ease Federal Regr. ster / Voi. 58. No.1EW / Wedoeedsw September 29. 1993 / Ptopeses Shakse i

vifRegulatory ficubihty analysis.

institutions mrght be able to make letter nagues ibet it is "ioetScices" arnb l

\\ !! BeMt analysis.

individualized showmgs of financiah

" socially and economically l

I Back "und hardship and entornalized benefits undesirab!a" to charga people for accese E

suffluent to justify a "public interest" t o pure knowledge, because the benefits On July 20.1993 the Commission exemption under 10 CFR 171.11(b)(58 of that knowledge "are largely published its final annual fee rule for FR 38669). The two dissenticg unpredictable." letter from Atfmd Kahn FY 1993 (5B FR 36666).The final rule Commissioners took the view that the to Shirley Egan. Associate University pnncipally set out the Commission's fee Commisuon should continue in force Counsel. Camell University (July 15.

I schedules for FY 1993. but it also the genenc educational exen.ption (58 1993).

discussed in some detail the 3-2 1

FR 36875).

Ihe petitioners also stressed the harm Commission decmon to revoke a Almost immediately the Commission to university nuclear programs as a l

generic exemption previously began rw.eiving letters from many result of the newly imposed annual fees applicable to nonprofit educational colleges and uruversities protesting the (petition at 8-91. Using Cornell mstitutions. A coun of appeals decision. change m its longstanding policy. Many University's nuclear program es an issued in March 1993. had necessitated of these letters were sent as comments example, they asserted that Federal l

1 the Commission's rethinking of the rwarding the Commission's concurnnt grants (in addition to those already educational exemption. See AHied.

fee policy study now Seing conducted provided) might be necessary to meet Sgnol. Inc. v. NRC. 988 F :d 146 (D C.

as required by the Energy Policy Ad of the additional costs of NRC annual fees Cir.1993).That decision cast doubt on 1992 (58 FR 21116L in these letters and (petition at 9-10). Finally, the the NRC's s'ated rationale-whicti comments (available in the NRC Public petitioners argued that the mcluded a purported inability to " pass Document Room ("PDR")), educational Commission's longstanding exemption ihrough" coste--for exe npting institutions descnbed the "extemalized for nonprofit ahtional institutions nonprofit educationalinstitutions from benefits" denved from their programs was rooted in sound policy, and that annual fees.

and the problems cmsted by the new reinstating the exen ption would be in reaction to the court decision. the annual fees. including the prospect of consistent with the.tiready extensive Commission initially proposed to retain maior cutbacks in nuclear education.

direct Federal funding provided many trie educational exemption. but with a Some licensees also pointed out that c'olices and university licensees i

fresh rationale. In its proposed FY 1993 their programs were already heavily (petition at 12-131.

annual fee rule. the Commission subsidized by the Federal govwnment In

t. while the petition for-requessed comments on retaining the (i: narticular by the Department of recons' tion was under exemption and asked specifically for Ene'rgy), precisely because the programs consuierstion. the Commission comments on the court's suggestion that were not sustainable absent public undertook an effort of its own to perhaps the exemption could be sector support.

develop guidance for considering justified if " education yields N Comrmssion also received a individual "public interest" exem ption exceptionally large externahzed benefits fcnnal petition for re<xmaideration of requests by colleges and 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 i

other market pnces." 988 F.24 at 151.

restoring the nonprofit educational a number of colleges and universities to The Commission also requested exempnon. 5ee Petition Ibr learn rnore atx>ut therr educational comments on whether the exemption Reconsideration cf Final Rule (July 30 activities and the benefits of non-power should be revoked.

1993). In this petition for reactors and the use of nuclear insterials Following the close of the cornment reconsideration (which is being in education programr.b Commission penod, the Commission faced a published as an appendix to this conchtded that the new aantaal fees dilemma.11 remained committed to the proposed rule), a number of formerly (562.100 foreach research readoe value of nuclear education and related -

exempt colleges and universities license;1 esser amounts for each researth as a policy mauer, but it had asserted with some specificity a number materials license) would jeopardize the received only a few cornments, and of benefits that edurarinnat inactution.

educatkmal and related research cursory ones at that, supporting a research reactors provide to both the benefits prtwided by a anmber of continued generic exemption.

nuclear industry and the public at larga, collegesand univerwww Additionally, some NRC licensees had Prominent was the continued training of As e result of the new and mora i

submitted comments requestmg nucieer scientists and engineers detailed information and arguments abandonment of the exemption (petition at 3-4). The perrtioners also developed in the petttfon los altogether or a more equitable spread of stated that nuclear technology was used reconndsretfos and in the other sources its costs to all licensees. Still other in fisida as varied as medicine, geslogy, described above. and after careful commenters urged that thesmem archaeology, food scumca and textiles reflection.the Cormmssion now is be retained, but that it be to and that the public.munatty inclined to return to i+t previous include various other hcensed activities. benefitted from people who could practka of exammpting nonprofit Aftn considering the material before provide knowledgeable opinions on educationalinstitutions from =n==1 it. a split Commission, by a 3-2 vote.

nuclear topics. es well as from tcmts of fees.The Comerission therefore grants

" reluctantly concluded that in view of researti reectoss (petition et 4-5).

the pention for reconswieredon of the the court decision and the b petitiocess went on to argue ther FY 1993 final rtrie and now pro administrative record developed during education provides sigmficant exempt nonprofit educations! poses to the comment period it cannotJustify a "axternalamed benefits" warranttafr institutions from ar mu't lems. The genenc ' educational' exemption for FT public subsidy. by citadte louer fross Comm=Ico does not intend tosraete 1993"(58 FR 38864-66).Therudass,the economist Alfred Kahn (also available any othes generic exensption categonee Commission informed formerly exempt in the attached appendix) stating that in this relemaking, does not propees nonprofit educational institutions that the knowledge generated by unfversity.

& Comrmenies they would have to pay amal fees related research le itself a pubtfe good lighthy altis fasther shtft is a pokey that beginning in FY 1993. N C-un that cannot be quartified using market has already goes throegh a meier did point out that many of these indices (petition at 6-7). her. Kaism's changs in a short skme. De Commission -

Fed;r:I Register / Vol. 58. No.187 / Wednesdiy. S:pt:mber 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules S0861 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 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 171.3 J Exemptions in jeopardy valuable educational proposmg to restore a generic Paragra h amended b a(a) of this section is resources that are indispensable to the exemption,it is not necessary for dding nonprofit nuclear industry, to numerous other formerly exempted educational educationafinstitutions. as defined in educational activities, to the NRC itself licensees to apply for mdividual pubhc and to the public at large.

mterest exemptions. Therefore, the

$ 171.5. to the list of those entities The Coa mission solicits public Commission requests nonprofit exempted from annual fees by the commer.t on its proposed rule that educational licensees 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 on other annual fee issues will not be reconsideration. the Commission I of Gis o 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 has received some information on the licensees ample time to seek mdividual "eaternalized benefits"of non power exemptions. The Commission will hold The NRC has determined that this p

g g 3, g g;,,

reactors and the use of licensed nuclear in abeyance allindividual exem on descnbed in categorical exclusion to matenals in various educational requests it already has received m

CFR 51.22(c)(11. Therefore, neither an edy,],,"u

$s to nonprofit environmental assessment nor an activities and re. lated research at colleges and universities. However, the Commission is mterested m more data educational licensees who usy have-environmentalimpact statement has on the benefits of non. power reactors paid the FY 1993 annual fee will be been prepared for the proposed addressed.if applicable,in the final regulation.

ma er i n edi ca i in i broadest rule. Nonprofit educational licensees IV. Paperwork Reduction Act sense, in the expectation that more data who have requested termmation.

Statement d0 e.

ses on y

may well substantiate the argument in c9Q

,u th 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 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.pnme choose to rescind those applications as requirements of the Paperwork roposed rulemaking.

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 a result of this hmal point warranting examples of activities that provide Were is one et seq ).

ext malized benefits warrantmg P

PP -

clarification. The FY 1993 final rule V. Regulatory Analysis ehmmating the educational exemption The Commission expects commenters indicated that, because of the remand With respect to 10 CFR part 171, on to address the "extemalized 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.1.101-508.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 approximately 100 percent faculty and students using licensed 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 of its 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 acrordance with mater;als 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 loaming.no retroactively to charge fees to nonprofit annual fees for operating reactor Commission has particular interest in educational institutions for FYs 1991-licensees, fue! cycle limnsees, 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 limnsees (power reactors) that Compliance, registrations of sealed programs using limnaed nuclear made up the shortfall in 100 percent fee sourm and devices and QA program materials (not simply education in recovery created by the educational approvals, and Government agencies.

general) are "extemaliand" 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 Repott 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)ne annual fees be based on the fields of study that use licensed nuclear On the other hand, because of the Commission's FY 1993 budget of $540.0 material in the course of educating their timing of this reconsideration million less the amounts collected fmm students. He Coramission has received proceeding 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 limnase will be assessed additional fees NRC's high level weete program.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 described to make up any shortfall created for FY (2)He annual fees shall, to the above, but more data is needed for the 1993. For future fiscal years, hnwever, maximum extent practicable, have a Commission's deliberations.

the Commission will recover from other reasonable relationship to the cost of w-

Seest Federaf Reg 6 ster / Vol. 58, Ma 107 / '

LA September 29",1995 / NM IMrs f

regulatory mervsces provided by the List of SetWes in le CF1t Part 171 Commiwien: and 104 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of1954 Annual charges. Byproduct matertal.

(42 U.S C 213*H br operattort et a (3) ne annual fees be assessed to Holders of certificates, registrations, and thermal powerlevelof10 megewatts or those licensees that the Commission. In a pprovals. !ntergovernmental ref mnm.

less: and its discretion. determinas can farriy.

Non payment penalties. Nuclear (ii)If so licerrsed for operation at a equitably, and practicably cantnbute to matenals. Nur rear power plants and thermal powerlevel ofmore than 1 their payment.

reactors. Source material. Special megawatt does not contam-Therefore, when des. eloping the nuclear material (A) A circulating loop through the annual fees for operating power reactors For the reasons set out in the core in which the licen.see conducts fuel i

the NRC continued to consider the preamble and under the authority of the expenments

. d h

f Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as arcended.

W gn Ingar conta.. en, nd le tion o t e a

operating power reactors. The annual od Ih I d

core in ettes o 18 squ inc

• s fees for fuel cycle licensees, materials 10 CFR Part 171.

cross-section.

licensees. and holders of certificates.

PART 171-ANNUAL FEES FOR Dated at Rocivilfe.W this 73d day of repstratmns and approvals and for REACTOR OPERATING LICENSES, Septemtwr 1993.

bcenses issued to Govemment asencz.es AND FUELCYCLEUCENSES AND For the Nuclear Regulatory Comminon.

take icto account the type of facahty or approval and the classes of the MATERIALS UCENSES, INCLUDING Samuel fAirt hanws.

HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF Secreasty cf the Commsuon.

