ML20148M462
| ML20148M462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/02/1997 |
| From: | Funches J NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | Pierson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148M448 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR29194, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AF55-2-004, AF55-2-4, NUDOCS 9706240299 | |
| Download: ML20148M462 (1) | |
Text
'
Poe April 2, 1997 M 6'5 ,- MEMORANDUM T0: Robert C. Pierson Chi 2f i
Enrichment Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM: Jesse L. Funches Deputy Controller / ORIGINAL SIGNED BY/
Office of the Controller Jesse L. Funches
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED ANNUAL FEES FOR THE UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION (USEC)
The NRC in its FY 1997 fee rule published February 27, 1997, proposed that an annual fee be assessed for each Certificate of Compliance issued to USEC to operate the two gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) located at Paducah. Kentucky and at Piketon. Ohio. The NRC proposed to establish an annual fee of
$2.600.000 for each of the facilities based on consultation with NMSS that the relative weighted safety and safeguards factors for these two facilities are similar to a high enriched facility.
USEC has indicated in their letter dated March 31, 1997. (copy attached) commenting on the pro)osed fees, that they believe the rationale used by the NRC in establishing tie pro)osed annual fees is incorrect, unsupported by the facts and contradictory to 1RC's licensing actions. They state that as part of the licensing action, the NRC "has ap3 roved safeguards measures appropriate for low enriched uranium facilities and las not imposed the safeguards measures required at high enriched facilities possessing strategic special nuclear material." We would appreciate NMSS's review of the USEC letter and comment on of this matter in order for us to respond to the comments in the final fee rule. Please later than COB April 15. 1997. provide your comments as quickly as possible but no Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Holloway at 415-6213.
Attachment:
As stated cc: Dan Martin. FCSS/NMSS John Linehan, PMDA/NMSS Distribution:
OC R/F OC S/F h
_ a 01
(( ( l) f%'
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\HOLLOWAY\PIERSON.MEM hjUU;^y,ya-i'l Y\
To receke e copy of this document, indicate in the box: *C' = Copy wthost attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N* = No copy 0FFICE CFO M lE CFO Y lE l l l NAME CJH(llbhay JLFunches 04/l/97 04/k/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY gDM 9706240299 970620 h 6 FR29194 PDR
I e ,
' 301-564-3210 is;7,ey.31 168E3 E576 P.02 08 1
l une sme 3 I DOCKETED )
E=m** Corac ac" USNRC 1 2 Democracy Cemer I
' - 6903 Rockiecge omre W APR -1 A7 :30 == = aos r Tek (301)564 32o0 0FFICE OF SEr:RETApy F e so11564-3201 United States DOCKET!C & CERyjcr ~
Enrichment Corporation March 31,19974 yr'e' DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR iyo < /1/
VTA FACSIWTI AND FEDERAL EXPRF8;S SERIAL: GDP 97-0048 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, DC 20555-0001 l Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) ,
- Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) l AVLIS Urnnium Enrichment Plant '
Docket Nos. 70-7001 70-7002, 70 3089 f
USEC Comments on NRC's " Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1997,"
Dear Sir:
On behalf of the Unhed States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), I am pleased to provide comments on the NRC's Picposed Rule, " Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, F.Y
- 1997." These comments address pardeular aspects of the proposed rule concerning the fees fo licenses or certificates for the operation of uranium enrichment facilities. USEC believes that the fees which have been proposed for the first time for the uranium enrichment facility category are not fair and equitable when compared to those imposed on simdar facilities regulated b Uranium enrichment facihties should be subject to the same fees as the other major low en fuel cycle facilities because of the similarity of generic regulatory programmatic effor such facilities. USEC will also address other aspects of the proposed rule including the assessmen of full annual fees on each USEC gaseous diffusion plant (GDP) Certificate of Compliance l
application fee for the construction and operation of a uranium emichment facihty.
