ML20058K388

Responds to Written on Behalf of Constituent, Univ of Missouri-Rolla,re NRC Fees,Per 10CFR171

ML20058K388
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Rolla
Issue date:	10/12/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Emerson B HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20058K392	List: ML20058K388 ML20058K400
References
FRN-58FR50859, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9312150190
Download: ML20058K388 (10)

Text

.

p . -

p se "c uq b

y . < $

jjT E UNITED STATES

• 3p

, 'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

%g < j8 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 6 1 Octobe.r 12, 1993 -

The Honorable Bill Emerson United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-2508

Dear Congressman Emerson:

I am responding to your letter of September 20, 1993, written on behalf of your constituent, the University of Missouri-Rolla, 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 Comission'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 Comission to acknowledge the weakness of, and  ;

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

i Following the publication of the final rule, the Comission received a l j

petition from Cornell and eleven other universities for reconsideration of. the j final rule and requesting reinstatement of the exemption for nonprofit educational institutions. The Comission 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 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,

/

1g M. -

s M. ay r ecutive D rector for Operations

Enclosure:

i Proposed Rule.

i l

l l

l g; I 9312150190 931012 I i

' PDR PR #s 171 5BFR50859 PDR

.1 October 12, 1993 r t

The Honorable Bill Emerson  !

United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-2508

^

Dear Congressman Emerson:

I am responding to your letter of September 20, 1993, written on behalf of your constituent, the University of Missouri-Rolla, cegarding 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 i applicable to nonprofit educational institutions. The Commission's need to' l 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 l District of Columbia Circuit (Allied Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission and the United States of America, No. 91-1407 and Consolidated '

Cases) which forced the Commission to acknowledge the weakness of, and j abandon, the passthrough argument formerly made on behalf of these institutions. i Following the publication of the final rule, the Commission received a petition from Cornell and eleven other universities for reconsideration of the final rule and requesting reinstatement of the exemption for nonprofit educational institutions. The Commission has decided to grant the petition to  ;

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

to restore the generic exemption from annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.

Enclosed is a copy of the proposed rule which was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1993, for a 30-day comment' period.

Sincerely,.

Originalsigned by y M.Taylof James M. Taylor j Executive Director i for Operations ,

Enclosure:

Proposed Rul 0FFICE:

NAME:

CB n ois DAF y #

EBlack D

er OCh JFunches C

RSc gins DO ylor DATE:

[o 93 /0/6/93 g/j/93 g/4 /93 /d/f /93 /0 7/93 J

BB-[

( . -.

Federal Register / VIL 58. No.187 / Wednesday. Sept:mber 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules 50859 Regilatory F1eribility Certification 938. 954. 955 as amended (4 2 U.S.C 2132. 10 CFR Part 171 As required by the Regulatory 2133,2134,2135,2233,22391. Section 2.104 Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C,605(b)). also issued under sec.193. Pub. L 101-575.

E 38-6 the Commission certifies that this rule, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 USC 2243). Section 2.105 if adopted, will not have a significant also issued under Pub. L 97-415,96 Stat. Restoration of the Generic Exemption economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed 2073 (42 USC 2239). Sections 2.20M.206 also issued under secs.161 b.1. o,182.186, 234. 68 Stat. 948-951. 955. 83 Stat. 444, as rule sets forth the time frame within AGoscy: Nuclear Regulatory which a person other than an applicant amended (42 USC 2201 (bh fil. (ol. 2236. Commission, must file a request for a hearing in a 2282h sec. 206 sa Stat.1246 (42 USC AcnON: Proposed rule, licensing proceeding held under the 58461. Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued informal procedures set forth in 10 CFR under sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 SUhM4aRY:On July 20,1993, the Nuclear part 2. subpart L The proposed rule, by as amended (42 USC 4332). Sections Regulatory Commission ("NRC"or i itself. does not impose any obligations 2.700s. 2.719 also issued under 5 USC 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  ;

within the definition of"smallentities" table issued under 5 USC 557. Section 2.764 and licensees for fiscal year 1993. The final  ;

1 A of appendix C also issued under as set forth in section 601(3) of the rule eliminated a generic exemption Regulatory Flexibility Act, or within the secs.135.141. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 2232. from annual fees pmviously applicable definition of"small business" as found 2241 (42 UAC 10155,10161L Section 2.790 to nonprofit educational institutions also issued under sec.103. 68 Stat. 936, as  !

in section 3 of the Small Business Act. (educational exemption). Following '

15 U.S.C. 632, or within the small amended (42 USC 21331 and 5 UAC 552. publication of this rule, the Commission Sections 2.800 and 2.80s also issued under mceived a petition for reconsideration business size standards contained in 13 )

CFR part 121. 5 U S C 553. Section 2.809 also issued under requesting reinstatement of the 5 U.S.C 553 and sec. 29; Pub. L 85-256. 71  ;

educational exemption.The Backfit AnalIsis Stat. 579, as amended (42 USC 2039L l 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 any new provisions which would 955 (42 USC 2239h sec.134. Puh. L 97- {

impose backfits as defined in to CFR 425. 96 Stat. 2230 (42 UAC 101541. Subpast amend the final rule by restoring the L also issued under sec.1ao. 68 Stat. 955 (42 exemption.De Commission grants the 50.109(a)(1). Accordingly, no backfit U.S C 2239). Appendix A alsoissued under request for a new rulemaking. The new analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(c)is rulemaking reconsiders whether requimd for this proposed rule. sec. 6. Pub. L 91-560. 64 Stat.1473 (42 {

U S C 2135). nonprofit educational institutions  !

List of Subjects to CFR Part 2 should remive a generic exemption  !

2. In $ 2.1205(c), introductory text is imm annual fees e Commissim i Administrative practice and mquests pubhc comment on that republished and paragraph (c)(2)is procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct q material. Classified information.

revised to read as follows: j e ru makt p eding g

Environmental protection. Nuclear 52.1205 Rectueet for a hearing, pettuon for quesdon.

materials. Nuclear power plants and twvetointemena.

reactors. Penalty. Sex discrimination. * * *

• caTE:Cmunent period expires October Source material. Special nuclear 29,1993. Comments received after this material. Waste treatment and disposal. (c) A person other than an applicant date wh casidemd,qt is practical sh"11 file est ior a bean'ng * * * * * * " * , * *

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the within assure consideration only for comments Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended:

• . *

• received on or before this date.

the Energy Reorganization Act of1974. ADORESSES: Submit written comments (2) If a Federal Register notics is not as amended; and 5 U:5.C. 553.the NRC to: Secetary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory is proposing to adopt the following published in 6:ordance with paragraph Commission. Washington.DC 20555 (c)(1) of this section, the, earliest of- . Attn: Docketing and Service Branch, amendments to 10 CFR part 2.

