ML20058K388
| 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: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR50859, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9312150190 | |
| Download: ML20058K388 (10) | |
Text
.
p b
...se "c p
uq y
jjT E
UNITED STATES
- 3p
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 6 1
%g j
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 i
institutions.
Following the publication of the final rule, the Comission received a petition from Cornell and eleven other universities for reconsideration of. the j
final rule and requesting reinstatement of the exemption for nonprofit j
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,
/
1 g M. -
s M.
ay r ecutive D rector for Operations
Enclosure:
i Proposed Rule.
i l
l l
l I
g; 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' 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 OCh DAF y #
D 0FFICE:
CB C
DO NAME:
n ois EBlack er JFunches RSc gins ylor
[o DATE:
93
/0/6/93 g/j/93 g/4 /93
/d/f /93
/0 7/93 BB-[
J
(
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 2073 (42 USC 2239). Sections 2.20M.206 number of small entities. The proposed also issued under secs.161 b.1. o,182.186, rule sets forth the time frame within 234. 68 Stat. 948-951. 955. 83 Stat. 444, as 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 as amended (42 USC 4332). Sections Regulatory Commission ("NRC"or part 2. subpart L The proposed rule, by 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 issued under 5 USC 557. Section 2.764 and licensees for fiscal year 1993. The final within the definition of"smallentities" as set forth in section 601(3) of the table 1 A of appendix C also issued under rule eliminated a generic exemption Regulatory Flexibility Act, or within the secs.135.141. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 2232.
from annual fees 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 (educational exemption). Following in section 3 of the Small Business Act.
amended (42 USC 21331 and 5 UAC 552.
publication of this rule, the Commission 15 U.S.C. 632, or within the small Sections 2.800 and 2.80s also issued under business size standards contained in 13 mceived a petition for reconsideration
)
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 Anal sis Stat. 579, as amended (42 USC 2039L I
This proposed rule does not involve, Subpart K also issued under sec.189. 68 Stat. Commission views th any new provisions which would 955 (42 USC 2239h sec.134. Puh. L 97-request to conduct a new rulemaking to
{
impose backfits as defined in to CFR 425. 96 Stat. 2230 (42 UAC 101541. Subpast amend the final rule by restoring the 50.109(a)(1). Accordingly, no backfit L also issued under sec.1ao. 68 Stat. 955 (42 exemption.De Commission grants the analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(c)is U.S C 2239). Appendix A alsoissued under request for a new rulemaking. The new requimd for this proposed rule.
sec. 6. Pub. L 91-560. 64 Stat.1473 (42 rulemaking reconsiders whether
{
U S C 2135).
nonprofit educational institutions List of Subjects to CFR Part 2 should remive a generic exemption Administrative practice and
- 2. In $ 2.1205(c), introductory text is imm annual fees e Commissim i
procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct republished and paragraph (c)(2)is mquests pubhc comment on that revised to read as follows:
q e ru makt p eding j
material. Classified information.
g Environmental protection. Nuclear 52.1205 Rectueet for a hearing, pettuon for quesdon.
materials. Nuclear power plants and twvetointemena.
caTE:Cmunent period expires October reactors. Penalty. Sex discrimination.
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 within assure consideration only for comments preamble and under the authority of the received on or before this date.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended:
ADORESSES: Submit written comments the Energy Reorganization Act of1974.
(2) If a Federal Register notics is not to: Secetary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory as amended; and 5 U:5.C. 553.the NRC published in 6:ordance with paragraph Commission. Washington.DC 20555 is proposing to adopt the following (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 to 15 (g*n PARf 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FORreceives actual notics of a pending pi 20 5 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-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$ER seFontiATion cowTA Part.
gg gg g gQ n 2.101 also ssu u er 53 Counsel U.S.NuclearRegulatory
- 62. 63. 81.103.104,105. 68 Stat. 930. 932 933,935. 936,937,938, as amended (42 Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this 23rd deY Gmmissiam Washingte.DC 20555 P *Pternber.1993.
telephone 301-504-1606.
USC 2073,2092. 2093. 2111. 2133. 2134 IS 2135h sec.114(fl. Pub. L 97-425,96 Stat.