COMPLIANCE. REGISTRATIONS, AND to CFR part 171 which established QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPendis Ta Fyspamed Rule-Penrien d annual fees for operatina power rescors APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT

"****d""* " # "'d effective October 20,1986 (51 FR 33224: AGENCIES f NED BY THE NAC

1. Introduerfon September 18.1986). was challenged and upheld in its entirety in Florrda

. ne authentY cHation kr Pad 171 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Power and Light Company v. United is revised to read as foigon

('"NR("or ** Commission 1 has long exempted nonprofit educational institutions States,846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir.1988].

Authority:Sec. 7601. Pub. L 9b272.100 from paying annual fees.* Although the cert. derned. 490 U.S.1045 (1989).

Stat.146 as amended by sec. 5001. Pub. L Commission tredrtionalty fertned thie 100-203.101 Stat.1330 as amended by Sec.

exemption on the grmmds that coIleges and 10 CFR part 171 which established utrt. Pub. L 101-739.103 Stat. 7106 as fees based on the FY 1989 budget, were ameeded by sec. 6101. Pob. L 101-500.100 universmus could mas remddy pass the sent of the fees on to sradems tbasugh itsitnoe and also legally challenged As a result of Stat.1388. (42 USC 7713h sec. 301. Putx L other charges. a remna ledersi court decision the Supreme Court decision in Skinner 92-314. as Stat 222 (42 UAC 220t(w th me, questioned thae retnomais.s The court

v. Mid Amencen Pipeline Co.,109 5. Ct. 201, as Stat.1242 er ammaded (42 USC-explained. howevet.that the axtenbad 1726 (1989). and the denial of certiorari 564t h sec. 2903. Pub. L te24ae. W Stat in Flondo PowerandLight,allof the 3125d42 m 221e ad benefits of education potentially supported such an exernption.

lawsuits aere withdrawn.

2. In $ 171.11, peregraph (a) is revised. Although the Commission at nrvt defended The NRC's FY 1991 annual fee rule to reed as kilows:

its educremnal esciepoen in e rulemaking proceeding prosepted by the cxmrt's decision, was largely upheld recently by the D.C

$ 171.11 Exaseptleen.

at ah==An==d the ensruption is the Saal Circuit Court of Appeals in Allied (a) An annual fue is not required for-.

contend thatle so doing the Cammaseson versson of as annual tse runo.* Petitsonarr Signal v. NRC.

(1) A construction permit orlicense a

VI. Regulatory flexibility Analysis d

onsi mmi on 16 rulias and P

a As required by the Regulatory or utilmshees facilRy, other then a reinstate the exemption for noopsont educational Ucensees.s F'eubihty Act 5 U S.C. 605(b). the Power reactor, or for the son and i

Commission c$rtiSes that thism.y-,;

use of prodiact scnarts N N S M M N I'"

• h T

rule, if adopted. will not have a mate ' or special maclear masenal y,] y,",,,,g W "

significantgonomic impact on e This amamptases dass nat apply to those substantial number of small entities.

bypsoduct. source, or ap=al naciser Although the escasism in Alland.Sepiel The proposed rule affects about 110 materiallicenses which authortze:

I" operating power reactors which are not Omaman ase:

p C hM b' **'

considered to be smalleWtfes.

(ii) Recrunerated servians to other Comnuasian to reconnder its anamptma of

)

mpdha6ual facil hm suggeM a W reene fom@g VII.Backfst Analysis i ) Distrsbation o uct The NRC has determmarf that the ning h

Ni w nu e erial or y==

=

backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109. does not bypsoduct material, sourus material, or Res=hmeryCas== sr. ses P.2d us (DC Cir Iml.

apply to this proposed rule and that a special nuclear winnertsd: or dise=.se he aseson a sqbut backEt analysis is not required for this ge) Actietties podemned===lara a id. as 156. - a amiss.

proposed rule.The becht analysis is Govermeent ra=,.,.

m sees and teen rint mm ps.>.auns *a not required because these amendments (2) Federally owned amenarch rescenes MIC'""MP",I'

% $3, ff

• do not require the modification of or used primarily for shamel training g

seems. asses.e ptorise nsevesiary tenans brey additions to systems, stre==s-and er=<ia=&c sesensch purpeems. Poe

20. vessit-rismi asw 1 components,or design of a fachty or purposes of this===pe=m. the terms

• Podumans foreti"

, hasseisarmed the design approval or manufmesuring research reacser reeems a miaclear rwector (imgyyPenang license for a facility or the proceduru that-i or orgaruantion raqw=rt to design.

(i)is Lsaaned by the huclear tener w. wrer to seavier and

~

conumnioners in vamp==rie se># m se pair construct or operate a facility.

Regulatory Commission under section 1a.seest

i i

Federal Regiserr / Vol. 58. No. 27 / W-f -- l-y. Septennber 29. 1993 / Proposed Rtiles Mee3 i *.

1

. educational mector licensues imra esmuel research provedse en emportant benent to the acomemecetty undestable for them to do so."

fees. N court merely asked the NRC to nuclear industry and the pubHc et large med Id. Instead, he reasons. "a Det charge on marshal a rationale based on " externalized should not be discouraged."r A" vibrant benefits" of education "that cannot be nuclear education sector also is important as business beneficiaries es supenor to a specific i

captured in tuition or olber merket prims?

e murce of talent and ideas for the NRC ltself charge by the University for particular pieces Ed. at 151. Indeed. the Allied-Signal court and for the whole government." the of knowldge? Id.W Commission's explamed that "there is et least a eenous Commission avowed in the course of its relatively small costs associated with l

possibility" that the Commission can rulemaking pmcess. Id.The wide array of licensing educational reactors may easily be 1

" substantiate" such en exempuon. Id.

extemalized benefits generated by nuclear in its Final Rule. bowever, the Commission reactor programs at nonprofit educational immeasumbly imm the aconties of the