(i) Thirty (30) days after the requestor pi (g*n to 1520 5 PARf 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FORreceives actual notics of a pending DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS application, or between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal

1. The authority citation for part 2 (ii) Thirty (30) days after the requestor workdays. (Telephone 301-504-1 Copies of comments received may be continues to read as follows: receives actual notice of an agency eramfned and copied for a fee at the Authoriry: Secs.181.181. 68 Stat. 948, actin granting an application in whole NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L 953. as amended (42 USC 2201. 2231); sec. or in part, or Street NW., (Lower 14vell Washington.

191. as amended. Pub. L 87-615,78 Stat. 409 (iii) One hundred and eighty (160) DC 20555 (42 USC 224th sec. 201. 88 Stat.1242, as days after agency action granting an Fon FURT$ER seFontiATion cowTA n 2.101 also ssu u er

62. 63. 81.103.104,105. 68 Stat. 930. 932 933,935. 936,937,938, as amended (42 53 . . '. Part.

Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this 23rd gg gg g gQ Counsel U.S.NuclearRegulatory deY Gmmissiam Washingte.DC 20555 telephone 301-504-1606.

USC 2073,2092. 2093. 2111. 2133. 2134 PIS *Pternber.1993.

2135h sec.114(fl. Pub. L 97-425,96 Stat.

2213. as amended (42 U.S.C 10134(fil; sec.

For the Nuclear Regulatory f%mmlarion. AM WometAR 102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853. es amended Sassual J.Chilk. 1. Background.

(42 USC 4332h sec. 301. 88 Stat.1248 (42 3*C"'"'I'I8A' O"#"" II. Section-by-section analysis.

USC 5871). Sections 2102. 2.103,2.104 [FR Doc. 93-23835 Filed 9-28-93;8:45 eml m. Environmental impact categorical 2.105. 2.721 also issued under seca.102. exclusion.

te.A.ses coca rses.es e 103,104,105,183.189. 68 Stat. 936. 937 IV. Paperwora reduction act statement.

V. Regulatory analysis.

i .-

SesES Federal Em5nster / Vol. 58. No.187 / * --'-W September 29, 1993 / N - i ihmiss -

1 1

VI. Regulatory flexibthty analysis. institutions attght be able 60 sunke letter espass het it is"ieei$ cent" and vir Badfit analysis. individualized showings of financial " socially and economically I. Background hardship and esternalized benents undesirable" to charp people for access i sufficwns to justify a "public interest" to pure knowfedge, because the benefits i On luly 20.1993 the Commission exemption under 10 CFR U1.11(b)(58 pubbshed its final annual fee rule for of that knowfedge "are largely

! FR 38669) The two dissenting

' unpredictable " Letter from Alfred Kahn l FY 1993 (58 FR 386661. The final rule Commissioners took the view that the to Shirley Egan Associate University '

pnncipally set out the Commission s fee Commission should continue in force Counsel. Comell Uni.ersity Guly 15 schedules for FY 1993. but it also l the genenc educational esernption (58 1993). j

discussed in some detail the 3-2 FR 368?5). The petitioners also stressed the harm !

Commission decision to revoke a Almost immediately the Commission to university nuclear programs as a  !

generic exemption presiously began rueiving letters from many result of the newly imposed annual fees 4

applicable to nonprofit educational colleges and umversities protestmg the (petition at 8-91. Usmg Cornell instatenons. A court of appeals decision. change m its longstanding policy. Many Universrty's nuclear program as an l issued in March 1993, had necessitated

' of these letters were sent as cornments example, thee asserted that Federal the Commission's rethinking of the rwarding the Commission's concurrent grants (in adilition to those already educational exemption. See A#ied- fee policy study now being conducted provided) might be necesary to meet Signol. Inc. v. NRC. 988 F :'d 146 (D C. as reqtured by the Energy Policy Ad of the additional costs of NRC annual fees Cir 1993).That decision cast doubt on 1992 (58 FR 21116k In these letters and (petition at 9-10). Finally the the NRC's stated rationale-which comments (avadable in the NRC Public petitioners argued that the included a purported inability to " pass Document Room ("PDR")), educational Commission's longstanding exemption 1 through" costs-for exempting institutions descnbed the"extamalized for nonprofit ah ional t institutions

, nonprofit educationalinstitutions fmm benefits" derived from their programs was rooted in sound policy, and that

, annual fees- and the problems created by the new reinstatmg the exemption would be

In reaction to the court dec sion. the annual fees. including the prospect of consistent with the already extensive Commission initially proposed to retain maior cutbacks in nuclear education, direct Federal funding provided many tne educational esemption, but with a Some licensees aise pointed out that c'ollege and university licensees

( fresh rationale. In its proposed FY 1993 their programs were already heavily (petition at 12-13). I a annual fee rule. the Commisuon subsidized by the Federal government in August. while the petition for' requested comments on retaining the (in particular by the Department of reconsideration was undar i exemption, and asked specifically for Energy), precisely because the programs consideration, the Commassion 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 The Commtssion also receieed a individual "public interest" exem ption exceptionally large externahzed benefits formal petition for reconnaderation of requests by mileges and universities. As that cannot be captured in tuition or the FY 1993 final rule with the airn of part of this effort the NRC staff visited other market pnces." 988 P.2d at 151. restoring the nonprofit educational a number of colleges asid umversities to The Commission also requested exemption. $se Petition fue leam roose about therreducational

'; comments on whether the exemption Reconsideration of Final Rule Guly 30. activities and the benefits of non-power should be revoked. 1993). In this petition for reactors and the use ofnuclear materials Following the close of the cornment reconsideration (which is being in education programs. N Comsussiort penod,the Commission faced a pub!!shed as an appendix to this conchrded that the new annual fees

, dilemma,it remained committed to the proposed rule), a number of formerly (562.100 foreach research reacroe j value of nuclear education and related exempt colleges and universities licenset lesser asnoants for each i

research as a pelicy matter, but it had asserted with some specificity a number materials license) would jeopardize the received only a few comments, and of benefits that ed= annal knantution educationaland 31sted rossarch cursory ones at that, supporting a research reactors provide to both the benents provided by a aamber of continued generic exemption. nuclear industry and the public at large. collegeaand universiums.