2213. as amended (42 U.S.C 10134(fil; sec.
For the Nuclear Regulatory f%mmlarion.
AM WometAR 102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853. es amended Sassual J.Chilk.
- 1. Background.
(42 USC 4332h sec. 301. 88 Stat.1248 (42 3*C"'"'I'I8A' O"#""
II. Section-by-section analysis.
USC 5871). Sections 2102. 2.103,2.104
[FR Doc. 93-23835 Filed 9-28-93;8:45 eml
- m. Environmental impact categorical 2.105. 2.721 also issued under seca.102.
exclusion.
te.A.ses coca rses.es e 103,104,105,183.189. 68 Stat. 936. 937 IV. Paperwora reduction act statement.
V. Regulatory analysis.
i.-
SesES Federal Em5nster / Vol. 58. No.187 / * --'-W September 29, 1993 / N - i ihmiss 1
VI. Regulatory flexibthty analysis.
institutions attght be able 60 sunke letter espass het it is"ieei$ cent" and 1
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 of that knowfedge "are largely pubbshed its final annual fee rule for FR 38669) The two dissenting unpredictable " Letter from Alfred Kahn 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 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 applicable to nonprofit educational colleges and umversities protestmg the (petition at 8-91. Usmg Cornell 4
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 institutions t
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).
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 in this saimmaking, does not propese nonprofit educational institutions that the knowledge generated by univers!.
m 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 restoration of the exemption reflects a current best information and best
!!.Section-by-Section Analysis 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 amended b adding nonprofit educationafinstitutions, as defined in nuclear industry to numerous other formerly exempted educational educational activities, to the NRC itself hcensees to apply for individual pubh.c and to the public at large.
snterest exemptions. Therefore, the
$ 171.5, to the list of those entities The, Commission solicits public Commission requests nonprofit exempted from annual fees by the comment on its proposed rule that educational hceasees not to seek such Commission. A dir.cussion of this would restore the exemption. Comments exemptions at this time. lf after change ;a fee policy is found in Section on other annual fee issues will not be reconsideration, the Comm,ission Iof this proposed rule, 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 The NRC has determined that this
" externalized benefits" of non-power
?xemptions. The Commission will hold reactors and the use of licensed nuclear in abeyance allindividual exem tion proposed rule is the type of action materials in various educational requests it already has received mm descnbed in cst *gorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Yherefore, neither an activities and related msearth at ed do eisfu Irefu s ta nonprofit environmental assessment nor an colleges and universities. However, the Commission is interested in more data educational licensees who may have environmental impact statement has on the benefits of non-power reactors paid the FY 1993 annual fee will be been prepared for the proposed 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 k]h'g*;cP seso"Yo a
the FY 1993 This proposed rule contains no the petition for reconsideration that non-power reactors and the use of annual fee will be advised accordingly information collection requirements hcensed nuclear matenals in what action if any,is needed if they and, therefore. is not subject to the educational activities are prime choose to rescind those applications as requirements of the Paperwork a result of this rulemaking.
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 examples of activities that provide There is one n I point w'arranting et seql externalized benefits" warrantmg clarification. The FY 1993 final rule pubhc support.
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 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 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 i
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
(C) An e rimental fa fity in the enta r en, an eo r
he an S 5 the p,
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.
PART 17f-ANNUAL FEES FOR Dated at Rochilie.MD this 23d day of regtstratzons and appmvals and for licenses issued to Government agencies REACTOR OPERATING UCENSES.
Septemts r 1993.
AND FUEL CYCLE UCENSES AND For the Nuclear Regulatory Cbmmiss.on, take into account the type of facility o' approval and the classes of the MATERIALS UCENSES, INCLUDING 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 10 CFR part 171. which established 100-203.101 Stat.1330. as amended by Sec.
exemption oc the grounds that colleges and 3201. Pub. L 101-239.103.<txt. rtos ar fees based on the FY 1989 budget, were amended l'y sec. 6101. Peb. L 101-50s.104 univernnes could mas renddy pass the seat of the fees on no sendems thveugh netwa and also legally cha!!enged. As a result of 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 in Flonda Power and Light.all of the 3125. i42 ES.C 224 namh benefits of education pueentiaDy supported 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 VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis applied for by, or issued to, a nonprofit erred and r==panmity request that the 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.
iducatacoal rioU significant sconomic impact on,
This amumptian dass nat apply to those substantial number of small entitter bypsoduct. sonsu.er atur=I nuclear A16angh se h.a na Ansed.W The proposed rule affects about 110 maeortal Isansas which authorias:
I"Id MM,_g;996 n
operating power reactors which are not (i) as use:
considered to be small endtfes.
