ML20141C877

Submits Info Re Amend Fee for Review of Safeguards Contingency Plan in Response to .Payment of Amend Fee Requested

ML20141C877
Person / Time
Site:	07000371, 07000135
Issue date:	05/24/1979
From:	Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Kirk W UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. (SUBS. OF UNC, INC.)
References
NUDOCS 8601040171
Download: ML20141C877 (3)

Text

. ,

,Q "

d d

• s 7' ,.

w

/

Docket No.70-371 Ifnited f:uclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. Willian T. Kirk Nuclear and Industrial Safety Department .

67 Sandy Desert Road Uncasyfile CT Or>382 Centlenen:

This responds to your letter dated October 11, 1978 (NIS: 78-10-17),

concerning an amendment fee for the review of your safequards continnency plan. The matter of fees for safeguards contingency plans has been discussed with the Commission's legal staff and a determfration made that the fee specifici in 10 CFP 170 is due.

• fhe requirements specified by Appendix C of 10 CTR 73 and Pequiato'y r Guide S.55 are for the protection nf fuel cycle and other nuclear factitties Itcensed by the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act of 1054, as amended. The I submission of a safeguards continqsney plan is required by Comission regulations, and the purpose of ?!"C's review is to assu're that a licensed fuel cycle facility has in effect an acceptable plan for dealing with threats, thefts, and industrial sabotage relattnq to special nuclear materials. The Commission's fee guidelines provide that fees may be assessed to persons who are identifiable recipients ce "special benefits"

! conferred by spectrically identified activities of the MC. The tem n "special benefits *' includes services rendered at tha request of a racipient n

%g and all services or anendment, required or other fornecessary services the issuance to assistof a license, a reefpient permit, approval in comply-ing with statutory obligations or obligations under tbc Cnmmission's 08

" requiations. The guidelines further provide that it is not necessary to allocate costs in proportion to the degree of public or private benefit p resulting from conferrirg a special benefit on a reefnient. Vbile some of p the benefits of this pengram may extend to the general public, the l p Comission rust review each contingency plan on behalf of the Itcensee,

- and if the plan is found to be acceptable, grant its apreoval thereof by gg license amendment, m e. o Footrote 1(d) of Section 170.31 provides that amendments resulting from NDC eritten requests may be cycnpt from fees at the discretion of the

- Comission The tem "writtan when the a endment FRC requests", as used in is theissued footnote,for tbc is nnt convenience intendei of te - 1 ,+- e uc ,, , e - m ee- .its r - i,,1 c-.m n n,.

I L

.. +

m .,v

, y 5

dj),{ .  % ,f ""!t .E ,

v,4.,l

p. q s, n. p,1 y a l r l

,, " : United Nuclear Corporation ,

)

The Licensing staff has determined that the review of your contingency plan will require a major review effort to detemine its acceptability, and as mentioned earlier, the Comission has. decided such reviews are subject to fees. -While it is true that your contingency plan may not

. decrease the effectiveness of your overall Physical Security Plan, it is a plan which the Comission is required by regulation to review, make a i determination and grant its approval. For this review and approval effort,'

l an amendment fee is being charged. >

l l .

l Rased on the foregoing and as requested in our Septer'iber 27, 1978 letter.~

l an amendment fee of $3.300 remains due and payable. Payment of the fee

( should be remitted to this office. Upon completion of the review, the l

I

._ Comission will review its' costs and, if necessary, refund.any overcharges.

i l Sincerely. '

i William 0. Miller, Chief License Fee Management Franch Office of Administration

Enclosure:

10 CFR 170 i

DISTRIBUTION':

License File (70-371)

PDR Fee File IDAR 5-1 l Pending Fee File ,

I LFMB R/F (2)

DJDonoghue, ADM l -

RFonner. ELD DWeiss, ADM .'

R$KELTON, SGPS RMcComick IE l ,

\

.c F

. . . . ., I

.fr  : A.D..M........ .............. . . . AD . . . . . . .. .. ..AD.. ". . . . . . . ". .

- ...#..L..F.

.em1.1.ac.. .....L. P. b1my.

...q 8. .M..M..B.

. :.A.D. .M.......

.1.tr....... .. . .:_A.D..M......

i. . . . . . . R.tr.. ...

.. .f N,9ggy,,,,,,,,,

[. 5.

./. ..y. .../. 7. 9........ ,,D,y,0g,noghu,9

,.,. ... 5./.1. 8.../. 7. 9....... , ... 5../..po..../. 7 9 ....

.. ..... 5../..p..../. 7. 9..... 5

..... 5 /......../. 7 9. . .. . ./.,. . g. . . . ..??'.

' sum: seem ne m.m umas esse * ..-..... ... . ......... ,,, ,,,

i l l. *

,* r u

, , .. n, l .