Additionally, some NRC licensees had Prominent was the continued training of As a result of the new and more submitted gomments requestmg nuclear scientists and engineers detailed information and arguments abandonment of the exemption (petition at 3-4). The loners also developed at the potteton he altogether or a more equitable spread of stated that nuclear t nology wee used recomadsrestos and la the other souscos its costs to all licensees. Still other in fields as vened as medicine, geology, descnbed above. and after careful commenters urged that the-saem archaeology, food an=ra and textilaa reflectiorr.the Carmmssion now is be retained, but that it be to and that the public utairionally inclined to referre toi+s previous include various other t- A ad.ivities. benefitted from people who could proctics of exsumpting nonpsont Afler considering the materfal before provide knowledgeable opinions on educettamalinstitutions front ===k it a split Commission, by a 3-2 vote. nuclear topk:s. es well as from tours of fees. The Comerission theroism grants

" reluctantly concluded that in view of reseasch reactoss (petiffour at 4-!F). the petition for recensederation of tfw the court decision and the The petitioners went on to argue ther FY 1993 final rtrie and now proposes to administrative record devaloped during education provides significant exempt narpmfiteducationsi the comment period it cannot justify a "externalamed bens &ts" warranting institutions from annual Gues. The genenc educational' exemption forFT public subsidy. They citeda leases from Commission dosa notintend tossente 1993" (58 FR 38866 461. Therulume, the economist Alked hhn Galso available any othes generis exempties categense Commission informed formerly exempt in the attached appendix) stating that nonprofit educational institutions that the knowledge generated by univers! . inmthis saimmaking, does not propese Commnasies they would have to pay annual fama related research is itself e pirbitt- lightly this hether shtft in a pokcy that beg' inning in FY 1993. The t'n=minainn that cannot be quantined using markeer has streedy pas through a maior did point out that ranny of these indices (petition at 6-7). Mr. Kahur's changs in a shast ekso. The Cosnmissier,

" ~

Federal Register / V 1. 58. No.187 / Wednesday, Sept:mber 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules 50861 was sharply divided from the outset on This notice, of course, does not licensees the shortfall resulting from the the wisdom of eliminating the generic represent a final Commission decision educational exemption, pursuant to its educational exemption. New to reinstate the educational exemption. ' current statutory mandate to recover 100 information and fresh thinking have but simply the Commission's p oposed percent of its budget.

persuaded the entire Commission that resolution of the question ba on its

!!.Section-by-Section Analysis restoration of the exemption reflects a current best information and best sound policy choice that avoids placing thinking. But, with the Commission Section 171.21 Exemptions in jeopardy valuable educational proposmg to restore a generic resources that are indispensable to the exemption, it is not necessary for Paragraph (a) of this section is nuclear industry to numerous other formerly exempted educational amended b adding nonprofit educationafinstitutions, as defined in educational activities, to the NRC itself hcensees to apply for individual pubh.c snterest exemptions. Therefore, the $ 171.5, to the list of those entities and to the public at large.

Commission requests nonprofit exempted from annual fees by the The, Commission solicits public educational hceasees not to seek such Commission. A dir.cussion of this comment on its proposed rule that change ;a fee policy is found in Section would restore the exemption. Comments exemptions at this time. lf after Iof this proposed rule, on other annual fee issues will not be reconsideration, the Comm,ission entertained in connection with this decides that it cannot justiry a generic Hl. Environmental fmpact: Categorical proposed rule. The Commission already exemption it will provide educational Exclusion has received some information on the licensees ample time to seek individual

?xemptions. The Commission will hold The NRC has determined that this

" externalized benefits" of non-power proposed rule is the type of action reactors and the use of licensed nuclear in abeyance allindividual exem tion descnbed in cst *gorical exclusion 10 materials in various educational requests it already has received mm ed do '

CFR 51.22(c)(1). Yherefore, neither an activities and related msearth at colleges and universities. However, the eisfu Irefu s ta nonprofit environmental assessment nor an educational licensees who may have environmental impact statement has Commission is interested in more data been prepared for the proposed on the benefits of non-power reactors paid the FY 1993 annual fee will be addressed,if applicable,in the final regulation.

ma er i n ed 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 may well substantiate the argument in the petition for reconsideration that k]h'g*;c P seso"Yo a the FY 1993 This proposed rule contains no annual fee will be advised accordingly information collection requirements non-power reactors and the use of and, therefore. is not subject to the hcensed nuclear matenals in what action if any,is needed if they choose to rescind those applications as requirements of the Paperwork educational activities are prime Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 a result of this rulemaking.

examples of activities that provide et seql externalized benefits" warrantmg There is one n I point w'arranting pubhc support. clarification. The FY 1993 final rule V. Regulatory Analysis el minating the educational exemption The Commission expects commenters indicated that, because of the remand With respect to to 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. 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 approximately 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 throu the assessment of type and availability of work for exemption because of its inclination to fees. To accomp ish this statutory graduates of nuclear programs and other restore the exemption. Commenters,if requirement. on July 20,1993 (58 FR  ;

programs in which licensed nuclear they choose, may address this point. 38666), the NRC. in accordance with  !

materjats are used, and the relation As the final rule made clear (58 FR 5171.13 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 leaming.ne retroactively to charBe fees to nonprofit annual fees for operating reactor 1 Commission has particular interest in educational institutions for FYs 1991- licensees fuel cycle licensees, materials i comments on the extent to which the 92, but did intend to make refunds to licensees, and holders of Certificates of i benefits of nuclear education and other those licensees (power reactors) that Compliance, registrations of sealed programs using licensed nuclear made up the shortfall in 100 percent fee source and devices and QA program materials (not simply education in recovery created by the educational approvals, and Government agencies.

Eeneral) are " externalized'* and would exemption. Should the Commission OBRA-90 and the Conference not be produced by market forces.The restore the exemption, however, no new Committee Report 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) The annual fees be based on the fields of study that use licensed nuclear On the other hand, because of the Commission's FY 1993 budg,et of 5540.0 material in the course of educating their timing of this reconsideration million less the amounts collected from l students. The Commission 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 licensee will be assessed additional fees NRC's high level weste program.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 described to make up any shortfall created for FY (2) Theannual fees shall, to the above. but more data is needed for the 1993. For future fiscal years, however, rnaximum extent practicable, have a Commission's deliberations. the Commission will recover from other reasonable relationship to the cast of

'54m Federa) Esuf i WWF / Vol. 58, Ma 1ST / N E

• f. September- 2?.1995 / Meposed Ruhrs i

regulatory ssynces prowded by the List of Sabioets in 1601Part 171 104 c. of theAtomicEnergy Act of1954 C'ommismen: ami Annual charges. Bypmduct mainial. (42 TIS.C 21)*8cB for operation at a (3) The annual fees be assessed to Holders of certificates. registrations, and thermal peerhwef of to rnegewstts or those licensees that the Commission, in approvals. !ntergovernmentai relations. less: and its discretion. determnes can fairly, Non. payment penalties. Nuclear (ii)ff so liceosed foroperation at a equitably. and practicably contnbtite to matenals.Nur.br power plante and thermal powerlevel ofmore than 1 their paiment. reactors. Source material. Special megawatt, does not contain-4 herefore, when developing the nuclear material (A) A circulating loop through the l annual fees for operatirg power reactors For the masons sa dut in the c re in which the licensee conducts fuel the NRC continued to consider the preamble and under the authority of the '}Pe ment ,

B enta r en , an eo r he an S 5 the p, (C) An e rimental fa fity in the operating power reactors. The an nual t0 t wi g amendments to core in e cess of16 square m.ches ut fees for fuel cycle licensees, materials 0 P 1:censees and holders of certificates.

regtstratzons and appmvals and for PART 17f-ANNUAL FEES FOR Dated at Rochilie.MD this 23d day of

licenses issued to Government agencies REACTOR OPERATING UCENSES. Septemts r 1993.

take into account the type of facility o' AND FUEL CYCLE UCENSES AND For the Nuclear Regulatory Cbmmiss.on, MATERIALS UCENSES, INCLUDING approval and the classes of the Samuel T.rEfL hcensees. HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF secreauy of 6e commusion.

