ML20137H078
| ML20137H078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 070*****, 07000089 |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1997 |
| From: | Woolley R UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR29194, FRN-62FR8885, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 62FR8885-00003, 62FR8885-3, AF55-2-005, AF55-2-5, GDP-97-0048, GDP-97-48, NUDOCS 9704020051 | |
| Download: ML20137H078 (3) | |
Text
O FROli 8USEC 301-564-3210 1997 03-31 16.t53 18576 P.02'08 1
3 DOCKETED une smes Ennenment Corocrat:cn l)$ Q C 2 Democracy Cen:er
==re,-
ESEC
- - -> a 7 :20 Tel: i301)564-3200 mason ss4-32m 0FF;CI f u m w 00CXET;.
_qn.,
United States March 31,1997. -
DOCKET NUMBER Enrichment Corporation PROPOSED RULE PR w n v1 VTA FACSD11LE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS SERIAL: GDP 97-0048 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
ATTN: Docketing and Senices Branch Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paducah Gascous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS)
AVLIS Uranium Enrichment Plant 70-7001 70-7002, 70-3089 Docket Nos.
USEC Comments on NRC's " Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 62 Fed. Reg. 8885
Dear Sir:
On behalf of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), I am please comments on the NRC's Proposed Rule, " Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% F 1997." These comments address particular aspects of the proposed rule conce licenses or certificates for the operation of uranium enrichment facilities. USEC b fees which have been proposed for the first time for the uranium enrichment facility ca not fair and equitable when compared to those impos.:d on similar facilities r Uranium emichment facilities should be subject to the same fees as the oth r
fuel cycle facilities because of the similarity of generic regulatory progra l
such facilities. USEC will also address other aspects of the proposed rule includ of full annual f cs on each USEC gaseous diffusion plant (GDP) Certificate of C e
j g@
application fee for the construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facili g
l Sn Proposed Annual Fee for Uranium Enrichment Facilities
,g S*
The NRC has proposed an annual fee for each USEC uranium emichment gd the same as that for a high enrichment fuel facility. The rationale for this as expre RC's Proposed Rule is an unsupported assertion that th S4 ggg is incorrect, unsupported by the facts, and contradictory to the NRC's own li o a.-
As part of that NRC has, in fact, certified USEC's GDPs as low enriched uranium facilities.
gd licensing action, the NRC has approved safeguards measures appropriate 0
facilities and has not imposed the safeguards measures required at high em l
DSto L
~
FROM IUSEC 201-564-7210 1937.03-31 16:54
- 576 P.02'08 L
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Services Branch March 31,1997 GDP 97-0048, Page 2 strategic special nuclear material. In accordance with thejoint statement of understandi the NRC and the Department of Energy (DOE), DOE is solely responsible for any strategic nuclear material which may be located at the Portsmouth, OH, GDP. Accordingly, the pre any such high enriched uranium at the Ponsmouth GDP is not relevant to the NRC's process. The NRC methodology for determining annual fees for major fuel facilit Federal Register, clearly states that the issued license is the source for the June 20, 1995, detennining authorized nuclear material and use/ associated activity and is the deter placing a licensee into one of the five fuel facility license fee categories created methodology. USEC's GDPs are clearly in the low enriched fuel category on the bas licenses (cenificates) and not in the high enriched fuel category. The NRC's propos GDPs into the same fee category as high enriched fuel facilities has not been justified NRC methodology and appears to be arbitrary. The NRC has provided no basis for its c that the relative weighted safety and safeguards factors for the GDPs are similar to a h uranium facility. The annual fee for the GDPs should be the same as that set for oth facilities, S1,276,000 annually.
Funher, USEC is currently performing design and safety analysis work in suppon of a future AVLIS uranium enrichment plant NRC license. Preliminary safety analysis AVLIS plant indicate that the safety and safeguards characteristics of that facil more consistent with low enriched rather than high enriched facilities. The currentl establishment of an annual fee for ".. operation of a uranium enrichment facility" whic as that for a high enriched fuel facility will be inappropriate for USEC's AVLIS plant for reasons cited above.
Multiple Assessment of Fees The United States Coun of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit previously ruled that a certam which owned and operated two separately licensed, low enriched uranium manuf was entitled to an exemption from the annual fee rule to the extent that the NRC on a per-license basis (988 F.2d 146,300 U.S. App.D.C.198). The Court up contention that the two facilities were in aggregate operationally equivalent to oth single-license facilities, and that the double assessment against the two lic significantly dispropenionate allocation of costs to them.
USEC contends that essentially the same situation exists with the NRC's prop assess an annual fee on each Certi5cate of Compliance for USEC's two GDPs.
are parts of one process to produce enriched uranium product. The GDP l has always existed solely to produce feed material for subsequent processing Additionally, since the USEC applications to the NRC for certification are, i the proposed doubling of the annual fee is not justified by a comparable incre
..... _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _. -.. =....
_____.._m e
' - ~ FRoM USEC 301-564-3210 1997,g3 31 16:54
- 576 P.04/OS l
i U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission i
Docketing and Services Branch March 31,1997 GDP 97-0048, Page 3 J
' burden on the NRC from regulating two GDPs. The NRC's proposal to levy a separate annual f i
on the two GDPs win result in a significantly disproportionate allocation of the NRC's generic 4
to USEC in compadson with other major fuel facility licensees. USEC clearly does not the benefits associated with the NRC's generic costs as the next highest fee paying materia licensee. USEC requests elimination of separate annual fees for USEC's two GDPs.
Application Fee USEC has noted an apparent inconsistency in the Schedule of Materials Fees. In all but one category of materials licenses, including licenses for major fuel facilities, NRC action Only for the category " Licenses for construction and performed at full cost or for a flat fee.
operation of a uranium enrichment facility" is an application fee charged in addit USEC requests that the application fee for the uranium enrichment facility catego to achieve fee equity among all materials licensees Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input to the Commission's evaluation would be pleased to discuss these comments with you. Please contact me at (301) 56 Lisamarie Jardel at (301) 564-3247.
Sincerely,
/
Robert L.Woolley Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager I