ML20137Q475
| ML20137Q475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1985 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Scherer A ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512050278 | |
| Download: ML20137Q475 (11) | |
Text
-
NOV 2 21985 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. A. E. Scherer, Director Nuclear Licensing 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Dear Mr. Scherer:
I apologize for the late response regarding your appeal of the Combustion Engineering CENPD-266 review fee.
Based on reviewing previous correspondence, discussion with various members of the staff and our discussion of this matter, I have concluded that there is not adequate justification to refund the fee.
Previous documentation and correspondence with CE discussed at length issues relating to public and industry benefit from the topical report process.
Various citations were noted that support the underlying bases for concluding that, even though there is a public benefit derived from the topical report process, the topical report review fee is still justified. There were, however, two additional points raised during our discussion. Namely, the assertion that CE lost revenues as a result of submitting to the topical report process, and that there was pressure by the staff for CE to submit the topical report.
With regard to the first point, the financial impact should have been clear to CE when the topical report was submitted. CE could have refused to submit the topical report if it was in their interest to do so.
It is not, however, clear when viewed in the longer term whether the net result is an overall loss or gain in revenues to CE, after having the benefit of a staff approval for the topical report. Without approval of the topical report, it is at least conceivable that utilities may have elected to use other vendors for reload fuel if they viewed the basis for reload applications supported by CE as uncertain.
In any event, I do not believe the issue of profit margin to CE should or can be an overriding factor in NRC's decision whether or not to request the topical report.
With regard to the second point, as I indicated dur)ng our discussion, I believe there was pressure from the staff on various vendors to provide information via the topical report process for reload applications, because the reload review schedules were very demanding. Having been part of that process during the late 1970s, I have a vivid recollection of the difficulties we were having processing reload applications consistent with licensee schedules.
I therefore conclude that the pressure was justified by the need for an orderly and efficient licensing process and accordingly, was in the public interest.
ls f~0g m=m iW1 l
C i
l
'4 l
t NCy221335 It is my view that the overall topical report process has substantially improved the licensing process and that the fees established for that purpose are both justified and fair.
Sincerely, Origina1 signed by j[_ictor Stello Victor Stello, Jr.
4 Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements DISTRIBUTION:
VStello, DEDR0GR PDR j, Rfg Records (016)
DEisenhut, NRR PGNorry, ADM MSpringer, ADM WMiller, LFMS RSmith, ELD RFonner, ELD PNoonan, SSPB l
HBernard, SSPB FLMS Topical File LFMS SP Actual M/P File CHolloway, LFMS RMDiggs, LFMS LFMS r/f DEDR0GR r/f
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES
- f..s/
OFC :*LFMS/ADM
- ELD
- ADM
- NRR
~ :DEDR R g,
___:...A NAME :WMiller
- RSmith
- PGNo Wy:js
- dei
$t
- VStd o
11//,//85
- 11/s,,\\/85
- 11/pl/85 DATE :11/3/85
- 11/7/35 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
.c r i Combustion Engineering, Inc.
3 As previously stated, topical reports benefit the public and ndustry.
The re few and approval of CEHPD-266 entitled C-E and its stamers to referen an approved document without further presentati of the codes to the HR It provided greater assurance that utiliti using C-E services c id meet their reload schedules. And, it a eviated safety concerns. I has been held that the fact that an ag cy service to an identifiable ipient also benefits the public d not remove the service from thkspecial benefit class, even tho the public benefit may exceed the pr vate benefit. Also, it is no necessary to allocate the cost of render g a service in proportion the degree of public or private benefit. Th agency may recover its ull cost. See National Cable Television Asso iation, Inc. v. Unite States 415 U.S. 336 (1974);
Federal Power Commissibo v. New England P er Company, 415 U.S. 345 (1974); National Cable Tqlevision Associ ion, Inc. v. Federal Comunica-tions Comission 554 F.2( 1094 (1976);Jational Association of Broadcasters
- v. Federal Comunications Comission,f54 F.2d 1118 (1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Fbderal Coramunications Comission, 554 F.2d 1109(1976); and Capital Cities Compl6nication Inc. v. Federal Comunications Comission, 554 F.2d 1135 (197 ).
While it may be true that C-E c ld have made greater profits by dealing with each utility on an indivi ua basis and providing repetitive docu-mentation rather than develo ng a ingle report (CEl PD-266), the NRC's principal concern is the sa ty and rotection of the public and the execution of these respons ilities i' the most efficient and effective method to achieve this ob ective. Thi responsibility cannot be influenced by individual profit mar in.