COMPUANCE,REGISTRATlONS, AND 10 CFR part 17L which established QUALfTY ASSURANCE PROGRAM Appendix Te Prepamed *^ me et annual fees for operstma power reactors APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT Recansideration si Famal kule effective October 20.1986 (51 FR 33224: AGENCIEg a w rucart BY THE NRC I. Intmduerfon September 18.1986). was challeoged and upheld m its ' entirety in Flondo . L The authority citaden for Part 171 The Nuclear Ecgulatory Commissloo is te to mad as foHow ("NRC"or " Commission ~1 has long Power 2nd Light Company v. linited exempted nonpmfit educational institutions States. 846 F.2d 765 (D.C Cir.1986). Authority: Sec. 7601. Pub. L 99-272.100 frorn paying annusf fees. Althocgh timr cert. denied. 490 U.S.1045 (1989). Stat.146, as amended by sec. 5801. Pub. L Commission trodrtionalty fusetGed thie 100-203.101 Stat.1330. as amended by Sec. exemption oc the grounds that colleges and 10 CFR part 171. which established 3201. Pub. L 101-239.103.<txt. rtos ar univernnes could mas renddy pass the seat of fees based on the FY 1989 budget, were amended l'y sec. 6101. Peb. L 101-50s.104 also legally cha!!enged. As a result of the fees on no sendems thveugh netwa and Stat.13s8. (42 U.S.C 2713): sec. Jet. Pubt L other charges. a recans bderal court decision the Supreme Cou:t decision in Skinner 92-314. as stat. 222142 U.S.C. 220tIwik sec. questioned this muomala.s The court

v. Mid.American Pipeline Co.109 S. Ct. 201. 8a Stat.1242 at M (42 U.S.C. explained. howewar, that the ax.arnabzed 1726 (1989), and the denial of ce'tiorari 584 n ser. 223Juh. L m2-446. Wr Sal benefits of education pueentiaDy supported in Flonda Power and Light.all of the 3125. i42 ES.C 224 namh such an exemption.s lawsuits were withdrawn. 2. Irs $ 17L11, peregraph (si is revised Aldough the Commission at first defended The NRC's FY 1991 annual fee rule to reed as follows. Its educational . a to e rulemaking proceeding pmssps by tbs court's decision, was lar1tely upheld recently by the D.C. 3171 11 *= == pan === it ah-h==d the emereption kr the Saal Circtut Court of Appeels in Allied (a) An annual ise is not reqttired for. versson of as annual ise ranna Paeteners Signal v. NRC (1) A construction permit orlicens, contend that in so dans the Gramassion applied for by, or issued to, a nonprofit erred and r==panmity request that the VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis educational institutaats for a Production D ***l***

"'*C "' # **'"h*8'"d As required by the Regulatory or uuhrmhes facility, other titan e reinatate the exemption for nonpaofit educational licensees.s F'exibihty Act 5 U.S.C 605(b), the Power reactor. or be the ion and Commission certines that this preposeef use of m sourm g The AUmManel Conn Clearlylarmed she rule, if adopted. will not here e mate or special andeur stasenal.

significant sconomic impact on , This amumptian dass nat apply to those iducatacoal rioU A16angh se h .a na Ansed.W substantial number of small entitter bypsoduct. sonsu.er atur=I nuclear The proposed rule affects about 110 maeortal Isansas which authorias: ' n operating power reactors which are not (i) as use: I"Id MM,_g;996 g .

considered to be small endtfes. (ii) Remunerated services to other nonprofiteducationalfacihties the' count P*

VR W AQns M6 e suggested a valid reason for exempting The NRC has determmed that the backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109, does not nu tonalor Ma bypsoduct matenal sourts unsterialor

@ M*[NL',"fiww RegehseryCamunw.see F.2d He (D C Cr. Iml.

apply to this proposed rule and that a disci ===s is anso a sqba backfit analysis is not required for this sp(ecial nuclear i,) Activities paremaesraml:or

===ed = malar a 8'd.a*15L - Eaa$a proposed rule. The beckht analysis is Governraent rant-re not required because these amendmarns

• FY s90s ad 20e2 Final Reie M 'ns the (2) Federallyowood amesarch rescases M C8WM of APPenis Decision and mortaion of Fes do not require tha =~W-Hon of or additions to systems, stret===-

used primanly for arlunniemal training and armia==ar semensch purpesus. Foe NNE7M$,E,,y zo. russit-ense as6s4 -

components, or des 4;n ci a facihty or purposee ed this enameptaen, the terna s Pet 2Wemme (brasil umsseemity hue satumseed the design approvalor manufacturing research reactor reases a nuclear reactor simitu- suppenses the exampum in license for a facility or the procedures or orgaruzation requised to design.

that-(i)is 1-maad by the kiclear Z'f

• N"",* j 'Y " * '

construct or operate a facihty. cor vensionen *,umpsumete seu sise Asse fpelf Regulatory Commission under section ts. toen

_ ___ _ -, _ _ _ . , ~ . - ,, _, _ . . _ .

l i

~

Federal Eagister / Vol 54. No. 27 / W ' -- ?- y, September 29. NB3 / Proposed Rules MSW3 educational reactor licensees trora amaual ressesch provedse en important bemeAt to the "y undesirable for than to do so." t foes. The court merely asked the NRC to nuclear Ladustry and the puWie et large end Ed. Insteed, he reesons. "a Get charge on i marshal a rationale based on "externaliand should not be discoursged."r A"vibremt beoeSts" of education "that cannot be business benencieries is superror to a specific l nuclear education sector also is important as captured in tuition or other market prims." a souru of talent and ideas for the NRCitsmil charge by the Untversity for particular pies i Id. at 151. Indeed, the Allied-Signal court and for the whole governroent." the of knowledge." Id. The Commission's l l

i explemed that "there is et least a serious relatively small costs associated with l Commission arcwed in the course ofits '

possabahty" that the Commission can rulemaking process. Id. ne wide array of licensing educational reactors may easil Y be I

" substantiate" such an exernption. Id. externalized benents generated by nuclear mcowed fmrn ease housase who bent l In its Final Rule, however the Commission reactor programs at nonpmnt educational immeasurably imm the actmties of the l

" missed an opportunity to consider seriously institutions is thus apparent from the disunguished smarhing and research  !

the classic ' externe! ired benefirs' argument" Commission's statements and from the many community at our not on s universities, and i proposed by the court.e While Petitioners comments submitted in support of the those erbo, in the Commisson's disoetion,  ;

bebeve that the Commission should have contested exernption.a can fairly, equitably, and practically make decided to continue the exemption et issue and should have based its decision on the IE Econornic Theory Supports the Nonprofit such payments.

