ML20064H052

Forwards Jt Park Re Implications of NRC Change in Policy for Exemption of non-profit Institutions for Review & Response

ML20064H052
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Rolla
Issue date:	12/08/1993
From:	Danforth J SENATE
To:	Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20064H048	List: ML20064H052
References
FRN-58FR21116, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9403170140
Download: ML20064H052 (3)

Text

_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - .

I JOHN C. DONFORVN ,

, cowwnus

['"*- -

NoT/5s',$EfEc's simes

~'-'=

Enited $tates st11att e WASHINGTON. DC 20510-2502 December 8, 1993 Dr. Ivan Selin Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Dr. Selin My constituent, Dr. John T. Park, Chancellor of the Uni-versity of Missouri, Rolla has brought to my attention a mat-ter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission (NRC).

I am concerned about the implications of the NRC's change in policy regarding the exemption of non-profit insti-tutions of higher education from licensing fees. Particular-ly, the fiscal impact that such a change will have on col-leges and universities which utilize nuclear reactors in conjunction with their training and education mission.

I refer this matter to your agency for a preliminary examination. I would appreciate receiving your comments, in i duplicate, together with the return of correspondence.

Your careful attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

@g- S Danforth tw' y.

9403170140 940110 1

h5 R21116 PDR

9 August 17, 1993 page 2 We understand the logic of having users pay the full cost of licensing and inspection. Indeed, there is a set of non-profit research reactors that do a substantial amount of service work for l which they charge fees and recover costs. We wish to make it clear l that the UMR Reactor is not one of these. Our purpose is to educate future nuclear engineers and reactor operators; our mission is almost entirely one of education and training. The source of support for our reactor is state financing and student-generated tuition fees. If we were to pass on the cost of fees, it would amount to a laboratory charge of more than $1500 per year per undergraduate student enrolled in nuclear engineering. With such a charge, I doubt that we would have many such students in the near future.

We have a substantial file on this matter and would be happy to share with you any or all of it. I am deeply appreciative of any help that you may be able to render us in this matter. l

,Ch rs sincerely,

/f*"L ,s  ;

J n T. Park l

'ancellor '

niversity of Missouri-Rolla l

t l

a s

f If t, e t 'l the C h,gr 3c ,s!}< r n v II .

1- t, ,i UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURl ROLLA Missouro's Technological University The Honorable John Danforth 249-A Russell Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Danforth:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has made an abrupt and unexpected change in its policy concerning the exemption of non-profit educational institutions from licensing fees (Federal Register, July 20, 1993). This change in policy will have substantial financial impact on the University of Missouri-Rolla, (UMR) and its nuclear reactor. The NRC is imposing a full-cost-recovery annual licensing fee on us and all other non-profit, educational reactors. For FY 1993, which closes on September 30, 1993, the fee is $62,000; a similar fee is suggested for FY 1994 and thereafter. I am writing to alert you to this change and to the possibility that we, as a part of a concerted effort by a number of leading universities, may need legislative help with this onerous charge.

There are two possible avenues for relief. The first would be to convince the NRC to alter their rules and exclude non-profit educational institutions from the fee. Final rules for the fee were published on July 19, 1993, to become effective in 30 days, and with a ten-day period for filing for reconsideration. I might add that we received our bill withiri this ten-day period. A filing was made by Cornell University, with UMR and approximately ten other universities as co-petitioners. The petition requests NRC to reinstate the annual fee exemption. In addition to fees for the operation of the nuclear reactor, the fee exemption should cover our campus radioactive materials license that supports our educational effort.

The second avenue, if the first does not succeed, is to ask for an individual exemption for the UMR reactor. The final rules do l contain a sub-section for case-by-case exemptions. A request for I exemption must be filed by November 17, 1993. If the final rules are not amended to exclude U!!R's reactor, we will certainly file for an exemption. We have some anxiety about a successful petition for an exemption because the final rules are explicit about exemptions ,

being rare and unlikely. Should we file for an exemption, we will i notify your office and ask for your help in having it considered.

c. -,. ...~

.;. ; ; a;. ..... ..._... . .

1 CCNGRESSIONAL CCRRESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMINT PREPARATION CEECILIST "his checklist is be submitted with each ' document (or group of Qs/Asl sent for . ing into the Ccs.

2, . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) '/ CE E4' /1 e h -~

2. TYPE or-noccusur Correopendensen Isaringsu(Os N

3. DOCUMENT CouracL

! sensitive (NRC caly)X Ion-sensitive

4. CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEES (if. applicable)

Congressional Committee Subcommittee I

s

5. SUBJECT CC'0ES (a)

I l

(b) f (c)

6. SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS ,

I (a) 5520 I (document name.

(b) Scan. . (c) A'dachments (d) Rakey (e) Otl heir 1 l

7. SYSTEM LoS DATES

/) sl.-

(al 4 [/M/ Date. OCK esat. document. to Ces (b) Data CCS. Esseivoesdocument (c) Data returned to OCR for additional information l

~

(d) Data resubmitted by-och to CCS <-

(e) Data entered into CCS by (f) Date OCA notified that document is in CCS

8. COMMENTS

__ ___________________._______.______________________________________________________J