Accordingly, in view the above, we find o justification to refund the fee paid by Comb tion Engineering for t e review and approval of Topical Report CENP 266.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.
Deputy Executive Direc r for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements DISTRIBU ION:
PDR RFonner, ELD Reg R ords (016)
PNoonan, SSPB VSte o, ED0 HBernard, SSPB PGNo ry, ADM LFMS Topical File MSpringer, ADM LFMS SP Actual M/P File WOMiller, LFMS CJHolloway RSmith, ELD RMDiggs LFMS R/F
- see prev. concurrences.
omec >
tFMS:ADM*
..l;LD*
...Am......
. ADM...........eDq....
H0Mi.11.eo.a. RSmi. th.,,,,, MSprir)get......NNQtty.....
.VStello...
s-
.. /.30/.85
.Y5292M 11./..../.85...
. 1.v..../.as.....w.../.85 11 NRC FORM 31S (10 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
g Combustion Engineering, Inc.
3 As previously stated, topical reports benefit the public and ndustry.
The re iew and approval of CERPD-266 entitled C-E and its stomers to referen an approved document without further presentati i of the codes to the HR It provided greater assurance that utiliti using C-E services co ld meet their reload schedules. And, it a eviated safety concerns.
I has been held that the fact that an ag cy service to an identifiable r ipient also benefits the public do not remove the service from th special benefit class, even tho the public benefit may exceed the p ate benefit. Also, it is no necessary to allocate the cost of render 99 a service in proportion the degree of public or private benefit. Thy agency may recover its ull cost. See Hational Cable Television Assohiation, Inc. v. Unite States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974);
Federal Power Comissibo v. New England P er Company, 415 U.S. 345 (1974); National Cable T evision Assoc 19(ion, Inc. v. Federal Comunica-tions Commission, 554 F.
1094 (1976);Aational Association of Broadcasters
- v. Federal Communications mission, f54 F.2d 1118 (1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Fbderal Cor,anunications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109(1976); and Capital Cities Com6nication, Inc. v. Federal Communications Consnission, 554 F.2d 1135 (197 ).
While it may be true that C-E could have made greater profits by dealing with each utility on an indivi/uakbasis and providing repetitive docu-mentation rather than develo ing a single report (CEUPD-266), the NRC's principal concern is the sa tyandbrotectionofthepublicandthe execution of these respons ilities ih the most efficient and effective method to achieve this ob ective. Thi responsibility cannot be influenced by individual profit r.:ar in.
Accordingly, in view the above, we find o justification to refund the fee paid by Comb tion Engineering for t e review and approval of Topical Report CEHP 266.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.
Deputy Executive Direc r for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements DISTRIBU ION:
PDR RFonner, ELD Reg R ords (016)
PNoonan, SSPB VSte o, EDO HBernard, SSPB PGNo ry, ADM LFMS Topical File MSpringer, ADM LFMS SP Actual M/P File WOMiller, LFMS CJHolloway RSmith, ELD RMDiggs LFMS R/F
- see prev. concurrences.
Aco...LFMS:ADM*
,,, ELD
- ADM,,,,,,,,, ADM,,,,
,,,,E;DO,,,,
% H 0Mi.11.er:.4e..RSmith.,,,
MSp ri.nget..
..%ygrry.......VStello...
11/.30/85
.U.7.92.5.....
11./..../.85...
. 1.1./..../.ss....u/.../.85 N*A 318 (10 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
o.-
C Comb'ustion Engineering, Inc.
3 l
As previously stated, topical reports benefit the public and industry.
The review and approval of CEt1PD-266 entitled C-E and its, customers to reference an approved document without further presentation of the codes to the NRC. It provided greater assurance that utilitfes using C-E services could meet their reload schedules. And, it411eviated safety concerns.
It has been held that the fact that an adency service to an identifiable recipient ~ also benefits the public d6es not remove the service frau the special benefit class, even th00gh the public benefit may exceed the private benefit. Also, it is n6t nec^ssary to allocate the cost of F ndering a service in proportion'to the degree of public or private benef t.