court's discussion and on the many EducationalExemption V. The Proposed Annual fees Threaten  ;

comments supporttag the exemption, they The &-n*n's long standing SerrousInjury to Unwarssty Nuclear l seek in thts petition to provide the exemption for nonproSt educational factlities Prgraner Commission with additaonal information is wholly consistent with "externalised l about the considerable externalized beneSts Not only is it economically inefficient to '

benefits" economic theory. As levy annual fees on university research I of nuclear reactor programs at nonproSt Commissioners Remick and DePlampus educational institutions. reactors. It also placee an undue Anancial explained in their opinion. "educasiaa,lika burden on nuclear science education and E Nuclear Reactore of Nonprofit nationa,1 defensa, landl the administrataea of the 2 chiU nudeu muerch vital 2 Ii

Educationalinsatutiorm Provide Signifsosat g,Ponsable to bole society industry and the general public alike.ie The Benefits to the CommercialNuclearIndustry and the Generalpublic ,o, g st to Maal Rule,54 F. situation at Cornell is illustrative of these

,,, g, g, ,,",,,,3,,,y, g,,,.R e pasential problema.n Carnou uses two Universities, including the Petitioners, benents of nuclear reactor proyams et train scientists and engineers who enter the mectors for =~h=6 and rossardi. The larger, universities are recounted in section !!! ebove a teoeloosest T10GA. is used most commercial nucisar inhary and governeunt and to the many =nmants submitted to the frequently. A staff of four-two agineers and reguisesry agenches such as he NRC insif.

Commission daring its rulemahias procesa.s two lab n=A=Ma-ealatains the tenctors.

Distinguished worked in the Sold, faculty, since itsanony whose hs" From oflaseres ladency, s smund breaking discovers to vital h emaust operating budget rues mm data, un ' nucisar resserch is the students in basic research and new appsertmeesty $230.000.5 The pupposed

, openly publisbod d heely debased to

• NRC annual tse for Cornell's sencero-nts would the ,E g,y, ,,, SWh NPmeents our half of the

' M"eeea"greia/dnc"'

-d nuclear industry.

p,*;m6pga a r dc- ,,;

""ind."ed %veren.nasdiemi.

mcremsstal cost. Imeter Besa ited Kahe soma dgreat maales supportlas CaneWs Nuclear engena-tag progrens, which can thrive only by tacteding hachen '--Gr i to Shktsy R. > Uuly 1s 1suH ("Kahe nuclear ammon and engineering pigrens.

study et a working reactor, assist the tamarq et t As Casameedonne nummeek sad **d I'dal"ch dauere comprise meerly commercial nuclear industry directly throgh "DePlampse semenmed. he free market unoygg half of the nuclear scisam and engineersas

, pure and applied =ri=am. Cosnell to suppky the esosomary esmount of daymannet's emmuel ressesda bedest. The ruearchers, for example, how anahand the eduanamen"and oeer @ gnede haamuse Departrumet d Emergy met ody somerhetes the "buyams" or sendmet inck n=e===n==> subsesselmi grunt names but also doosses all behavior of reactors under severe acxMeat conditious. Univers6tise opetribute to th' sufBelent to set the "right prics" or eres af the tool ter the reactors. Carmell nuclear unable to pay that price. Final Ruls. 54 FR

[*c", g,f g Q at 38675. The inefBelency of for

,eh m be ak W h it siey e m **

• monP'UPdeary n u meh i

d moderators, and other of in the forms impen numa and naspecuan inn.

mactm systems. edutath lines support what amed establiehud ask authority of the Independsat University researchers also use remeters to econornist Alked Kaba cans "the sessme and OfBcas Appuepuestium Act ("IDAA"L em asapsett develo new e ications of nuclear uninrealh r=+==d case.,fu pidshs- odusmisens - aseriassaamiaseen a techn ogy in Me es W es W rm,q g p u,,,,,,,g Kaha immer a t 3 esses

• M PR1FS2thN* lite 88Humammynus geology ( archaeology, food schenca, and Kahn explains that it would be " futile for soapsett edumesmallausettums hus IMA M textiles. These new rommerch Sadings in tais universities to try to recx.r.ver the cost by n==== thus impery web the our ei W Pot,,,3,j usass for ressesch and Panicular rammer lad 14etas, thear lampass am provide op ities imr proGembis carmell and other unneeraties a to comm ven h 8dDC8ti B+ 88 *'II 88 8 Ci80 7 8'd esusinesA assommic and public pency By operating nuc)ser reactora, aAw=nanal  % for exampnse college and niaherstums gevaremost r FY 1998 and sees Prepamed Reis bem NIeC emmual less apply with tupass lurts to i.nstitutone assist tbs U.S.Coen of Appamisrwm== sad IOAA foss, housser in oder impt wp @e Fee Schedules: Ice % Fee Recuoury, rY less, se PR source of respected.la and

• e See Nuclear usacter Budgets. Usa, and Federal 2 sea m a ==y comm a, reading as punemer misuomaises enedied as independent opinion as the hamstes and as,3,r.2 ,33s.ee (Nuclear aman")

g .Propend ar  %

burdens of nuclear t Enhms A.

forasesesty .see she '

1 addressing its implications. strustemem madne isne seassunse emed prammely by esas toand ,uncter proyees s'ttached as Enhihk 3. nudeur setsmas med angueurtag timetry and members of the pubhc who tour the 9emens the A#emd-spelcourt gave as appsenteesty tuuhe seudmass per year.

educaticeal reactor facilities ins $tlate explanaties of what hunchmark meansIhme with additiemal i mas by as amany a use  !

the varied uses of nuclear logy and homente aheund be imensured by. It is maclear what Insular and Ahnen gotism ersemmes base Amids cotne to e 'ste the contribution of tbs count mammt by "emispeamsBy lassk" Amed. sede es gula gabaniary amen and nocjo., - is me , iery of mag, s,ier. een r.2d at is t. Partheriness it is archassiser.g' - immhase and i

hvet precnonny i=ip==m to gamassy es emusenese puhInc mes and immadensalames

' ' ' that unssummy smcinar asnamme and acceans Ier shout e tymaner of the sumers uset see.

Th hion itself hasa --

3ts con g,, pregnens make is enemmataal ammus ===t=== ** A ases medy shamed by Os Massen E Wash.

,,,,ry. ms attaa. iaysihar with the mesy Ioemd that eten er umsvesey romane than cm m . mis ned by educeu al im==== dem. opumane. s enemmed mouni came ameo. sesmee.

e pisering views of commmmennes ammadt and tw===er illusowe the eneet and vertsry of mich tener tem Mercus n vesh and Eduard K Kissens DePineque. Maal Rule. Sa FR at 35s75. baannes

. se Seseuel l. Chilk Quly 12. tes3) as 2.

