ML20149F713
| ML20149F713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1994 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Moselybraun C, Poshard G, Simon P HOUSE OF REP., SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072A920 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9408150310 | |
| Download: ML20149F713 (3) | |
Text
_ ~ _ _ _ __
. t p+* 'l%y
- 8 UNITED STATES g ne NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20lili6 CHAIR AN !
The Honorable Paul Simon United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 pear Senator Simon:
I am responding to your letter of June 21, 1994, regarding the FY 1994 annual fees proposed for Allied-Signal, Inc., which owns and operates a uranium hexafluoride facility in Metropolis, Illinois. ,
The Commission understands your concern about the potential i adverse impact of these fees. However, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, requires the i Nuclear Regulatory Commission for fiscal years 1991 through 1998 ;
to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, !
less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by i assessing fees to NRC applicants and licensees. Each year, we [
must develop fees that will permit NRC to meet this requirement. i We make constant efforts to ensure that the budget that must be ;
recovered is only what is needed to provide adequate protection :
of the public health and safety.
i On May 10, 1994, the Commission published for public comment a proposed rule indicating the amounts of the licensing, t inspection, and annual fees necessary to recover approximately 100 percent of the.NRC FY 1994 budget authority. After i evaluating all comments, including those from Allied-Signal, we l published the final rule establishing fees for FY 1994 on July l 20, 1994. Although the Commission concluded that the fees for the various classes of fuel facilities are appropriate, it noted that some of the issues raised by Allied-Signal indicated an
" unusual situation" warranting further consideration. Therefore, we are carefully considering Allied-Signal's comments regarding l NRC's allocation of costs to them as a request for an exemption 4 from payment of the full fee under 10 CFR 171.11(d). The Commission expects to issue a decision on this exemption request in the near future and will forward a copy to you when it is available. .
If I can be of further assistance, please let Iae know. ;
Sincerely, 1
Kenneth C. Rogers 4 Acting Chairman l
'p, ost5 o h o d* \
_ , 9 p i
g UNITED STATES
[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 3 'l f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20556 f CHAIRMAN August 4, 1994 l
),
i The Honorable Carol Mosely-Braun United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 i
Dear Senator Mosely-Braun:
I am responding to your letter of June 21, 1994, regarding the FY 1994 annual fees proposed for Allied-Signal, Inc., which owns and ,
operates a uranium hexafluoride facility in Metropolis, Illinois.
The Commission understands your concern about the potential adverse impact of these fees. However, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OGRA-90), as amended, requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for fiscal years 1991 through 1998 to recover approxim.ately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from-the Nuclear Waste Fund, by ;
assessing fees to NRC applicants and licensees. Each year, we ,
must develop fees that will permit NRC to meet this requirement.
We make constant efforts to ensure that the budget that must be recovered is only what is needed to provide adequate protection '
of the public health and safety.
On May 10, 1994, the Commission published for public comment a '
proposed rule indicating the amounts of the licensing, inspection, and annual fees necessary to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC FY 1994 budget authority. After evaluating all comments, including those from Allied-Signal, we j published the final rule establishing fees for FY 1994 on July i 20, 1994. Although the Commission concluded that the fees for i the various classes of fuel facilities are appropriate, it noted that some of the issues raised by Allied-Signal indicated an
" unusual situation" warranting further consideration. Therefore, I we are carefully considering Allied-Signal's comments regarding 1 NRC's allocation of costs to them as a request for an exemption l from payment of the full fee under 10 CFR 171.11(d). The '
i Commission expects to issue a decision on this exemption request in the near future and will forward a copy to you when it is available. l l
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. l l
Sincerely, '
l
. M Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman i
l ph'i'*Wg
. !" o UNITED STATES !
5 s E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i o # WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 J
cHA R AN August 4, 1994 The Honorable Glenn Poshard i United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Poshard:
I am responding to your letter of June 21, 1994, regarding the FY 1994 annual fees proposed for Allied-Signal, Inc., which owns and operates a uranium hexafluoride facility in Metropolis, Illinois. i The Commission understands your concern about the potential '
adverse impact of these fees. However, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for fiscal years 1991 through 1998 to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by ;
asseF71ng fees to NRC applicants and licensees. Each year, we .
must eevelop fees that will permit NRC to meet this requirement.