" missed an opportunity to consider seriously institutions is thus apparent from the distingmsbed toer.hing and research ee classic ' externa! ired benefits' argument" Commission's statements and from the many community at our nation's univerintnes, and i

proposed by the courte While Petitioners comments submitted in support of the those =bo in the Commission's discetion, l

belaeve that the Cornmission should have contested exemptionA can fairty, equitably, and practically make l

decided to continue the exemption at issue and should have based its decision on the IV Economic Theory Supports the Nonprofit such payments.

court's discussion and on the mnny Educational Exemption V. The Propc. sed AnnualFees Thwaten 1

i comments supporting the exmmption, they N Commiss4on's long-standing Sermus Inlury so Unwersary Nuclear seek in this peution to provide the exemption for nonproSt educational facilitms Prcomms j

i Commission with additaonalinformation is wholly consistent with "externaltand Not only is it economically inefficient to about the cons.derable externalized benefits benefits" economic theory. As of nuclear reactor prog arns at nonprofit Commmioners Remick and DePlagse levy annual fees on university research educational institutions.

explained in their opinion. "educataan. like reactors. It also places an undue financial burden on nuclear science education and Hl. Nuclear Reactors of Nonprofit

• * * * ' '. eInma landi the administration of thrustens to chill nuclear resear EducorionalInsututions Provide Sigmficant I*'

Pm industry and the general public alike.w N l

Benefits to the Commeresol Nucleor Industry h d pensaW.

c nd the GeneralPuMic not just to purchasers." Final Rule. 54 FR at situation at Cornell is illustrative of these

{

38675. Indeed. the " exceptionally large" Po*anta*I rahles.n Corml] uom two P

Universities, including the Petitioners.

benefits of nuclear reactor prugrams at reactors for e=a&mg and resserdu Th larger.

train scientists and engineers who enter the universities ars recounted in section m aboos a 500-kilowert TRIGA is used sount commercial nucasar industry and povernment and in the many mmmaats submitted to the frequently. A staff of four-two sugineers and i

regulatory agencias such as the NHCitself.

Distinguished incuky, many of wbaan he**

Commission during its rulemaking procoes

• two lab technih n intains the Teactors.

Prom ground breaking discmvers to vital

& annual operating budget runs worked in the field stncs its laimacy. Instrsset core dets, university nuclear resserch is e[g[C annual les for Cornell's reacture-g sno the students in basic resserch and new openly blisbod and freely debuted to p

r nts Id Y

'E W repmeents om half d the w

ng

}.

M"eee'#::r?.ny"df' t;,*::m:';y,:P,s,,gfor

,,,o indow.un. 4. - osihe.ae d

i nucimer industry.

80urC8 of r*nt 20hi88 8uPPorting Cornell's l

Nucieur engineering propens, wbich as tacremament cost. Imeter tan Alted Kabu f

thrive only try induding h=Meborotary to ShW K. Essa Ouly 15. wsH ("Kahe nuclear amance and segmeering progreras, study at a working reactor, assist the latter") at 1. As Omns=d=d===me muusich eng and fedssel rummerch dellers compras meerly 9,pi..,p== s======d. the fres smarket umsy imig half of ths = art-scismos and T-w commercial nuclear industry directly through "to suppe the==n=-ary asmount og depasmant's sammal resserdi budget. N Pure and applied science. Camell r

researtbars, for example. beve analysed the g,,,,, -a" and other pukhc gnede hueuses I)opertmans of Emergy set only centrtbeems behavior of reactors under severe accident the "buyess" or studsets lack t%

subsemmeni grant miosass but also daneses all mnditious. UnW6es coo @ute to the sufficient to set the "right pries'* or ero af she inal for the reactors. Omroell nuciser unable to pay that prim. Final Rule. 58 FR Power edustry der ng at 38675. The inefBciency of charging for mn p ng syste acrms: to aampropmetry research and 3.he was he ab wed than W moderstors. and other comiponsats power htism thus mpports what noted in the forums impose itemuse arid inspection Imma.

reactors systes.

mmeemwh University researchers also noe seectors to economist Alfred Kahn mins "the etsong and Of6 ass Appspenstems Act("IDAA"1en asupront develop new appikations of cuclear univwsally mcogenand use for Q

-A =.=w h ame riaal Rak Be FW m f

d pure rearch.** Kaha W at 1.

assear tem 7attenH1(toes)%

technology in fields as varied as medhctne.

geology l archaeology, food science. and Kahn explains that it would be " futile for

• • • P'0' "

I'"d'""" I" U ^^ M textiles. These new research findings in tura univwsdes to try to recover b cost by n=== thses less very web the east ell==r===y provide op rtunities lar pm6ambie chArgiD8 Potentaal "" for mesuch and Particular reacter indleries, their lampez on Carnell and other mairerwies is to mmm ven h education, as well as sociah and estinisie. De senemnde and public policy By oPenW nucleer reactors. =Ae=rional b

• • U'8" the US Court of Appenisr f'Y toes and tes2 Prepumed shals asstnse el frasa NIIC emana institutions assist indwry and W in other traportant ways.

proride a rw*=== and 80AA fees, however Fm k m Fu Rteeusm

• • See Nucimer Ranciar Budgets. Usa. and Federal source of respected. i and independent opinion on the beestes and 21es2. 2 tee.4 (Nuclear R=r W=y Comm'a.

Funding at Pauumer lasusnessas metadnad as 23.1993H"'Pmposed Amis") tetuseums Enhen A burdens of nuclear technology far a==rdsey e See eso descriptimes of Peenimmes' machse in ne summanus are amad premiertly by three addressing its implications. Students and

,.menar programs ettached as Embibet B.

auclear smamme sud esse Imamery sad members of the public who tour the ensamese ete Amesf-styistcost se's no

• w..