-- - -- - , - - - , ,e,n-.+,m---,-e,-,e--,-a,a- ees- - - - e - m, ~s-- ---,w,ev-

.. _. ~ - - .- . - - . ._ . - - _ . . .- __

J

, . I

50004 Fedesel Register 0WeL 54, hier / ~

" i . iSeyemmber 30,1987 /"Propgesd Rules

• J l

researchers secasve grants from the Netional VI. The 8duconomel Esempelser Asflerer Science Fa=*- as welLu Manheetae Colley, .

Sound AsWar Adsey and e nodfrsos of

• Walter Metystik.

If the Commiasson abandons the Support for Educatm educations! exemption. Cornell will be Given the significant benents realland by y,,,,,,,,p,,,,,, y ,,y,,,,(og;,g,43,,

forced to seek tacreased hderal grants to Monhetson College Pkwy. Brorur. NY #0471.

cover the NRCcharges. Rather than the nuclear industry frorn university research accomplishing the budgetary goals of the and education. any additional fees imposed I on commercial licensees to cover costs saac unemIrian Technology Omnibus Reconciliation Act. Public Law No. George %:rnmw.

1o1-508.104 Stat.1358 (1990),ihe associated with conprofit educational

) reactors are a bargain, not a burden.

Commission's action will merely shift Onector. Office ofSponsored Progmms.

' Commercial power reactors have hinorically Mossochusetts Institu te of Technology. 77 4

' *7fs cc rt i I n .$ i been the only NRC licensees asked to absorb usetts A nptwm6110 is seif+vident that a transfer of funds from the cost of supporting educational reactors. -

one agency to another fails to increase federal The 57.1 million in fiscal year 1993 costs By-revenus " flondo Power & Light Co. v. associated with licensmg nonprofit North Carolion State University.

Uruted States. 846 F 2d 765. 771 (D.C Cir. educational reactors. if divided equally 1988L Dr. larry Monteith.

among the 100 commercial power reactors 4

if Cornell attempted to recoup the NRC less now in operation, amounts to only 365.000 Chancellor. North Carolina State Universary through general tuition increases rather than per commercial reactor and adds a mere 2% A HollodayHoll. Sos 7002, Ro/cigh. NC through grants, all students many of whom to the proposed everage fee for commercial 27695-7001*

recene extensive financial and frorn the reactors. See Proposed Rule. Se FR at 21674. By-government and private funds. would be The costs borne by power reactor licensees Reed Colley.

forced to subsidize a relatively small could, la the Commission's discretion, be Steven Koblik, department at the university. Alternatively, a deceased somewhat by spreading them . President. Reed College. 3203 Southeast maeor increase in laboratory fees imposed on equitably among a!! commercial licensees.

nuclear science and engineering students Woodstock 8/vd Pberland. OR 97202.

alone would place the pmgram utterly That federal sources stready support extensive nuclear research and education et B-U beyond their Saancial reach. Cost incmases n naty of Rhode Island, of such magnitude would make any both private and public institutions speaks to mstitution's nuclear program a prime target the national importance of this discipline. buis 1. Saccoaio.

f r elimination. h Commission's traditional exemption for AssistantispalCounsel Corforal j Since the Commission,s Final Rule seeks to nonprofit educational facilities reflects a Adamsstrorson Bldg. Ofsce ofthe Cenom/

colfect annua! charges for fiscal year 1993, it history of federal support for higher Counsel. Univers#ty of Risode lsland.

also tarvetens to disru t university budgets, education reflected in universitaes' nonprong Kingston. R102ast.

tax status and exemplined by the Morrill Act. By.

r th ar. e e which first established land-grant collesse such as many of the Petitioners. The eflores & Board of Trusases of The University of 1

1 significant lag time required for approval cf Illinois.

grant proposals. It may take as long as two of Congrees and the NRC to reduce the '

years for universities to learn whether Donald A. Hones.

federal budest doncil are preisowarthy, but monies necessary to cover the maior expense only if this effort encourasse growth by Assoesear Uniwrsity Counsel. Uniwrrity of of NRC fees will even be eveilable. This stmngtheems the nation e long-standing llliness. Suise 258, Henry Admmastmtie rt financial stress comes as a shock to the suponority la scione and technology. In tne ggggg* Sids.. SOS South Wnght Strust. Urbano. it educational mmmunity in the woke of the long term. the loss of the Coeuniesion's Commission's vigomus argument supporting educadonal esemption will hinder the - By' j adv=

the emomption in its Proposed Rule.* t of nudent scisam. the nuclear N Curstors of the University of Missouri, 1

Although the Comrnission propoons to industry, the NRC itself, and the national Phillip J. Hoskins.

alleviate the financial burden on colleges and interset.

4 universities by considering individual Counsel. Unswrsity of Massouri Syssem. 227 requests for exemption from annual fees and m CMw Universsty Hall. Coham6se. MO 65212.

for installment payments, these sugestions For the foreping reasons. Petitioners By:

provide small consolation. Installment payment plans fail to addrene the real request that the Cor=% remnsider its N " " 4 * * ** M'" "

Final Rule and reinstate its annual Iso Charles N. Estes. Jr..

problem confronting universitiee-how to esempties for nonproSt educational pay for such annual fees at all Furthermoso University Counesi. University ofNew institut6aes. Mexico.150 SchoJes Hall. Albuquergue. NM any attempt by the Commission to examine Respefully submM #####'

4 numerous Individual exemption requests s

could consume more NRC administrative B: Y gy J

resources than a blanket educational Cornell University, b Unims ty of Texas System, ememption. N sheer number of universities Shirley K. Egan. Robert CiJdings.

joining in this petition underscores this Attorney. N University of Temos Sysaset.

concern- A=~seCounsel.CornellUniversity 500 DeyHou hhone.NYt40$M001. 201 West Sewnth Street. Austsn. TX 73701.

i By-uGrants Iroen the Alonuc Energy Comh and the National Scienca Foundeslea first ensbisd for Carnell University, Cornell te obtain tu two reactors. See Oswid D. Joseph C Bell.Melissa R. knee. Williases T. Evans.

Cark. The Nudser Frontest- Comets Ausmas of Hogan & Nortson. 555 Thartoonth Street. NW., Educatione/ Division Chief. Usoh Attorney

, Bosuc and Apphed llsenarch Carnell Eag'g G.

Spring iset.at 3. Washington. DC20000-2200. Generol'sOffim, AsneficietI#s Tomar,12th ,

u Sea Final Rule. se PR at 38675. Proposed Rule.

Pf 3e South Seear Street. Salllake City.

By- UT841II )

sa ilt er riese ("The Nhon pm '

conunue to esempt these Inanprofit : fesas se ,)Kanens State University.

Servim :asy be made upon.  ;

bcensees Irorn taas for FYs 1991.1992 and 1983. Eassebeum. *  ;

as it has inn many years in the past * * * !and) keeph C SellAliass R. knee. .  !