We make constant efforts to ensure that the budget that must be recovered is only what is needed to provide adequate protection ,
of the public health and safety.
On May 10, 1994, the commission published for public comment a proposed rule indicating the amounts of the licensing, inspection, and annual fees necessary to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC FY 1994 budget authority. After evaluating all comments, including those from Allied-Signal, we <
published the final rule establishing fees for FY 1994 on July l 20, 1994. Although the Commission concluded that the fees for the various classes of fuel facilities are appropriate, it noted ;
that some of the issues raised by Allied-Signal indicated an
" unusual situation" warranting further consideration. Therefore, ,
we are carefully considering Allied-Signal's comments regarding i NRC's allocation of costs to them as a request for an exemption i from payment of the full fee under 10 CFR 171.11(d). The Commission expects to issue a decision on this exemption request ;
in the near future and will forward a copy to you when it is I available. i If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. !
Sincerely, j d.,
[ ,
Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman
Mited $tates $tnate WASHINGTON, DC 20510
~
June 21, 1994 Dr. Ivan Selin l Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852
Dear Dr. Selin:
We are writing to express our concerns on proposed regulations published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Federal Register May 10, 1994. These proposed regulations revise the NRC's annual licensing, inspection and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. We believe these fees may have an an adverse impact on an Illinois firm.
AlliedSignal owns and operates a uranium hexafloride conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois, and has filed comments on the proposed regulations. This firm is concerned that the regulations, if made final, will have an adverse effect on the Metropolis plant, and on the American uranium hexafloride business in general.
The fee charged to AlliedSignal in FY 1993 was $680,220.
The proposed regulations would impose a new annual fee on AlliedSignal of $1,169,770 -- nearly a 72 percent increase from the previous year. It is our understanding that such an increase would raise the cost of conversion services by six cents per pound and require AlliedSignal's charge to its customers to be raised by the same amount just to recoup the cost of the annual fee.
Both the Department of Energy and the NRC have recognized that the Metropolis plant is important to our nation; the plant is one of only five UF conversion facilities in the world, and the sole remaining conversion facility in the United States. It is our understanding that winning bids on conversion services can be decided by as little as one cent per pound of UF. Last year, AlliedSignal converted 19,000,000 pounds of UF. It would appear, therefore, that any price increase required to cover the cost of an increased annual fee -- a fee that converters in Canada and Europe do not have to pay -- substantially impairs he US conversion industry's competitive position and, possibly, the continued operation of the Metropolis facility.
l
%s 1(f-
o Dr. Ivan i n June 16, 14 Page Two l
AlliedSignal believes that the proposed fee does not reflect the fact that the Metropolis plant has been well run and does not require a great deal of Commission attention. AlliedSignal also believes its fees should be based upon the uranium recovery classification, rather than the fuel facility classification, ;
since its plant deals with uranium concentrates manufactured by millers, rather than the more dangerous special nuclear material that requires more vigilant oversight by the Commission.
Finally, we are greatly concerned about any negative impact this decision may have upon workers in Metropolis. The 4 Metropolis plant employs 380 workers, making it the second largest employer in its region of southern Illinois. One hundred percent of the maintenance contractors used at the plant are Illinois companies. Given that southern Illinois is a rural, lower-income area suffering from severe unemployment, any adverse impact upon this plant created by this regulation could lead to unacceptable consequences to the regional economy.
We hope you will give Alliedsignal's comments careful consideration under the Commission's regulation and guidelines.
Specifically, we urge you to exercise the Commission's discretion not to impose such an unreasonable annual fee on this facility for reasons of equity, economic stability, and fairness required by the statute under which the fee is imposed.
Sincerely, Carol Moseley- aun Paul Simon United States enator United States Senator T
I ,,
lenn Poshard Member of Congress