ML20136J246
| ML20136J246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1997 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Scroggins R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136J108 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR8885, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AF55-1-014, AF55-1-14, NUDOCS 9703200066 | |
| Download: ML20136J246 (3) | |
Text
a l[ $g -[
- l. p
,s k UNITED STATES ea l,
l q j 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4 001
\ ..... / February 5,1997 D,'7 -- -.e ,t " . . , ,
1 zu MEMORANDUM T0: Ronald M. Scroggins Acting Chief Financial Officer FROM: Carl J. Panerie% nirector Office of kuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING -- 10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 --
100 PERCENT FEE REC 0VERY FOR FY 1997 NMSS has reviewed the proposed rule and has concerns. The rule does not 3rovide an adequate rationale or justification for charging Part 170 fees for 1RC activities such as those addressed in NRR's Administrative Letter (e.g.,
changes to quality assurance plans, safeguards contingency plans, and emergency plans). While it is clear that NRC has to fully recover its budget through fees, it is not clear why Part 170 fees are now being proposed for these activities rather than continuing recovery under Part 171. The proposed rule does not clearly specify which licensed activities will be subject to Part 170 fees.
1 The attachment provides detailed comments in the following areas: (1) fee l changes based on the NRR Administrative Letter, (2) fees for the review of :
Long-Term Surveillance Plans for Title II sites, and (3) fees for DOE l independent spent fuel storage facilities. We would like OC to address NMSS' concerns and make appropriate revisions to the draft rule before we provide concurrence. Also note that R. Pierson is available to assist OC in determining the fee for USEC. Please contact Claudia Seelig if you have any questions.
Attachment:
As stated CONTACT: Claudia A. Seelig, PAB/PMDA/NMSS 1 415-7243 l l
l l
9703200066 970317 PDR PR PDR i'. ,,)Jd [ RG885 -.
6
~
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEE RULE Overall Comment The rule does not provide an adequate rationale or justification for charging Part 170 fees for NRC activities such as those addressed in NRR's Administrative Letter (e.g., changes to quality assurance plans, safeguards contingency plans, and emergency plans). While it is clear that NRC has to fully recover its budget through fees, it is not clear why Part 170 fees are now being pmTsad for these activities rather than continuing recovery under Part 171. The proposed rule does not clearly specify which licensed activities will be subject to Part 170 fees.
Specific Comments
- 1. Fee Chanoes Based on the NRR Administrative Letter The discussion does not clearly state which NRC actions would now require Part 170 fees.
- a. The proposed rule uses reactor examples but also uses language referring to " licensees" which could mean non-reactor licensees. If this is meant to apply to more than reactor licensees, the discussion and examples should describe which activities (and associated licensees) will be subject to Part 170 fees. For example, NMSS currently processes several types of actions that are analogous to the 50.54 reviews discussed in the draft fee rule (e.g. Part 70.32 reviews. deconnissioning funding plan reviews, and certain Part 72 reviews). Is the intent of the proposed rule to charge fees for this type of review (e.g., where NRC reviews licensee submittals to ensure they do not decrease the effectiveness)? If so. OC should seek OGC assistance to confirm all NRC activities or 10 CFR Parts that would now be subject to Part 170 fees because it is unclear for which specific activities this draft rule is proposing to allow NRC to charge Part 170 fees.
- b. Discussion needs to reflect final decisions on proposed Administrative Letter. At this point, the draft Administrative Letter addresses the reactor area only.
- c. NMSS currently reviews proposed 70.32 plan changes to confirm that they do not decrease the effectiveness of MC&A programs, security 31ans, contingency plans, and emergency plans. These reviews have 3een considered fee exempt based on the attached November 9. 1978 j memorandum from R. Fonner. 0GC. Has the basis for the previous fee j exempt determination changed? Does the November 1978 fee exemption i
basis still apply to any of the new areas that Part 170 fees are being pr posed for (e.g., inspections of quality assurance plans, safeguar s contingency plan, and emergency plan changes)?
Attachment
\
l
1
~
2 l
4
- d. NMSS plans,to continue to have license reviewers conduct reviews of licensee submittals such as proposed 70.32 plan changes to confirm l
that they do not decrease the effectiveness of licensee programs.
We do not intend to treat these as "in office ins)ections". For the i majority of 70.32 changes, license reviewers (ratier than '
inspectors) are more qualified to conduct these reviews. The i primary focus of the review is to assess the proposed change in the context of the total license. We currently use licensing procedures to guide these reviews. If these were considered inspections. NMSS would have to create inspection procedures which are needed for fee billing. NMSS does not want to create any additional administrative burden such as development of inspection procedures to track these for fee purposes.
I
- e. At this point. NMSS has not identified a problem with its reviews that warrants such changes. Depending on any changes that are made to consider Part 70.32 or similar activities as inspections. NMSS may have to change its internal procedures, agency ins)ection ,
procedures, and associated computer systems to track tie information required for fee billing. For activities that are considered l inspections, we would need to confirm that inspection procedures i exist or create them if they do not exist (time cannot be recorded ;
without an inspection procedure number). We would also need to retrain staff to open inspections for such activities and to write inspection reports (which are required for billing inspections).
- 2. Fees for the Review of Lona-Term Surveillance Plans for Title II Sites Long-Term Surveillance Plans (LTSPs) for Title II sites are submitted by DOE or the State as the long-term custodian. They are not a review that should be charged to the current site licensee because the review of an LTSP is in fact looking to see if DOE or the State should become the new site licensee. Because we do not charge DOE hourly fees, we need to include the fees for DOE submitted LTSPs for Title II sites in the bill we send DOE for other UMTRCA reviews. We have just recently begun to include these as a line item in the budget. As far as we know, we have not billed DOE for these reviews. In addition, we probably need to address how we would handle any fees if a State submitted an LTSP.
At present, we have reviewed one DOE LTSP and have a second under review so this is a current issue. Currently there are no State submitted LTSPs under review, but there could be some in the future. We are not charging the current site licensee for the review of these LTSPs.
- 3. Fees for DOE Indeoendent Soent Fuel Storaae Facilities NMSS will likely issue a Part 72 license to DOE Idaho Operations Office for an independent spent fuel storage installation (transfer of Ft. St.
Vrain license) in late FY 1997. Is it appropriate to create another item under fee category 18 for this as part of the FY 1997 rule or should this be done as part of the FY 1998 rule?
l