(ii) Remunerated services to other g
nonprofiteducationalfacihties the' count P*
suggested a valid reason for exempting VR W AQns M6 e
The NRC has determmed that the tonalor Ma M*[NL',"fiww nu backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109, does not bypsoduct matenal sourts unsterialor RegehseryCamunw.see F.2d He (D C Cr. Iml.
apply to this proposed rule and that a backfit analysis is not required for this sp(ecial nuclear maesraml:or disci===s is anso a sqba i,) Activities pare===ed = malar a 8'd.a*15L - Eaa$a proposed rule. The beckht analysis is Governraent rant-re
- FY s90s ad 20e2 Final Reie M
'ns the not required because these amendmarns (2) Federallyowood amesarch rescases M C8WM of APPenis Decision and mortaion of Fes do not require tha =~W-Hon of or used primanly for arlunniemal training NNE7M$,E,,y additions to systems, stret===-
and armia==ar semensch purpesus. Foe 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 that-Z'f
- N"",*
j 'Y "
- or orgaruzation requised to design.
(i)is 1-maad by the kiclear cor vensionen *,umpsumete seu sise Asse fpelf construct or operate a facihty.
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 business benencieries is superror to a specific beoeSts" of education "that cannot be 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
l Id. at 151. Indeed, the Allied-Signal court and for the whole governroent." the of knowledge." Id. The Commission's i
explemed that "there is et least a serious Commission arcwed in the course ofits relatively small costs associated with l
possabahty" that the Commission can rulemaking process. Id. ne wide array of licensing educational reactors may easil be Y
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
" 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 seek in thts petition to provide the exemption for nonproSt educational factlities Prgraner Commission with additaonal information is wholly consistent with "externalised Not only is it economically inefficient to about the considerable externalized beneSts benefits" economic theory. As levy annual fees on university research of nuclear reactor programs at nonproSt Commissioners Remick and DePlampus reactors. It also placee an undue Anancial educational institutions.
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 Benefits to the CommercialNuclearIndustry g,Ponsable to bole society industry and the general public alike.ie The Maal Rule,54 F.
situation at Cornell is illustrative of these and the Generalpublic
,o, g st to g,,,",,,,3,,,y, g,,,.R e pasential problema.n Carnou uses two
,,, g, Universities, including the Petitioners, benents of nuclear reactor proyams et mectors for =~h=6 and rossardi. The larger, train scientists and engineers who enter the 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 faculty, anony of whose hs" s From smund breaking discovers to vital h emaust operating budget rues worked in the Sold, since its ladency, laseres mm data, un
' nucisar resserch is appsertmeesty $230.000.5 The pupposed the students in basic research and new openly publisbod d heely debased to NRC annual tse for Cornell's sencero-nts would the
,E SWh NPmeents our half of the g,y,
' M"eeea"greia/dnc"' p,*;m6pga a dc-,,;
""ind."ed %veren.nasdiemi.
-d r
nuclear industry.
mcremsstal cost. Imeter Besa ited Kahe soma dgreat maales supportlas CaneWs Nuclear engena-tag progrens, which can thrive only by tacteding hachen '--Gr 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 i
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 behavior of reactors under severe acxMeat the "buyams" or sendmet inck n=e===n==>
subsesselmi grunt names but also doosses all 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 d
moderators, and other of e m **
- monP'UPdeary n u meh
,eh m be ak W h it siey i
in the forms impen numa and naspecuan inn.
edutath lines support what amed establiehud ask authority of the Independsat mactm systems.