The agency may recover its full cost. See National Cable Televisi Association, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974);
j Federal Power C aission v. New England fower Company, 415 U.S. 345 j
(1974); National able Television Association, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comission, 554 F. d 1094 (1976); National Association of Broadcasters
- v. Federal Communications Comissioni 554 F.2d 1118 (1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Federal Comunications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109(1976); and Capital Cities Cocmunication, Inc. v. Federal Comunica-tions Comission, 554 F,2d 1135 (1976).
While it may be true that C-E,c/
N ould have made greater profits by dealing with each utility on an indiyidual basis and providing repetitive docu-mentation rather than develo;4ng a single report (CENPD-266), the HRC's principle concern is the safetysand protection of the public and the execution of these responsibilities in the most efficient and effective method to achieve this objective. This responsibility cannot be influenced by individual profit ma'rgin.
Accordingly, in view /of the above, we find no justification to refund the fee paid by Combustion Engineering f'o the review and approval of Topical Report CENPD-266.
l Sincerely, Victor Stello, J
, Deputy Executive Direct r for Operations DISTRIBUTI N:
PDR Reg Reco ds (016)
HBernard, SSPB VStello ED0 LFMS Topical File PGNorr, ADM LFMS SP Actual M/P File MSprjnger,ADM CJHolloway WOMflier, LFMS RMDiggs RSmith, ELD LFMS R/F RFonner, ELD PNoonan, SSPB
- see previous concurrences, LFMS:ADM*l ELD
- ADM ADM
,,, EDO,,,,,
o->
-o
.EMi.1. l er:49..RSmi,th,,,
.MSp ri nger,,,, PGNorry,,,
,,VS tel. l o,,
11./7/$.... U/,
/.85
,,1,l/,, /,8,5.,,,,,,1,l/,, /,8,5,,
^">
NRC FORM 3m 00 80) NPCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
..,.. f i
4 i
-s j
Comtiustion Engineering, Inc.
3 As previously stated, topical reports benefit the public and industry.
l The review and approval of CENPD-266 entitled C-E and its customers to reference an approved docunent without further presentation of the codet to the HRC.
It provided greater assurance that utilities using C-E 1
services could meet their reload schedules. Ar:di it alleviated safety ' '
concerns. The court has held that the fact that an agency service to identifiable recipient also benefits the public does not remove the service from the special benefit class, even though the public benefit may exceed the private benefit. Also, the court held that it is not necessary to allocate the cost of rendering a s'ervice in proportion to l
the degree of public or pr'ivate benefit. The/ agency may recover its full cost.
/
j While it may be true that C-E could have xade greater profits by dealing l
with each utility n an individual baskand providing repetitive docu-i racntation rather th n developing a sing'le report (CEHPD-266), the llRC's I
principle concern is he safety ar.d p' pketion of the public and the i
execution of these res sibilities'in the ac::t efficient and effective method to achieve this ective./ This wsponsibility cannot i,3 influenced j/
by individual profit marg Accordingly, in view of the a 've, we find no justification to refund the fee paid by Combustion Eng ring for the' review and approval of,
Topical Report CEHPD-266.
Sin rely, Victor Stelle, r., Deputy a
Executive Dire'etor for Operations s
N DISTRIBUTION: [
PDR RegRecords(0.16)
VStello, ED0 PGNorry, ADM
/
I MSpringer, ADM l
WOMiller, LFMS v
RSmith, ELD RFonner, ELD I
PNoonan, SSPB HBernard, SSPB LFMS Topical File
\\
LFMS SP Actual M/P File CJHolloway N'(
\\s o,*g d b*d
- h
'Y S
F
(,
,,,ADM
,, A D,M,,,,,,,,, EDO,,,,,,
LFM M
ELD om">
lsua~a=+.wntAlec:.jp..asmith/......Mspctngec...
..P,GNorry,,
,, y,Stq11g',,,
.Y.../as l.$"M.....z...zas.......z...zd..
....z.../.as..
/
o^" >
NRC FORM 318 410 80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
C Combustion Engineering, Inc.
3
,g
^
^O s
g As previously stat
, topical report enefit the public and industry.
The review and ap royal of CENPD,-26 entitled C-E and its customers to reference an app oved docume3t4ithout further presentation of the codes to the NRC.