. twe6 e yestems sraeme par year, educztumal reactor facihties insight late

-pi-tlas of whai bandensrb onemensed w'th additismal limiied mas by as easy a tuo the varted tases cf nuclear logy and buments abound be measured by. It is enclear when immehy and atsme gmemme erudamse hem Amids come to op ste the matribution of the coast sammet by *emospelemeDyinsen." Amass.

e.sde as emminsp.ehemse7.Weetas and nuclear ustries to the M et theer S'Piel. ens F.2d at 152. Putherumase. It is archasmessy 'P temdug omd gi"

preencmay in r===m to gnemasy the emmsEheemus damaammmen, pubits sua and umsdemal taas that unsoureaty madmar saamme ad Z

='"T=' aar ehest e egnetur of eks samuner's ammi man.

The Nmanion hudf 6 M its contissued belief that "hanal preyanas ambe se communsrcaal emure eInualmer

's A test endy etmIpod lpy DL hemsnm K Wath asegy. nie peittina, sagsther with the samy foemd ther af she SF mfewsky samtaus them a====mts submutted by educathemel ite-a-a does opumasang,is tasmused ammanJ osum below seemee.

• DnSering Ybrws of Comr-

- Rausch and bowower tilustrese the extent and verbery ei such tamar fraum hearcus iL ipunk and Edward K IOssens DePlanque. Final Ruhe. 54 FR at 3ee75.

be h to Saenual I. Odtk Ouly 12.19831at 2.

n

,,,--3--9 w

,y w

g

sosse reded Emsser i vot sa, w.ciar / wedra ari=y. sepsernber ze.1982 e Prop ed Rules i*

hhernasceive gmnts imm the National M. The EducerronelEse*PsdoeHeflode Manhattee College.

Science Foundation as well.t*

Sound Pubhe PWacy and a Trodttsom of If the Commisskon abandons the Supportfor Educatron Welter Matystik.

educational exemption. Cornell will be forced to seek increased federal grants to Ginn the significant benefits realir.ed by g,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,y,,$,,,,,c,gy,g,,,,3 cover the NRC charges. Rather than the nuclear industry from university research Manharma Coliep Pkwy.. Brons. N Y 10473.

accomplishing the budgetary goals of the and education, any additional fees imposed I

Omnibus Reconciliation Act. Public Law No.

on mmmercial licensees to cover costs toh508,104 Stat.1388 (19901, the associated with nonprofit educational Cewge R Dummn.

Commission's action will merely shift reactors are a bargain not a burden.

D4 rector. Offkw of Sponsored Progmms.

morne s from one federal pocket to another.

Commercial power reactws have histoncally Mossochusetts Inststure of Technology. 77 As a federal court has logically noted lilt n 6 only NRC liceuws asked to abso6 Massachusetts Awoue room 4 110 is self-evident that a transfer of funds from the mst of supporting educational reactors.

Combndge. MA 02139' one agency to another fails to mcrease federal The 37.1 million in fiscal year 1993 costs By-revenue."flondo Power & Light Co. v.

associated with licensing nonprofit North Carolina State University, l

Unsred States. 846 F.2d 765. 771 (D C Cir.

educational reactors. if divided equally 1g m among the 100 commercial power reactors Dr.1.arry Monteith.

if Cornell attempted to recoup the NRC fees now in operation. amounts to only $65 000 Chancelloe. North Carolino State Unswrsary' thmugh general tuition increases rahr than per commercial reactor and adds a mere 2%

A HoRodoy Hall. Som 7001. Rofeigh. NC j

through grants, all students, many of whom to the proposed average fee for commercial 2769 b7Ms.

ret ene extensive financial and from the reactors. See Proposed Rule. 58 FR st 21674.

By:

government and private funds, would be ne costs borne by power reactor liwnsees Reed College.

j forced to subsidize e relatively small could, in the Commission's discretion, be Steven Koblik, department at the univemty. Alternatively, a decreased somewbot by spreading them Pressdent. fleed College. J203 Southeast mapor increase;n laboratory fees imposed on equitably among all commercial licensees.

nuclear science and engmanng students woodstock Blvd., Portland. OR 97202.

alone would place the,cogram utterly That federal sources already support beyond their financial. tach. Cost increases extensive nuclear research and education at Br of such magnitude would make any both pnvate and public institutions speaks to swmty Rhode isW.

mstitutioris nuclear program a pnme target the nationalimportance of this discip!!ne.

lasis L Samcio, i

fw eliminanon.

ne Commission's traditional exemption for AsssstantlegalCounsel. Carlotti Since & Commission's Final Rule seeks to nonprofit educational facilities reflects a A dmimstmtson Eldgr. Offsm of the Ceneral colfect annual charges for fiscal year 1993 it history of federal suppost for higher Counsel.Uniwrsary of RhodeIsland.

also threatens to disrupt university budgets, education reflected in universitaes* nonprofit Kin &ston. RIO2841.

l tax status and exemplified by the Mornli Act.

B rt s is a se o he which first established land-grant colleges The Board of Trustees of The University of significant lag tim'e required for approval of such as enany of the Petitsoners. The efforts

Illmois, grant proposals it may take as long as two of Congress and the NRC to reduce the years for univemties to learn whether federal budget deficit are praiseworthy, but Donald A Henss.

monies neassary to cover the mapor expense only d dus e&rt encourages gmwth by Associate Univemty Counsel. Uniwrsity of of NRC fees will even be available. This strengthening the nation s long-etanding Illinois. Suite 258. Henry Admimstmtion financial stress comes as a shock to the superswity in science and technology. In the BJdg. 506 South WnghtStreet. Urbana.Il educational cx>mmunity in tl e waks of the loeg term.the loss of the Commission's g 3 gg*

Commission's vigwous argument rupporting educational exemption will hinder the.