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 rm,q g u,,,,,,,g Kaha immer a t 3 esses
- M PR1FS2thN* lite 88Humammynus p
techn ogy in Me es W es W 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 provide op ities imr proGembis Pot,,,3,j usass for ressesch and Panicular rammer lad 14etas, thear lampass am carmell and other unneeraties a to 8dDC8ti B+ 88 *'II 88 8 Ci80 8'd 7
esusinesA assommic and public pency comm ven h By operating nuc)ser reactora, aAw=nanal
% for exampnse college and niaherstums i.nstitutone assist gevaremost r FY 1998 and sees Prepamed Reis bem NIeC emmual less apply with tupass lurts to in oder impt wp
@e tbs U.S.Coen of Appamisrwm== sad IOAA foss, housser source of respected.la and Fee Schedules: Ice % Fee Recuoury, rY less, se PR
- e See Nuclear usacter Budgets. Usa, and Federal independent opinion as the hamstes and as,3,r.2 s.ee (Nuclear ar==y comm a, reading as punemer misuomaises enedied as 2 sea m a
,33 g.Propend aman") %
Enhms A.
1 burdens of nuclear t forasesesty
.see she '
strustemem madne isne seassunse emed prammely by esas addressing its implications.
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 50004 Fedesel Register 0WeL 54, hier / ~: "
i. Seyemmber 30,1987 /"Propgesd Rules i
J l
researchers secasve grants from the Netional VI. The 8duconomel Esempelser Asflerer Manheetae Colley, Science Fa=*- as welLu Sound AsWar Adsey and e nodfrsos of Walter Metystik.
If the Commiasson abandons the Support for Educatm educations! exemption. Cornell will be y,,,,,,,,p,,,,,, y,,y,,,,(og;,g,43,,
forced to seek tacreased hderal grants to Given the significant benents realland by 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
Omnibus Reconciliation Act. Public Law No.
on commercial licensees to cover costs saac unemIrian Technology 1o1-508.104 Stat.1358 (1990),ihe associated with conprofit educational George %:rnmw.
)
Commission's action will merely shift reactors are a bargain, not a burden.
Onector. Office ofSponsored Progmms.
Commercial power reactors have hinorically Mossochusetts Institu te of Technology. 77
- 7f
.$ i been the only NRC licensees asked to absorb usetts A 4
s cc rt i
I n is seif+vident that a transfer of funds from the cost of supporting educational reactors.
nptwm6110 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 Dr. larry Monteith.
1988L among the 100 commercial power reactors if Cornell attempted to recoup the NRC less now in operation, amounts to only 365.000 Chancellor. North Carolina State Universary 4
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.
Woodstock 8/vd Pberland. OR 97202.
nuclear science and engineering students That federal sources stready support alone would place the pmgram utterly B-beyond their Saancial reach. Cost incmases extensive nuclear research and education et U
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.
which first established land-grant collesse r
th ar.
e e
1 significant lag time required for approval cf such as many of the Petitioners. The eflores
& Board of Trusases of The University of Illinois.
1 grant proposals. It may take as long as two of Congrees and the NRC to reduce the Donald A. Hones.
years for universities to learn whether 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 Sids.. SOS South Wnght Strust. Urbano. it ggggg*
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
the emomption in its Proposed Rule.*
adv=
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.
universities by considering individual Counsel. Unswrsity of Massouri Syssem. 227 4
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 request that the Cor=% remnsider its N " " 4 * * ** M'" "
payment plans fail to addrene the real Final Rule and reinstate its annual Iso Charles N. Estes. Jr..
problem confronting universitiee-how to esempties for nonproSt educational University Counesi. University ofNew pay for such annual fees at all Furthermoso institut6aes.
any attempt by the Commission to examine Mexico.150 SchoJes Hall. Albuquergue. NM numerous Individual exemption requests Respefully submM 4
g B:
could consume more NRC administrative y
Y s
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 A=~seCounsel.CornellUniversity 500 Attorney. N University of Temos Sysaset.
concern-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 Bosuc and Apphed llsenarch Carnell Eag'g G.
Hogan & Nortson. 555 Thartoonth Street. NW.,
Educatione/ Division Chief. Usoh Attorney Spring iset.at 3.
Washington. DC20000-2200.