Proposed Annual Fee for Uranium Enrichment FacDities
}
The NRC has proposed an annual fee for each USEC uranium enrichment facility of S2 the same as that for a high enrichment fuel facility. The rationale for this as expressed in the Proposed Rule is an unsupported asse: tion that the relativo weighted safety and safegu for USEC's facilities are similar to a high enriched uranium facility. USEC believes this ration is incorrect, unsupported by the facts, and contradictory to the NRC's own licensing actions. T
, As part of that NRC has, in fact, certified USEC's GDPs as low enriched uraniurn facilities.
licensing action, the NRC has approved safeguards measures appropriate for low enriched . iV facuities and has not imposed the safeguards measures required at high enriched facilities p n, m n nmv i l n ,-~ e t 1 3/2/,
y
. i r, ion usse sex-ss4-2att is n.e2-21 tess4 es e e.eseos (s.-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Services Bmnch March 31,1997
. GDP 97-0048, Page 2 s
strategic special nuclear mrterial. In acecrdance with the joint statement of understanding between the NRC and the Department ofEnergy (DOE), DOE is solsy responsible for any strategic special nuclear material which may be located at the Portsmouth, OH, GDP. Accordingly, the presence of any such high enriched uranium at the Ponsmouth GDP is not relevant to the NRC's fee-semng process. The NRC methodology for determining annual fees for major fhel facilities, presem the June 20, 1995, Federal Register, clearly states that the issued license is the source for dete: mining authorized nuclear material and use/ associated activity and is the determining facto placing a licensee into one of the five fuel facility license fee categories created in the NRC methodology. USECs GDPs are clearly in the Icw enriched fuel category on the basis of the is licenses (ceni5 cates) and not in the high endched fuel category. The NRC's proposal to put the GDPs into the same fee category as high enriched fuel facihties has not been justified by the cited NRC methodology tnd appears to be arbitrary. The NRC has provided no basis for its conclusion that the relative weignted safety and safeguards factors for the GDPs are similar to a high enriQe uranium facility. The annual fee for the GDPs should be the same as that set for other low en
" facilities, S1,276,000 annually.
Funher, USEC is currently performing design and safety analysis work in support of obtaimng i
a future AVLIS uranium enrichment plant NRC license. Preliminary safety analysis studies of the AVI.IS plant indicate that the safety and safeguards characteristics of that facility will cen more consistent with low enriched rather than high enriched facilities. The currently proposed establishment of an annual fee for " .. operation of a uranium endchment facility" which is the sastie l
as that for a high enriched fuel facility will be inappropriate for USEC's AVLIS plant for the same )
reasons cited above.
Multiple Assessment of Fees The United States Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit previously ruled that a cenain licensee,
)
which owned and operated two separately licensed, low enriched uranium =@ wing facilities was entitled to an exemption from the annual fee rule to the extent that the NRC had assessed on a per-license basis (988 F.2d 146,300 U.S. App.D.C.198). The Coun upheld the lic
. contention that the two facilities were in aggregate operationally equivalent to other single-plan single-license facilities, and that the double assessment against the two 1. censes res significantly disproponionate allocation of costs to them.
USEC comends that essentially the same situation exists with the h1C's proposal to separa assess an annual fee on each Certi5cate of Compliance for USEC's two GDPs. USEC's two G are parts of one process to produce enriched uranium product. The GDP located at Pa has always existed solely to produce feed material for subsequent processing at anoth Additionally, since the USEC appli:ations to the NRC for ceni5 cation are, in large p the proposed doubling of the ann. al fee is not jusu5ed by a comparable increase in reg
, ausse 301. sea.3ao ,g_.,,,,,, ,,,sJ n_ F.04 Of (x
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
< Docketing and Services Branch March 31,1997 GDP 97-0048, Page 3
)
burden on the NRC from regulating two GDPs. The NRC's proposal to levy a separate annual fee on the two GDPs will result in a signiScantly disproportionate allocation of the NRC's genede co i
to USEC in compadson with other major fuel facility licensees USEC clearly does not de the benefits associated with the NRC's generic costs as the next highest fee paying materials 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 p
category of matedals licenses, including licenses for major fuel facilities, NRC actions ar perfomed at full cost or for a flat fee. Only for the enegory " Licenses for constru operation of a uranium endchment facilitv" is an application fee charged in addition USEC requests that the application fee for the uranium endchment facility category l to achieve fee equity among all materials licensees Thank you for the oppecunity to provide our input to the Commission's evaluation proce
' would be pleased to discuss these comments with you. Please contact me at (301) 564-34 Lisamarie Jardel at (301) 564-3247.
Sincerely, ,
/
- /Y Y v
Robert L.Woolley Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager
)a
- -- .