Assisesnt Universsey Attorney. Kansas Saite

" continues to beheve that *educauonal resserch University. !I AnoreeviHall.Manhetsen.K5 Magen s@rrtson. $Jg Thirteenth Street. NW..

prowdes no important benefit to the nuclear j 665064fI5. washington. DC20006-1209. Counselfor industry and the pubisc et large and should nos be j CorriellUniversity '

discouraged'"1Icatations onuttedL 4

T Den kly M. MSS.

I i

I I

j ,

poder.1 nasheer / vol. ss No. is* / wedneedey, sv-5 29, toes / Proposed neries sesos

,r 6.hm i pmduced. ai cae be neede eveinabiossose .nd i ha.e nothing io ede yose sis.em,ne, July 15.1993. more widely at sero meramental cost. This except to point out that recovery in the form means d f a Hat ekge on bmnnes*m6ciones is

. Ms. Shirley K. Egan,  !

I ' 8'C'88 't- 8uPerior to e specific charge by the Assocrete Uniwrsity Coernest. 500 Day Hoff.  !

Cornell Unwrsity. Jthoce. NY f 4853. That fact, takes together with the dif5culty University for portreular p.eas of '

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

submission to the NRC captures most of the appmpristing the benefits ofit in charges to I urge you to consider expending the argument that I and. I am sure, the Circuit p tential u em thow benefits em argument slightly along these lines, mainly Court had in mind. largely unpredictable-together make the because I think I can assure you that anyone There is one observation you make, stmng and universally recogniwd case for who raises the possible consideration of l however, that I think can usefully be pubhc financing of pure research. h externahtins will be receptive to such an expanded. and it is an argument that anyone University a pobey, which you do cornetly

! famihar with the literature on externahties emphasize, of conducting resnerch on a non. expansion g' to embrace the concept of pubhc

! would quickly appreciate. It has do with the Pmpnetary beris is therefore-as you clearly imply but do not.1 think. strees ustely-- g.,, taken the hberty of correcting a few social benefits of the non-propnetary pure minur errors on the draft you sent me and resesn.h to which you allude, and of the socially highly desirable. and it wou d be associated practice of not chargmg possible users for eccess to the knowledge that it both futile for universities to try to riscover the cost by charging potential users and "j'[* "[g" 8 9

]'

socially and economically undesirable for any additional assistanca.

produces.

them to do so. With best regeerds.

Pure knowledge is the archetypal **public ,

good."in omnornic terms, the sesential This does not answer tt.e question of who Sincerely.

• charactenstic of which is that,once should pay the chargee in question: on this Alfred Kahn.

ExHsBIT A-NUCLEAR REACTOR BUDGETS. USE, AND FEDERAL. FUNDING AT PETmONER INSTITUTIONS Annual essor No. poressus useig seemor Percentage of dept. budget insstuton Dude- m,, g,,, (Immumplyed etadenteNruler- frorn leoeral sources (per-l yeeaeces) et (

m cent)

ComesUrar 5240.00s 124.aec 3Fi12G 52.

Kansas Semes Unsv 134.est E100 4RFGGIU 67 Marvismen Catsge 15.000 62.100 SFPMGtNU Not Avedeada.e M.I.T e 1.270.000 82.tet 3548G53U 63.

N. Casoline State User den non M.100 fft0GE7U 21 Reed Catege 80.000 $2.100 SFMGft3U 31 Urov. Innois-Urtiene s 200A100 - IM,2WI 4R148 75.

Urev. lassourmate

• Ina sem g3.1g0 GRt3GOEU Not Avedeble.

Urw. New Mexico 27.000 62.100 W MGGBU 80.

Unrv. Rtiode Isaand . 533,760 62.100 22H12G 86.

Urw. Texas Ausen 267.183 62.100 4M1G 100.

Urw. Utah 30.000 82.100 Eft 0GRU 48.

• Comitared ligure lor trie two rootsoro et Cosnes a FecSty operates et a detest of 3650.000.

• Correined Agure for me two reactore et lances-Urtiana.

• Dese nom sie Rote cargus mector only.

e Toms teet endesal yarse ser ese Depsiement my =e.n 340,gos, hbiw 5 studied by determining .isiduos of labeled National Tseenpertauca Safety Board. Within Nuclear Reectar Prayams et Petitanner oils on treated sprh-as. Mucimer motbods the Universary, the resoor is used mostly by Institutions of chamcwtsettom ter trecs elements hoes chereastry students followed by mim been a key to runolvtag many metertels ensiamones students, itessesch is ~-W Corne$ University quattty issues for silkma semiconductor in a wide sense of Solds lacauding geology, In its 30 years of operstman. the Cornell device fabrication. bioher, animal scamenos, textiles, and graan TRICA has been used extenehgly in Cornell has the only cold neutron beam sciences, undergraduate and gredames coeress and program et a univenfty ruector in the United research by non-sp-emam le one propect. States. WhW'8' neutron-induced ausasedleyeptry is used to Additional nuclear methods that will The college's saeching and research reactor map the location of spenGod to shortly come into use et Cornell leclude program is privese and pnmerdy revent images in the saammelee prompt gamma-roy neutron activee6ce undergradunas k is very esmall but painted by artists as a pelating eenives fuese analysis and neutros daysh pseeltag lamed economically rua. As the caly toeching and preliminary sketch to nnel version. This non- on reonoonerystic conversias electress research reactor in the eas@m New destructive technique allows the art histortes produmd by neutros ressuoes as well as the York area available to Am--a to infer the artist's developing intentions,lar familiar method bened es alpha partide or in - a = it provides a sacadoint resourcs another neutron radiography is used to study proton prodisction. for the asses Three to four area insututions of the distnbution of water between smis and higher learnang regularly use it far teaching the roots of living plants. Neutron activation hasos SImee UM and summerch. Culkges sock as New York analysis is widely used in archaeology to The pmyern et Kansas State is valmebis ta Manthna Collegs would otherwies have no characterize elemental counpositions of institutions without research and teaching access to mach e inc$ty. In addition, articles mach as ponary shards and obsidien reactors. The school's reactor, under the hundreds of ares high school and middle and metallic artifacts. Sufidmet diHerences Department of Energy Reactor Sharing school students enjoy tours and in elemental composition among cley sources proyam. is used by 13 dtHerent lastftutions, desnoastrations at the reactor each year as

distinguish local wares from imported ones. including Stanford. louisiana State, the part of their science curnculum. The school The effectiveres of deterpets has base University of Southern California, and the distria le which the college is located has