Generol'sOffim, AsneficietI#s Tomar,12th Pf 3e South Seear Street. Salllake City.
u Sea Final Rule. se PR at 38675. Proposed Rule.
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.
- keeph C SellAliass R. knee..
as it has inn many years in the past * * * !and)
Assisesnt Universsey Attorney. Kansas Saite University. !I AnoreeviHall.Manhetsen.K5 Magen s@rrtson. $Jg Thirteenth Street. NW..
continues to beheve that *educauonal resserch 665064fI5.
washington. DC20006-1209. Counselfor j
prowdes no important benefit to the nuclear industry and the pubisc et large and should nos be CorriellUniversity j
discouraged'"1Icatations onuttedL T
Den kly M. MSS.
4 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-Assocrete Uniwrsity Coernest. 500 Day Hoff.
8uPerior to e specific charge by the 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 to embrace the concept of pubhc g'
would quickly appreciate. It has do with the Pmpnetary beris is therefore-as you clearly g.,, taken the hberty of correcting a few social benefits of the non-propnetary pure imply but do not.1 think. strees ustely--
resesn.h to which you allude, and of the socially highly desirable. and it wou d be minur errors on the draft you sent me and associated practice of not chargmg possible both futile for universities to try to riscover "j'[* "[g"
]'
8 9
users for eccess to the knowledge that it the cost by charging potential users and produces.
socially and economically undesirable for any additional assistanca.
Pure knowledge is the archetypal **public them to do so.
With best regeerds.
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-et (
l yeeaeces) cent) m 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
.. ~. -..
~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 both the oil well core logging industry and York City. and among the highest in the neutmn esposure and ion bombardment to in the waste disposal area. In a third protect.
i nation.
carbon limiters m fusion reactors by foils of d3fferent matenals are activated to providmg long tenn arradiation of carbon Afassachusetts Inst 2tute of Technokgy samples:(3) Neutmn Ansvation Analvsas in detennme '. ent resp nsn w themal 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 was that furry logic contmilers appear to be 1
core of the reactor for the purpose of reservoirs for selenium, and industnal feasible and useful den appbed to rod t
identif mg coolant chemistnes that will tagmg and (4)Neurmn Depth Profilmg.
positioning and timing.
i mmamaze cormston.(2)Irmdsorion Assisted Protect consistmg of charactenzation studies 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 core sensors. known as the SENSOR Profect.
Reed College is the only educational long history of conductmg environmental 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 over a decade of work results have included years approximately 20 faculty members achieved over the years because of t' 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 and metanals research can be observed on a and control of multi-modular reactors have year. tethirds d not afEsted with 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 feasibility of low-temperature annealing The University ofIllinois Nuclear Reactor Researth curmitly under way at the 1.aborato is a twreactor facihty.using the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Lab includes of radiation.mduced defects in electmnac Advance TRIGA and LOPRA reactors.
the (1) Temos Cold Neutron Source Profect for mmQats Neutron Activation Analysis meterials the development of a neutron source with cesw oa
- Pa g
TP(
9ns d damage studies and nuclear pumped laser low neutron energies for research la prompt 8
rmarch are the research foci of sne facility, samma activation and scattering: (2) Neutron su to o t
e o ce 88 it8t**C D8 8
- Depth ProNing Pmpet for the measurement conversion in spacecraft reactors.
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 campus of the University of Missourt are materials such as glass and silicon:(3) 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 is also being used to study the movements resserch. The reactor is used mostly by 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 support of investigators, including irradiation l
pollutants-bysics. In addition. about 540 students and l
North Carolmo Stats Uniwredty from der institutions m the of biological Guids, geological samples, and others; and (5) Dagsent Asoctor ControI Project i
Since 1973 the university's macter has Shanog Pmgram.
Irt e
_t dan amBcial 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 multidisciplinary la nonare, allowing strengthen their understanding of how a 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 strength requised for this research. This used mostly by nuclear engineers.
Profect for long term irradiation performed in feature is unique to the universi facilities, Animi engtaean, chemical engineers.
'"d electronic 8"
specially designed baskets in the reactor. a A second protect is a small sun reactivity 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
-