By-the exernption in its Proposed Rule.*s advancement of nuclear sciena. the nuclear he Curators of the Univemry of Missoun.

Although the Commission pmposes to industry, the NRC itself. and the national Phillip J. Hoskins, alleviate the financial burden on colleges and interest.

universities by considenng individual Counsel. Umwrsity of Missouri System. 227 requests for exemption fmm annual fees and g.H. Conclusion Uniwmty Hall. Cdumbsa. MO 65223.

for installment payments, these suggestaons For the foregoing reasons. Petitioners By:

provide small consolation. Installment request that the Commission reconsider its Unsemry M New Menaco, payment plans fail to address the real Final Rule and reinstate its annual fee Charles N.Estes lr.,

problem confronting universitiee-how to exemption for nonpmfit educational pay for such annual fees et all. Furthermore lastrutions.

University Counsel. Urtivemfy o/New any attempt by the Commission to examine Mexaco. 350 SchoJes Hall. Albuquerque. NM numerous Indmdual exemption requests Respectfully submitted.

8#'3I*

could consume more NRC administrative B

B Y

resources than a blanket educationaj Comell Universary, ghq g g

exemption. The sheer number of universities Shirley K. Egan.

Robert Giddings.

joining in this petition underscx>res this Assocante Counsel. Cornell Universtry. 500 Atlancy, ne Uniwrs#ofTens System.

concern.

Dayyaj,jej,aca,jgyy4g53 gsgg, 201 West Semnth Street. Austirs. TX 78701.

" Grams from the Atomic Energy Commissaan DF Dr and the Nanonal Science Foundation Grst enabled Counsel fu Cwnall Uniweswy.

University of Utah, Cornell to obtain its two mectort See Devid D.

Joseph C Bell Melisse R. Jones, W5l!I""* T' "****

ClarL The Nuclear Frontner Carnetts rmgma of Bosac and Appinori nenearch. Corneit lag'g Q.

Hogan & Hartson. 5$$ Thirteenth Street. NW~

• '#^ A""'Y

$pnns 1est.et S.

yy8' General's Offnce. BenefkialLife Toever. s z th Fl 36 South Skree Street. Saldake City.

u See Ptnal Rula. Se FM at sa675. Proposed Rule.

By:

UT841!!.

Se FR at 21664 ("The the pro to Kansas State University

• contmue to exempt these (nonpront onall bcensees imra less fur FYs 1991,1992 and 1993.

I'82i38r p Servios may be made upoet as se has kr snany years in the past * *

• fend!

Assistant University Attorney, Kansas State

}oseph C. Ball. Melisse R. Jones.

centnnues to tnheve that 'educunional towerch provides an kmponant benefit to the nudest Uninmty. It t Anerson Hall. Manhattars. KS Hogan & Iktttson. 555 Thirteenth Street. lM.

665064f15' Washington. DC20004-1109. Counselfor industry and the pubile at large and should not be CMD'IIUniWf54-d6acouragetL* **) lcitadons omattedL d y*

Deted; July F),1993,

1 Federal E'W=s=r / Vol. St. No.1C7 / Wedesmeday, Septeenber 29.1993 / Pmpeoed males 58055 Fu Mk 1 produond, it Can be rNede swellgbie13ase SDd I have nothing to eqid to your ggglemmt.

July 15.1993.

more widely at sero a _zal cast. This except to point out that recovery in the form means that t is inefficient t charge people of a flat charge on business beneficierses es Ms. Shirley K. Egan.

I r access to it.

Assacrate Universsry Commssf. 500 Day Hall.

superior to a specific charge by the Corne# Untwrsity. 7thocs. NY f 4853.

That fact, taken together with the difficulty University for partscular p. eons of 1

Deer Ms. Egen: Your draft of a possible of the producer of pure knowledge knowledge.

submission to the NRC captures most of the

• PProPnating the benefits of it in charges to I urge you to consider expanding the argument that I and. I am sure, the Circuit p tential u se thme Wars em arBument sli htly along these lines, mainly 8

Court had in mind.

targely unpredictable-together make the because I think I can assure you that anyone There is one observation you make, strong and universally reagnized case for who raises the possible consideration of however, that I think can usefully be Public financm, g of pure reseerdt. "Ihe externalities willbe riceptive to such an f

empa'ided. and it is an argument that anyone University a pohey. which you do corrmly famihar with the !.terature on externalities emphasize, of conductirut research on a non.

expansion to embrace the concept of public goog*

would quickly apprecate. It has do with the PmPnetary basis is therefore-as you clearly social benefits of the non-proprietary um imply but do not. I think, stress adequately--

g.,, taken the hberty of correcting a few research to which you allude, and of t e sooelly highly desirable, and it wou,ld be minor errors on the draft you sent me and associated practice of not ing possible both futile for universities to try to recover raising one or two minor specaric questeons.

users for ocms: to the know that it the cost by charging potential users and Please cell on me af you think I can be of j

producas.

socially and economically undesirable for any additional assistance.

Pure knowledge is the archetypal"public them to do so.

With best regards.

1 good."in economic terms, the essential This does not anrwer the question of who Sincerely.

charactensticof whidiis that.once should pay the charges in question: on this Alfred Kahn.

