ML20150A902
| ML20150A902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1988 |
| From: | Alexander Adams Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807110095 | |
| Download: ML20150A902 (3) | |
Text
'l
','(fsien"O UNITED STATES
<g
?
g f
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
ij WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55
\\..s
/
June 21, 1988 MEMORANDUM T0: Frank Miraglia, Associate Director for Projects THRU:
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director Division of Reactor Projects - III JV, V and Special Projects Lester S. Rubenstein, Acting Director Standardization and Non-Power Reactop-Qk Project Directorate
- t, 7
Division of Reactor Projects - III,
IV, Y and Special Projects FROM:
Alexander Adams, Jr., Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects
SUBJECT:
CURRENT ISSUES IN NON-POWER REACTOR LICENSING Since the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, non-power reactors have followed a licensing philosophy that calls for sufficient regulation to assure the health and safety of the public, while permitting the conduct of widespread and diverse research and development. The regulations developed over the years by the AEC and NRC have served this need well. However, the economic realities of the late 1980's and the advancements in nuclear technology have produced two areas where the existing regulations may need augmentation. One is the issue of commercial activities at research reactors and the other is the definition of a testing facility.
As you are aware, the Commission has recently decided to accept applications from research reactors for licenses to distribute irradiated gemstones.
Historically, the Commission has not examined in detail the extent of comercial work at research reactors.
In May 1973, a definition was added to the regulations defining a research reactor as commercial if over 50% of the annual cost of owning and operating the facility is devoted to commercial operations (10 CFR 50.22). This definition limits the use of funds but not the source.
In this era of fiscal constraints, many universities have concluded that to continue to own a research reactor, an increasing fraction of the operating budget nust come from providing income producing services. This income is provided by billing research grants for services, conducting research and development for industry, and providing commercial products and services. The i
l percentage of income earned from providing commercial prMucts and services has O
been small enough not to warrant close scrutiny by the Cm mission. However, q,}l CONTACT:
A. Adams, PDSNP x21121 8807110095 880621 g
PDR ORG NRRB
r Frank Miraglia with gemstones, we have a commercial activity with the >otential to create problems in the areas of licensing and compliance. To )e fair, any actions taken with regard to commercial activity must be applied to all research reactors, not just the gemstone producers.
We will take the following actions to address this problem. NMSS requested, at our suggestion, that licensees applying for a license to distribute gemstones provide information that confirms their status as a noncommercial research '.'eactor. The responses from the applicants lead NMSS to ask NRR a series of questions about what type of response is adequate. PDSNP and PTSB will develop snswers.
Given our perception that an overall increase in the amount of commercial activity at research reactors is occurring, we will examine this entire issue to ascertain if clearer guidance from the Conunission is warranted.
The issue of funding for research reactors will be addressed in an upcoming report by the National Science Foundation on the state of research reactors in the United States. Re)resentatives from the Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors lave been involved in talks with DOE concerning base funding for university research reactors.
The other current issue is the definition of a test reactor. This definition was placed in the regulations in 1958. The Commission has received a setition for rulemaking from the University of Missouri at Columbia to change t1e definition to make it de)endent on the function of the reactor rather than the power level. We are wordng with research on this rulemaking. The first step is to locate the records that provide the basis for the current rule.
Several i
years ago OGC searched Commission records for background information on this definition without success. We will resolve this issue by ruling on the l
petition and, if necessary, by developing a definition with a current technical basis.
We will keep you informed of our progress on these issues.
Wh 4
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
roject Manager l
Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, l
l V and Special Projects l
l l
/
L
June 21, 1988 e
o Frank Miraglia with gemstones, we have a commercial activity with the potential to create problems in the areas of licensing and compliance. To be fair, any actions taken with regard to commercial activity must be applied to all research reactors, not just the gemstone producers.
We will take the following actions to address this problem.
NMSS requested, at our suggestion, that licensees applying for a license to distribute gemstones provide information that confirms their status as a noncommercial l
research reactor. The respon es from the applicants lead NMSS to ask NRR a series of questions about what type of response is adequate. PDSNP and PTSB will develop answers. Given our perception that an overall increase in the amount of commercial activity at research reactors is occurring, we will examine this entire issue to ascertain if clearer guidance from the Commission is warranted.
The issue of funding for research reactors will be addressed in an upcoming report by the National Science Foundation on the state of research reactors in
~
i the United States. Representatives from the Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors have been involved in talks with DOE concerning base funding for university research reactors.
The other current issue is the definition of a test reactor. This definition was placed in the regulations in 1958. The Commission has received a aetition for rulemaking from the University of Hissouri at Columbia to change tie definition to make it dependent on the function of the reactor rather than the power level. We are working with research on this rulemaking. The first step is to locate the records that provide the basis for the current rule.
Several years ago OGC searched Comission records for background information on this definition without success. We will resolve this issue by ruling on the petition and, if necessary, by developing a definition with a current technical basis.
We will keep you informed of our propress on these issues.
original signed by Alexander Adams, Jr., Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects DISTRIBUTION:
Central File FGillespie NRC PDR TTNartin PDSNP Reading THurley DCrutchfield JSniezek LRubenstein AAdams PDSNP @
AD:PDWh DR AAdams:cw LRubp @tein DCru chfield 06/g7/88 06/g/88 06/h/88