It provided_ Jr6ater assurance that utilities using C-E services cou:,d y'tgrr reload schedules. And, it alleviated safety
"^
Wheld that the fact that an agency service to a;>v concerns.
identifiable recipient also benefits the public does not remove the service from the special benefit class, even though the public benefit may exceed the private benefit. Also, the court hch' that it is not necessary to allocate the cost of rendering a service in proportion to the degree of public,orjrivate benefit. The agency mayr,ec,0ver, its 9
full }.s,t.y
= = w a qp p;gd=yggggg;yy 3,',y ww,
-,,w ile it ma be true thdt C-E could have made greater profits by dealing with each ut lity on an individual basis and providing repetitive docu-mentation rather than developing a single report (CENPD-266), the NRC's principle conbern is the safety and protection of the public and the execution of these responsibilities in the most efficient and effective method to achieve this objective. This responsibility cannot be influenced by individual profit margin.
Accordingly, in view of the above, we find no justification to refund the fee paid 1/y Combustion Engineering for the review and approval of Topical Report CENPD-266.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Directer for Operations UJd i ed;d C& TE%is;w h ssee.id.%,Iv. v.
Se e.
tl
- s. AA>
sides,4is u.s. 3 n. Ony)l. FeJeod r%w % sam s ( A /%w Co.wp a~, D s a.s. v1 s O su),,vJ:4 m nb d% 65socih,2k. v. Feht h wcJim Co u sstw e 66 4 Y.M io s y(mt ),. i eSQ (kue J,u.6 d
ded es.sieh
- v. Ieded %&eJim %;ss$' d v.
L Aash ; e>
Assa' gS y f. xd / I I \\f O S %,' E le<h n.'u sM ka novow.);
ge. M w w J. u w iu ; w,I nc.
Feled g
- 5.JL C,t 4-t e s hwicAb, d l135 0%.
v.
'5S y F. A g ; J u G w issi
,,o
l Combustion Engineering Inc.
ATTN: Mr. A. E. Scherer Director Nuclear Licensing 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Dear Mr. Scherer:
On April 4,1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission approved To cal Report CEhPD-266, "The ROCS /DIT Computer Codes for Nuclear Des n" and subsequently Combustion Engineering, Inc. (C-E) was billed fo $20,000 of the 525,842 NRC review costs.
In an August 8,1983 letter, C-E requested termination of he NRC j
collection procedure for Topical Report CEHPD-266 arguing / at the th 4
company was not the ultimate beneficiary of NRC's analy is of the report and that it was not clear that any benefit was ever co ferred specifically on C-E.
Based on the agency's cost recovery policy d court decisions affecting the fee assessment, the staff found no ba s for waiving the charge and found benefit in the review and approva of CEHPD-266. C-E was informed of the determination. Subsequently f -E appealed this decision and the appeal was denied on the basis that the fee assessment was both fair and equitable. Additional letter followed and C-E paid the fee under protest on December 1,1983.
In a meeting with NRC staff, C-E representa ves again expressed their opinion that the charge for the review of 1PD-266 was inappropriate and unfair and that by submitting a topi report C-E " suffered a net reduction of revenues from those which Id have othentise been obtained in the normal course of business."
C-E has consistently opposed the ass. sment of fees for the review of topical reports. This opposition b an in 1977 when the Comission published a notice of proposed fee chedules which included fees for review of topical reports and spe al projects. The Comission agreed with C-E's comment that fees do pact vendors and other applicants.
Thus, the Commission decided to lace a low ceiling on fees for topical reports realizing they do prov)de significant benefit for the public as well as for the vendor and utflity. This decision was continued in the June 20, 1984 ruleforthespmereason. While it may be true that C-E could have increased revenu s by dealing with each utility individually, the procedure was not war ng effectively L ' hampered the licensing process because of the di ficulty in obtaining adequate information.
op rira b s
DATE M we ronu au no so) nacu ono OFFICI AL RECORD COPI
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
2 The NRC has encouraged industry to submit topical reports instead of providing separate program descriptions for each nuclear project. One of the reasons was that some utilities, vendors and architect-engineers i
were changing programs from one project to another, and thus requiring the staff to rereview completely each and every submittal so that changes and their effects could be assessed. This impeded licensing of i
individual nuclear projects and increased the cost of completing the l
review of applications. It also ran counter to the agency's efforts to
[
i encourage greater standardization in the nuclear power industry. The NRC has found that topical reports provide an effective procedure whereby the nuclear industry, including vendors, architect-engineers an j
utilities, may either of their own volition or at the request of the agency, submit reports on specific safety related subjects that affe multiple applications or licenses and have them reviewed independe ly of an application filed by a utility. This leaves only the plant specific information requiring review.
The NRC is authorized and directed by Title V of the Indepe nt Offices Appropriation Act of 1951, 31 U.S.C. 483a (now found at 31
.S.C. 9701)
{
to assess fees for services it renders to applicants and censees.
C-E's principle arguments for opposing fees for Topi i Report CENPD-266 seem to be that the company was required by the NRC ff to file the report when it preferred to do otherwise; the ulti te beneficiary of the review services was the general public; and would have been more profitable for C-E to deal with each utility 1 ividually in resolving reload methodology questions and problems.
The staff requested a topical report from
-E as a vehicle to resolve ongoing major reload problems with reac that C-E was servicing. At the time, other vendors were filing to cal reports covering reload methodology. These utilities were de dent upon C-E for reload method-ology and the information of record eeded by the HRC staff to evaluate the adequacy of the procedure was t available as needed. The information was being submitted on a pieceme basis with the result that the licensing effort was impeded.
It was dif cult to correlate individual requests for the utilities and the info aation they referenced. Sometimes the information referenced was n part of docket file or even available to i
the staff.
This experienc caused the staff to request the topical, 1
believing that it would b the most effective and efficient way to obtain the necessary lic sing infonnation and arrive at a resolution of a major licensing probl The overriding reason for requesting the report was the NRC's ulatory obligation to assure that licensed nuclear power plants perate safely, and fuel reload methodology is i
merely one aspect o that safety responsibility.
OFFICE)
Ma">
k l NRC FORM 318 (1080) NRCM O24 OFFICML R ECOR D COPY..
Document Name:
LETTER.T0 SCHERER Requestor's ID:
SOLAN Author's Name:
Document Comments:
s, NOV 2 21985 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. A. E. Scherer, Director Nuclear Licensing 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Dear Mr. Scherer:
I apologize for the late response regarding your appeal of the Combustion Engineering CENPD-266 review fee.
Based on reviewing previous correspondence, discussion with various members of the staff and our discussion of this matter, I have concluded that there is not adequate justification to refund the fee.
Previous documentation and correspondence with CE discussed at length issues relating to public and industry benefit from the topical report process.
Various citations were noted that support the underlying bases for concluding that, even though there is a public benefit derived from the topical report process, the topical report review fee is still juttified. There were, however, two additional points raised during our discussion. Namely, the assertion that CE lost revenues as a result of submitting to the topical report process, and that there was pressure by the staff for CE to submit the topical report.
With regard to the first point, the financial impact should have been clear to CE when the topical report was submitted.
CE could have refused to submit the topical report if it was in their interest to do so.
It is not, however, clear when viewed in the longer term whether the net result is an overall loss or gain in revenues to CE, after having the benefit of a staff approval for the topical report. Without approval of the topical report, it is at least conceivable that utilities may have elected to use other vendors for reload fuel if they viewed the basis for reload applications supported by CE as uncertain.
In any event, I do not believe the issue of profit margin to CE should or can be an overriding factor in NRC's decision whether or not to request the topical report.
l With regard to the second point, as I indicated during our discussion, I believe there was pressure from the staff on various vendors to provide information via the topical report process for reload applications, because the reload review schedules were very demanding.
Having been part of that process during the late 1970s, I have a vivid recollection of the difficulties we were having processing reload applications consistent with licensee l
schedules.
I therefore conclude that the pressure was justified by the need for an orderly and efficient licensing process and accordingly, was in the public interest.
l
_2-NCV 2 21335 It is my view that the overall topical report process has substantially improved the licensing process and that the fees established for that purpose are both justified and fair.
Sincerely, Original signed by Zict.or Stello Victor Stello, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements DISTRIBUTION:
VStello, DEDR0GR Reg Records (016)
DEisenhut, NRR PGNorry, ADM MSpringer, ADM WMiller, LFMS RSmith, ELD RFonner, ELD PNoonan, SSPB HBernard, SSPB FLMS Topical File LFMS SP Actual M/P File CHolloway, LFMS RMDiggs, LFMS LFMS r/f DEDR0GR r/f
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES f-f n
0FC :*LFMS/ADM
- ELD
- ADM
- NRR
- DEDR R
_____:____________:____________:-____ g __:.. J
__:___3 NAME :WMiller
- RSmith
- PGNo Wy:js
- dei!
ht
- VStd o
DATE :11/3/85
- 11/7/85
$11////85
$11/s,\\/85
$11/i/85 I
I w
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
- - -. - -