ExHetT A-NUCUEAR REACTOR BUDGETS, USE, AND FEDERAL FUNDING AT PETmONER INSTITUTIONS l

Annual reactor New paraens usang renoor Percentage of dept. budget insstuton budg-nual toes (tunidIpgesL students /uruler.

from lederal sources (per-et (

)

guemaanos) cent) m I

t Comes Unse

• 240,000 124 2 0 3Rt26 52.

i Kaname Sause Urev 134,est 82.100 4F/FGesu 67 Massimumn Coasge 15.000 62.100 3R30GODU Not Avedehte.*

M.LT a 1.270.000 62.tet 35WEOGeau 63 N. Capossus State Urey m non GE.100 Ff80GEFU 21 Reed Conage 80.000 G2.100 ERedktau 31 Urw. imnons.*Jetiene 3200.000 124.25) 4Fr148 75.

Urw. laneoun-Ruta a 108.3 0 82.100 GF/13000U Not Avadable.

Urrv. New Mexico 27.000 62.100 F e Gesu 80.

Urw. Rhooe Island 533.769 62.100 22F/12G 85.

Urw. Teams.Ausen 267,183 62.100 M/t10 100.

e Urw. Utah SdLOOD G2.100 Ft18GRU 48.

J 5 Cosntened ligure lor the tuo reactors et Cosnes.

2 Facably operanos et a dotcst of $650.000.

i 3 Corritzned Agure tar vie two reacnors at lenoss-Urbana.

• Dean trom the Roan ceregnse seatsor orWy.

s Tomas 19a2 tedeset yeses ter ese Depenument ary =nw 340,gos.

F=ha=8 8 studied by determining seenhses of labeled National Tessapertation Seisty Board. Within Nuclear Reacts Proyuuns at Petitineer oils on treated W Maclear methods the Unisesmry, the ruector is used mostly by Institutions of rharactertzenom for troco elements base chenustry ansdenta. followed by nuclear been a key to resolvteg many motorials engaasering snadants. Research is conducted Cor%Unsmssty quality issume for silicon semiconducsor in a wade seage of fields larWart geology.

In its 30 years of operstaan, the Cornell device fabriastion.

bioley, asianal scannoms, testiles, and grain TRIGA has been used extensively in Cornell has the only cold neutron baum

sciences, undergraduses ard gradumes courses and program et a university vuector in the United g

gN' 8 research by non-spedmituss. In one prayset.

States.

neutron.induond euessmespaptry is used to Additional nuclear methods that will The college's tueching and resserch reecsor map the location of syndeed to shortly come into use et Cornell naciude pmgrams is privene and pnsmanly reveelimages in the summenies prompt gamine-ray neutron activesion unC. " k is very samall but painted by artists as a psiating esches from analysis and neutron dayah pseellug bened economically rua. As the only teaching and preliminary sketch to final version. This non-on rnoncenergetic conversion electmas resse reactor in the seseropolites New -

destructive technique allows the et histortas produced by neutros runsaAces as well as the York ases stealable to ahadam.a to infer the artist's develop ~ag innaarmaa. kr familiar==ehad based en alphe particia or in=**=== it provides a sagadicant resoun another. neutmn redi y is sed to study proton predaar+ian for the esen Tlues to fourarea laatstutions of the distnbution of water between sels and higher seynlarly use it fu teaching the roots of living plants. Neutron activation hasos 2see Unhorsq and sensesch.

lages such as New York analysis is widetyused in archmoology to The program et Kanses State is valuable to Mantane College wenid otherwise have no charactense elemental cuanpositions of institutions without research and queching accses to asch e incility. la addition.

a:ticles sud es portery sharde end cheschen reactors.The hant's reactoc under the bundreds of arms high school and middle and metallic artifacts. Suficzent d Serences Depamnent of Energy Reactor Sharles school students enjoy tours and in elemental composition asmong clay sources program. is used by 13 dIflerent lastitutines, d=a=*eteens at the rescaer each year as distinguish local wares from imported ones.

including Stanford. Louisiens State. the part of their =naar= curriculum.The -hant The effectiveness of deterpets has base University of Southern California and the district la which the college is lar=nad has i

c-

.-..--.-,.-,v..

-y--

,oe e

j S'0868 Federal Register / Vol. 58. NA 187 / Wednesday. SeptImber 29. 1993 / Proposed Rules 1-trie nighest proportion of minority students (2) Spergistic Effects on Carbon Limiters water content. This work has application in of any community school district in New Pmject to assess synergistic eflects of both both the oil well core logging industry and York City. and among the highest in the neutron exposure and son bombardment to nation.

carbon hmiters in fusion reacton by in the waste disposal area. In a third propect, foils of different matenals are activated to h

Massachusetts institute of Technology

[

je'u't. n *h*$o"n

$in determine their responses to thermal n

l A lame research program is carned on at many quantitative analysis needs such as neutrons and to analyze content particularly he MIT Research Center. In Nuclear environmental monitonng. forensic and with respect to impunties that may be Engineenng there are studies in (1) Dose crimmal work. cemfication of material present. A recent doctoral researth project 1

Feduction in which pressunzed loops that purity. rare +anh taggmg for study of marine examined the role of fuzzy logic contmilers stimulate both PWR and BWR environments larval dispersion. analysis of mercury in fish in nuclear reertor control The conclusion 1

hase been constructed and cperated in the tissue, analysis of fossil power plant was that fuzzy logic controllen appear to be core of the reactor for the iurpose of reservoirs for selenium. and industnal feasible and useful

• ben applied to rod i

identifying coolant chemistnes that will tagging; and (41 Neurmn Depth Profiling positioning and timing mmimize corrosion;(2) frmdiatior> Assisted Project consistmg of charactenzation studies

}

Stress Corrosion Cmcimg to investigate the of borosilicate glass films on sihcon wafers.

Uniwrsity of bde !sland 4

formation and growth of cracks in reactor structural alloys; (3) testmg the ef!icacy of in-Reed College Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center has a i

i core sensors. Enown as the SENSOR Propect.

Reed College is the only educational

!ong history of conducting environrnental mvolvmg in<nre sensors that detect changes mstitution in the United States to operate a research. The Univers ty of Rhode Island 4

m electrtschemical potential (ECPl and the reactor without a graduate or engineering Graduate School of Oceanography uses the

?

effect of water chemistry additives on the program. Although under the Chemistry reactor to perform neutmo activation analysis 4

halting of end growth; and (41 Diptal Department. the reactor is used by six faculty on environmental samples milected from Control to develop and expenmentally venfy for classes in physics, natural science, and art locations all over the globe. Important l

a generic methodology for the closed loop history, as well as chemistry. Undergraduate r= search discoveries in acid rain, geology.

digital contml of neutronic power, core and faculty researth mvolves about 5 and environmental pollution hav= been temperature, and other plant parameters. In students each year, however. in the last 2 over a decade of work. results have included years approximately 20 faculty members achieved over the years because of the 1

J demonstration of signal validation. the from 11 additional colleges and universities availability of the roector.The URI physics department conducts extensive neutron l

[ns ts rule n

o logy scattering experiments at the reactor and l

P ysics, environmental science, forensic usually has several post-doctoral researchen h

controller closed-form laws for the tune.

i optunal trapactory-tracking of reactor power, science and a* history. Each year as many as at the facility on a full tune basis. As the only the on-line reconfiguration of metrol laws, 20 high school students use the facility for nuclear facility in the state. RINSC provides i

automated power increases from subcntical.

classes and research. A noncedit esmester a significant number of toun to students from

^

and the uns of various forms of feedback.

seminar serws on " reactor, radiation and the high schools and universities. h positive Parallels between control strategies for environment"is odored to the pubhc.

uses of nuclear technology in environmental reactors charectenzed by spetial dynamics Between 30 and 50 pie attend it each and materials reesarch can be observed on a and control of mulu-modular reactors have yearaw& thirds of not afausted wie j

also been studied.

Reed CoHegt first hand basis.

Space Science also beneSts from the Universityoflilinois-Urbana Uniwrsityof Tesos

{

4 Research Center with studies to determine the feasibihty oflow-temperature annealing

& Uniwrsity ofIIHnois Nuclear Reactor Research currently under way at the of radiation-induced defects in electmnic 1.aboratory is a tw& reactor facility. using the Nuclear Engmeenns Teaching Lab includes coreponents such as will be used on a Advanced TRIGA and IDPRA reactors.

the (1) Texas ColdNeutron Source Prefect for i

spacecraft for interplanetary missions,of Neutron Activation Analysis,meterials the development of a neutron source with several yeen duration. and an upcommg damage studies and nuclear pum laser low neutron energies for research in prompt a

j study to investigets thermionic energy research are the research foci of

incihty, samme activation and scattering: (2) Neutron conversion in &lt reactors.

in addition toits teaching goals.

Depth Profiling Project for the measurement Neutron acuvetion analysis and track-etch UniversityofMissouri-Rollo of boron and other (n.a) reactions to i

techniques are being used in Earth Science

The pnmary unos of the reactor at the Rolla determine depth mnantrations in various to investiente fundamental questions about campus of the University of Missouri are materials such as glass and sh W 4

j the earth from meteorite composition. leva educatice sad training of graduate and Neutron Capture TherapyProyect for characteristigs and crack growth in granitic undergradante students and nuclear-related measurements of the does to heed phantoms rock to continental dnfL Neutron activation is also being used to study the movements research. The reactor is used mostly by from the neutron activation of gadolinium; students froen the 6 elds of nuclear (4) various Neutron Actrvation Projects in and trace the origins of stmospfwie engineering. chemistry, life science. and support of investigators. Including irradiation pollutants.

physics. In addition, about 540 students and l

North Casolina Stoar Unneredty instructors fran oeer insututions use se of biologica! Suids. geological samples, and reactor thmugh the University Reector others; and (5) Digsso! Reactor Control Project j

Since 1973 the university's reacter has Shanng Pmeram.

for the "'

t of an arnficial been used to support "Reesesch Reactor intelligonos software tool to provide software

=

Training" for local utilities' training of UAI*'ssty ofNw Mmco functional dtweity.

licensed reactor operators. Newly available in Four research protects have been cart %d 1990 are training pmgrams for individuals in out using-the AGN-20tM reactor over the Uniwesitye/Usah a

the industrial community. such as engineers, past seven years. One of the major resserch The program et the University of Utah,s i

supervisors. and maintenanca personnel, to projects involves maneurement of hemic multidisciplinary in nature, allowing strengthen their understanding of how a physics parameters in a thermal researchere in a variety of 6 elds to discxwor power ruector operates. Representative of the system. No other thennat ity systeen has the potential of reactor use. The r==rtar is research uses of the university's reactor are the flexibility and low intrinsac sousca the (1) frrodiotfon ofReactor Vsesel Steels strength required for this research. This used mostly by nuclear engineers, Project for long term irradiation performed in foeture is unique to the university lecilities.

r-Lahl engineers, chamacal engineers.

speciaDy designed baskets in the reactor, a A second pmlect is a anall sampw reactivity and elearonic engmeers.

project seeking a better understanding of measurement technique that is being applied (FR Doc. 93-23836 Fded 9-28-93: 8.45 aml degradation of the physical properties of steel to geologic samples to determine their in the rendor vessels at nuclear power plants; thermal neutmo cmas sections and relative a gang w l

1 m

a