.....,,.-.a....,

i p%,Myy== ma.;; yc;f=  ; ya: m;;.;w=,.;wgu ::v =::::.y':;):  ;,.m  :: }

_ , - . , , s . _ . _ . ..- -.

em gggggd ggggggy (gypgregjgg oats ce meuwe=t oats nueveo no ,. t i

Uncasv111e. Connecticut 06302 3ctober ll,1973 October 17,1978 LFis-12/78 LTP MtMO RtPORT OTMBR

X r.r. Allen S. Cabell X License fee Hanagement Branch, ADH a ' ^ ~'" "' a U.S. Nuclear itegulatory Coomission ac'a= ~'unaa' 0 co'<vaa ~u O

un ainn+na. n.c. " '

2nrr,

• o actio= ~tena^av O c = ia' O .-

CLA Eler PU$3 uf f K4 sitg COUS unclassifjed ac ~o i NEf tRMED 10 04Tg REtteyt0 GT DATS DISCnif fiON iMat De unsteusies8

] UdC does not beleve that an aandment l

fee should be charged for the sub- Allen S. Cabell. AbH 10/17 cission of a safeguards contingency wf,799 t n,1 4 plan. '-

. u o.uai.

Of stributton!

, 1-PDR

Infa enntee t i.

W m 'er, AK CJ8ellowsv. (M j ""'"" IN REPLY, PLEASC itEFER TO: W'ISS' AM

!

• HIS: 78-10-17 f u . uCt... ..out.ro , co e o i,;,,pu..

j , ,co,y,,L ,,,,

i j

i 1

i l

I 4

?

J i

I

'Qb . f 8

,1 .

[  ?

g  ;,4 - .t' v b ^ IJAC UNITED NUCLEAR

, C O R P O R A T 1 o N e7 saNov ossant moao In Reply, Please uncanvitte. co~~rcticut cessa Refer To: NIS: 78-10-17 T s '.. e 4 8 t s u October 11, 1978 Mr. Allen S. Cabell Licensee Fee Management Branch Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Docket #T0-371 Licensee Safeguards Contingency Plans Control No. 10813 ,

Reft (1) Letter, W.F. Kirk, UNC, to R. Black, NRC, dated September 15, 1978.

(2) Letter, A.S. Cabell, NRC, to Manager, Nuclear Materials Control, UNC, dated September 27, 1978.

Dear Sir:

We do not believe that an amendment fee should be charged for the submission of a safeguards contingency plan. Such a plan la primarily for the protection of Government owned uranium and the prevention of its theft and use in detrementally affecting the health and cafety of the general public; further, the plan was sub-mitted in responce to new NRC opecified requirements given in great detail in NRC Regulatory Guide 5 55 As noted (FR Vol.143, p. 7211) citing several court decisions, a charge for services rendered 10 precluded when the identification of the ultimate bene-ficiary is obscure and the servicea can be primarily considered as benefiting broadly the general public.

Confirmation of the benefit to the gneral public can be found in several in-stances:

1. Ref. (2) considers the reference (1) to be a " major safeguards amendment".

10 CFR 170 31, footnote 3 defines a major amendment as one where the proposed action could precent a potential risk to the public 'a health and safety.

RECEIVE,0 BY LFM3

, p ia v /Q'4J1.l.L. ...:N '.. . . . . ..

\ I

?lm . . . :.'. ".'. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '

s w, -

en. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jsc.iela Carnal. . . . . . . . . . ;

__-_ D

c ) (

, . - Mr. A.S . Cab:11 Page 2 October 11, 1978

2. 10 CFR 21 devoted to reporting of substantial cafety hazards to the public health and safety givec (Statements of Consideration 42 FR 28891) failures in a security cystem as an example of possible substantial safety hazard.

As written in Statements of Consideration 43 FR 11962 for IIRC implementation of the Safeguarda Contingency Plan; the licensee may combine all security related plans into a single plan aa long as he assures that all requirements of Appenlix C of 10 CFR 73 have been addreased. Regulatory Guide 5 55 (March 1978) page 11 also indicated that the Safeguardo Contingency Plan may be submitted as an attach-ment to the Phyoical Security Plan. Pleace supplement ref. (1) to show that the oubmitted Safeguards Contingency Plan is to be an addition to our existing Security Plan under 10 CFR 70 32(e). Obviously there is no decrease in the effee-tiveneca of the overall Security Plan.

In summary, our basis for determining this cubmiccion [ref. (1)] chould carry no fee requirement is:

1. It ir for the convenience of the IIRC and at the request of IIRC per l'(0 31 footnote (d).

2. The requirementa are specified in detail by the IIRC for the protection of its uranium and the safety of the general public.

3 It confera no benefit to the licensee.

4. It la an att tchment to our existing Physical Security Plan that does not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan.

5 All operations at this site are conducted in cupplying the U.S. Government with nuclear reactora.

Pending resolution of the question of any actual fee, please proceed with your {

review as provided for in 10 CFR 70.12(c) and 170.31 footnote (d) na discuased with Mr. Allen 3. Cabell on October 10, 1978.

To minimize IIRC conta during review, plence note that our plan la very nimilar to thouc cutmitted by U:;C Fuels Recovery Operations, Wcad River Junction, R.I.

and Iluclear Fuel Servicec, Erwin, Tenn. as all three plans were prepared by the onme consultant. In addition, all plans submitted uhould be very standardized baued on the detailed upecificationc given in NRC Regulatory Guide 5.55 Should further clarificationa be nececcary, please contact me. Ref. (2) should have been addrenaed to me.

Very truly yourc, U:IITED liUCLEAR CORPCRATI !T k 4**t-W.F. Kirk, Manager G

Iluelear and Indus urial Safety Department

/eJm k . )