. . ~ . - . . . , _ . . - . - , _ , . . , , . . _ _ . . _

1

~50864 Federal Register / Vcl. 58, No.187 / Wednesday, Sept:mber 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules the highest proportion of minonty students (21 Synergistse Effwes on Carbon Linsters water content. This work has application in of any community school distnct in New Profen to assess synergistic effects of both York City. and among the highest in the both the oil well core logging industry and neutmn esposure and ion bombardment to nation. in the waste disposal area. In a third protect. i carbon limiters m fusion reactors by providmg long tenn arradiation of carbon foils of d3fferent matenals are activated to Afassachusetts Inst 2tute of Technokgy detennme '. ent resp nsn w themal samples:(3) Neutmn Ansvation Analvsas in A lan e researth prtgam is carned on at many quantitative analysis needs such as neutrons arad to analyze content, particularly the MIT Researth Center. In Nuclear environmental monitonr:g. forensic and with respect to impunties that may be ,

Engmeenng there are studies in (1) Dose enmmal work. certification of material prnent. A retent doctorsl research protect '

F-duction in which presrunred loops that punty, raparth tagging for study of marme examiried the role of fuzzy lope controllers stimtJate both PWR and BWR environments larval dispersion, analysis of mercury in fish in nuclear reactor contml. The conclusion haie been constructed and cperated in the tissue analysts of fossil power plant 1 was that furry logic contmilers appear to be t core of the reactor for the purpose of reservoirs for selenium, and industnal identif mg coolant chemistnes that will feasible and useful den appbed to rod tagmg and (4)Neurmn Depth Profilmg . positioning and timing.

mmamaze cormston.(2)Irmdsorion Assisted Protect consistmg of charactenzation studies i Stress Cormsson Cmcimg to mvestigate the of borosihcate glass films on sibcon wafers Uniwrs;ty of Rhode hland  ;

formation and growth of cracks in reactor '

structural alloys;(3) testmg the efficacy ofin- Reed Colly Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center has a Reed College is the only educational long history of conductmg environmental core sensors. known as the SENSOR Profect.

involvmg in-core sensors that detect changes mstitution in the United States to operate a research. The University of Rhode Island m electm chemical potennal(ECP) and the reactor without a graduate or engineenng Creduate School of Oceanography uses the effect of water chernistry additives on the program. Although under the Chemistry reactor to perform neutron activation analysis haltmg of crack g'owth; and (4) Digital Department, the reactor is used by six faculty on envimnmental samples collected from Control to develop and expenmentally venfy for classes in physics. natural science, and art locations all over the globe. Important a genenc rnethodology for the closed-loop history, as well as chemistry. Undergraduate research discovenes in acid rato. geology.

d[gital contml of neutronic power. core and faculty research involves about 5 and environmental pollution have been temperature, and other plant parameters. In students each year. however, in the last 2 achieved over the years because of t' over a decade of work results have included years approximately 20 faculty members demonstration of signal validation, the imm 11 additional colleges and universities availabihty of the reactor. The URI phy. ,

development of a superwory cont 11er have used the reactor facility for classes or department conducts extensive neutron '

research in the 6 elds of biology. chemistry, scanenng operunents at the reactor and cIntro cl f the t physa. environmental sciona, forensic usually has several post-doctoral researchers optunal tripectory-tracking of reactor power. science and art history. Each year as many as at the facility on a full tirne basia. As the only the on-line remnfiguration of control laws. 20 high school students use the facility for nuclear facility in the state. RINSC provides automated power mcreases from subcntical. classes and research. A non credit. semester a signifimat number of tours to students from and the use of various forms of feedback. seminer senes on " reactor.rediation and the high schools and universities. The positive -

Parallels between mntrol stratepes for environment"is oh m the pubhc. uses of nuclear technology in envimnmental reactors charactenzed by spatisi dynamics Between 30 and 50 pie ettend it each year. tethirds d not afEsted with and metanals research can be observed on a and control of multi-modular reactors have first hand basis.

also been studied. Reed Couaga.

Spece Science also benefits from the Uniwessty ofClinois-Urbano Uniwrsity of Texas Research Center with studies to detettnine The University ofIllinois Nuclear Reactor Researth curmitly under way at the the feasibility of low-temperature annealing of radiation.mduced defects in electmnac 1.aborato is a twreactor facihty.using the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Lab includes cesw oa

• Advance TRIGA and LOPRA reactors. the (1) Temos Cold Neutron Source Profect for mmQats Pa g

9ns d Neutron Activation Analysis meterials the development of a neutron source with TP(

8 damage studies and nuclear pumped laser low neutron energies for research la prompt su to o t e o ce rmarch are the research foci of sne facility, samma activation and scattering: (2) Neutron conversion in spacecraft reactors. ** 88 it8t**C D8 8

• Depth ProNing Pmpet for the measurement Neutron activation analysis and track-etch Unierrify of Missour>Rolla of boron and other (n.a) ruections to ,

techniques are being used to Earth Scienms- The pnmary uses of the reactor at the Ro!!a determine depth conantrations in various i to inv to fundamental questions about materials such as glass and silicon:(3) campus of the University of Missourt are the earth metsonte composition, leva education and training of graduate and Neutron Coprum TherapyProyect for characteristigs, and crack g owth in granitic undergraduate students and nuclear-related measurements of the does to heed phantoms rock to contaneetal dnft. Neutron activotlan resserch. The reactor is used mostly by is also being used to study the movements from the neutron activation of gadolinium; students from the 6 elds of nuclear (4) various Neutron Activation Projects in and trece the origins of atmospher6c engineering, chemistry. life science, and l pollutants- bysics. In addition. about 540 students and support of investigators, including irradiation of biological Guids, geological samples, and l North Carolmo Stats Uniwredty from der institutions m the others; and (5) Dagsent Asoctor ControI Project i Since 1973 the university's macter has Irt e _t dan amBcial

! Shanog Pmgram. ,

been used to support "Reemardt Ranctor intelligonos software tool to provide software

• l Training" for local utilities' training of University ofNewMerke functional diversity.

l licensed reactor operators. Newly evellable in Four resserch protects have been cartied 1990 are traming pmgrams for individuals in out usingthe AGN-201M reactor over the Uniwresty Useh j the industrial mmmunity. such as engineers, past seven years. One of the makr reemerch 'Its program at the University of Utah is supervisors, and maintenana personnel, to proiscts involves -ement of basic strengthen their understanding of how a multidisciplinary la nonare, allowing physics parameters in a highly thennel resserchers la a variety of Selds to discover power reactor operates. Representalve of the system. No other thermal facility systeen has the potential of reactor use. The reacta la research uses of the university's reactor are the Benbility and low intrino6c sensa the (1) Irrodiotson of Reactor Vessef Sleek used mostly by nuclear engineers.

strength requised for this research. This Profect for long term irradiation performed in feature is unique to the universi facilities, Animi engtaean, chemical engineers.

specially designed baskets in the reactor. a A second protect is a small sun reactivity '"d electronic 8"

protect seeking a better understanding of measurement technique that is ing applied (FR Doc. 93-23g36 Filed S-28-93; 8 45 aml degradation of the physical properties of steel to geologic semples to determine their ,

in the reactor vessels et nuclear power plants. thermal neutron cross sections and relative m oces -

6

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -