ML20136J266
| ML20136J266 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1978 |
| From: | Fonner R NRC |
| To: | Rentschler R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136J108 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR8885, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AF55-1-015, AF55-1-15, NUDOCS 9703200072 | |
| Download: ML20136J266 (2) | |
Text
--- - -- -- - _- -....- - . . - - - . - - -
\ .
1 . .
._ = ,
7;.326 )
- g. November 9,1978 n .3 L (s-)
Note to Russ Rentschler
- )
" I' 'n Physical Security Licensing Bianch NMSS v From: Robert L. Fonner Your handwritten note of November 6,1978 asked for an " expression of the scope of applicability of 10.CFR 70.32(e)." You attached a letter from Rockwell International Energy Systems Group that advised you that they had revised their security plan (Al-74-5) to reflect in one document all revisi.ons to date, including post 1974 license conditions, a new badge exchange system, a reorganized training program, and updated drawings and charts. The letter states that the revision (Al-74-5, Revision A) does not decrease the effectiveness of the Rockwell security plan ed is being reported as required by 10 CP 70.32(e). The un-l stated conclusion is that the revision is not being submitted as an
! amendment to the license and does not require approval by the NRC.
10 CFR 70.32(e) clearly allows a licensee to make changes to a security plan without prior Commission approval if the changes.do not decrease the effectiveness of the plan. The licenses must, however, notify NRC of each such change within two months and maintain records of the change for two years. The regulation provides the licensee a legal l
basis to exercise a degree of management discretion.in the protection l
of special nuclear materials as long as the exercise of discretion l
maintains or improves the security required by his license and appli-cable regulations. Changes made to the security plan by the licensee in this fashion become part of the plan and an inspectable and enforce-able element of the license. It provides a form of self-regulation that is as binding on the licensee as an amendment issued by the staff.
f The staff is not, however, precluded by a licensee's invocation of 10 CFR 70.32(e) from examining the changes to ascertain whether in l
its opinion the changes do or do not decrease the effectiveness of the security plan. If in the professional judgment of the staff the changes do result in a decrease _in the effectiveness of the plan, then the staff should advise the licensee that the changes are unacceptable and request that the status quo ante be restored.
The licensee can thereafter pursue the change by license amendment if he so wishes. A failure to restore the situation could result in an enforcement action and the question of whether or not the change decreased the effectiveness of the security plan would be a
- prime issue.
1 9703200072 970317 PDR PR 170 62FR8005 PDR J
l -
_.'# 2 ^: * "'"~; .:"T L'~ ': L~7'~ ~ .~_ - -~~ -~~.~~r ...: _
'I l '
l / It should be recognized that 10 CFR Part 170 provides motivation for a licensee to use the self-regulation mode of 10 CFR 70.32(e) (and other l / like provisions). Under 10 CFR Part 170 fees are charged for amend-
/ ments to licenses issued by the staff. No fees are charged for licensee initiated g,han5es that do not require an NRC approval. This is not an oversight. _There i's' no legal basis for charging a licensee for doina on his own what the law allows him to do on his owrfWithout~ -
liRC approval even if he must subsecuently su5mit paper tTo~the7C.
)
The incoming letter from Rockwell has been treated as fee exempt.
However, I would call to your attention that if the training program referred to in the letter is the guard training program called for by 10 CFR 73.50(H), then it requires an NRC approval and is subject to the appropriate fee.
V"
. #{
' Rcbert t.. Fonner j l
cc: Martin G. Malsch, OELD William 0. Miller, LFMB l 0
l l
l
L, m _
_m ___
l
\
l i -
l
_' i .; . i . ., - . ...
~.
an a n. .
l . ,
l j t,
% c./
- . = - - .
- . ..- .c. n. u t .
- 3 i
1 er s' atom:c .: carf
- in- Mr Wit' m J. dcvry
! '. t ; ens ; ac:r:r itri;;r
! ' ;, , .ut 316C8
! San Ciego. Cal t 'centa 92138 i
! Gent' amen:
i l This refers to your letter dated ')ecember 14.19?S ;596-1:06), anerv:n fou requested a for' mal intersretation by our General Counsel as to the 2:olica-bility of charging fees for documents sutaitted in respcese to revn':ns ::
Commission regulations. Your request was promoted oy our enarging :' in amendment fee (58.300) for the review of your safeguards contingency alsn.
i 4 l ide referred your letter to our Office of the 3eneral Counsel for review and l
- they advised us that an opin1 4 by the General Counsel was not marranted in l
- this utter. Accordingly, the staff's position that 'ees my be charged ane' l licensees are required to submit docurnents for review and aporoval as a res..
I of the Coessission's isolamentation of new regulations will not be enanged.
The review and approval of )icensee contingency plans are a result cf rev sec i j regulatiens which were promulgated prior to the w aren 23. 1978 revis 'on to "
4 license fee scnedule and dich became ef'ective after waren 23. 1975. 1o:9 regulations were in effect at the t.4 of snittal f the continge" / liin.
The Coemission's fee program, dich is :.;:::: :r. the N ependent Offt.?s 2c:r-t ton Act of 1952 (10AA). authorizes the casuission to recever :osts v.tr':n.:
to specific services provided to identifiable recipient.s. The.Coent.ston iu lines for fees also take into account several court fecisions concer ed wttn fees ander the 0AA. These guidelines provide that fees esay be asse ;ed to persons who are identifiable recipients of 'special ,enefits' conferred by specifically identified activities of the 4AC. The ters
- special berefits '
cludes services rendered at the reouest of a rectoient and ill servi:es rec.
for the issuance of a license, permit, approval, or enencment, or otaer sen necessary to assist a recipient in complying with statutory obligat1:ns or I 41i 14ttons under the Commission's regulations. .nder the ;0AA the :ocaisst auttoi t:ed to recover the full cost of any expenses incurred in assisting J' acpli: ant or licensee to concly n'th statutory or etquiatory recuire eats.
t he re w ew of safeguar:s ::ntinge9cf f ans 's - rsideae1 as assistic . ~ 1:e" in Comel f ing alth sta.,storf and re';,'a ory ricutremen;s W rdment 8 :es aa e8 assessed.
1
<hofr#'to2% dfr.
_ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - .~.______ .___ _ __ _.____.._.___ _.___. _ ___ _._ _ _
s
) -
l '
< i
' ' e .
1 .
_ .. .a >
? . , - . p I
.e m . .
1 4 : -
s .. '
\
t- \
a i
- i 1 .
i 4
a < . .L s ; :
i f , . . . -
- ; f 2-I.
, re :> : g , ve as :e: - : at ::n: w;ca: , ; ins :e .e .fc e
~
'sc ' . ' -s ' ' e :,i re a o . - -- % e ' .. r : . e t e. - a
,I 01' ,, ere*:ee. s;:e
- :~e - . ' e e s 1 e e ' - -
e , 4 ., .;cn :n e: 9 :* e ' e , . <w . :e'r - '
-\ . .'i
.. s 1-1, 1f ecessar.. ee .~a sny :ve . se;es
- f , .
- <a seditt:nal :.e.: s :: ;ero g -'; atter. : 'este 'et .5
- o.
j S incere ly, 1 l
(
t
- Willian 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Brinch Office of Administr tion i
4 t
1 1
4 i
s d
4 1
a 1
l i
d 3
i4 a
4 1
I
( ,
i i.
b i
.I
(
~
}
3 1
i i
1 d