ML20205L240
| ML20205L240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/08/1999 |
| From: | Brach E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Beckett T ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904140195 | |
| Download: ML20205L240 (3) | |
Text
el h
'e f e
f U%
[
k UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
,o April 8, 1999 Mr. Thomas H. Beckett Deputy Director for Naval Reactors 3
i Department of Energy I
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Beckett:
In a letter to Carl Paperiello, dated January 14,1999, you provided a forecast of Safety Analysis Reports for Packaging (SARP) revisions that would require NRC review and concurrence. As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has for many years provided review of Department of Energy (DOE) SARPs for each container used in the Naval Reactors Program for i
shipment of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, irradiated reactor components, and reactor
{
compartments. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not required by law to review these shipping containers, but DOE desires a Certificate of Compliance which 1
demonstratec, that the shipping containers meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71. While the NRC is prohibited from chaiging DOE license fees under 10 CFR Part 170, we are allowed to impose annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 for Certificates of Compliance. Because there is an established system of charging annual fees, the NRC has continued to perform these SARP reviews and charges DOE an annual fee under Part 171 for these shipping container reviews.
In addition, your letter anticipated submittal in September 1999, of a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for dry storage of spent fuel at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) in Idaho. Review of a DOE naval reactor spent fuel storage installation is not part of tlw NRC statery mission.
i Because Public Law 101-508, Omnibus Budget and Reconcilintion Act of 19S0, as amended, requires the NRC to collect fees that approximate 100 percent of its budget authority (less appropriations from the Nuclear Waate Fund), adding the cost of this review to the NRC budget req':r-t increases fees paid by NRC licensees. To eliminate the inequity of NRC licensees payir,;, for NRC work performed for other Federal agencies, we cannot include resources in our budget for review of the SAR for dry storage of spent fuel at the NRF in Idaho. If you would like the NRC staff to perform this work, we will do so on a reimbursable basis.
.)
I believe that members of our technical staffs need to meet soon to discuss how this new reimbursable procedure will work and to plan for FY 2000. The NRC contact is Ross Ohappell, Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Section, and he may be reached at (301) 415-8510 (y
Sincerely, N
h hh
'40068
-~b Nbh
~
E. William Brach, Director Spent Fuel Project Office b 1 I fT 1
g 41 g 95 99 g Office of Nuclear Material Safct q_tp7l9o PDR and Safeguards
_ j p 7 l 7/
cc: Barry Miles
/
bl
f'
.'y s
April 8, 1999 Mr. Thomrs H. B:ckttt Deputy Director for Naval Reactors Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Beckett:
In a letter to Carl Paperiello, dated January 14,1999, you provided a forecast of Safety Analysis Reports for Packaging (SARP) revisions that would require NRC review and concurrence. As you know, the Nue: ear Regulatory Commission has for many years provided review of Department of Energy (DOE) SARPs for each container used in the Naval Reactors Program for shipment of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, irradiated reactor components, and reactor compartments. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not required by law to review these shipping containers, but DOE desires a Certificate of Compliance which demonstrates that the shipping containers meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71. While the NRC is prohibited from charging DOE license fees under 10 CFR Part 170, we are allowed to impose annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 for Certificates of Compliance. Because there is an established system of charging annual fees, the NRC has continued to perform these SARP reviews and charges DOE an annual fee under Part 171 for these shipping container reviews.
In addition, your letter anticipated submittal in September 1999, of a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for dry storage of spent fuel at the Naval Reactors FacGy (NRF) in Idaho. Review of a 3
DOE naval reactor spent fuel storage installation is not part of the NRC statutory mission.
j Because Public Law 101-508, Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, requires the NRC to collect fees that approximate 100 percent of its budget authority (less i
appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund), adding the cost of this review to the NRC budget request increases fees paid by NRC licensees. To eliminate the inequity of NRC licensees paying for NRC work performed for other Federal agencies, we cannot include resources in our budget for review of the SAR for dry storage of spent fuel at the NRF in Idaho. If you would like the NRC staff to perform this work, we will do so on a reimbursable basis.
I believe that members of our technical staffs need to meet soon to discuss how this new reimbursable procedure will work and to plan for FY 2000. The NRC point of contact is Ross Chappell, Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Section, and he may be reached at (301) 415-8510 Sincerely, (Original Signed by S. Shankman for:)
E. William Brach, Director Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc: Barry Miles DISTRIBUTION:
NRC File Center Pubhc SFPO r/f NMSS r/f G:\\HEUMANN\\DOENRFAC.WPD
- see previous concurrence JPH 3/30 h
h SJPg OFC:
SFPO*
SFPO SFPO.DD OCFO NAME:
EHeumann jh Rhlt S5 h an ggg hd s
DATE:
4/ /99 4/(, /99 4/9 /99 4/8/99 4hd l
OFFICIAL' RECORD COPY w
9 '.
n Mr. Thomrs H. 8 ck:.tt Deputy Dir ctor for Naval Reactors Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Beckett:
In a letter to Can Paperiello, dated January 14,1999, you provided a forecast of Safety nalysis Reports for Packaging (SARP) revisions that would require NRC review and concurr ce. As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has for many years provided revie of Department of Energy (DOE) SARPs for each container used in the Naval Rea rs Program for shipmer,t of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, irradiated reactor components, and actor compartments. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)is not r uired by law to review these shipping containers, but DOE desires a Certificate of Co iance which demonstrates that the shipping containers meet the requirements of 0 CFR Par t 71. While the NRC is prohibited from charging DOE license fees under 10 CFR art 170, we are allowed to impose annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 for Certificates of mpliance. Because there is an established system of charging annual fees, the NRC has c inued to perform these SARP reviews and charges DOE an annual fee under Part 171 t these shipping container reviews.
In addition, your letter anticipated submittal in Septe er 1999, of a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for dry storage of spent fuel at the Naval Re tors Facility (NRF) in Idaho. Review of a DOE naval reactor spent fuel storage installation ' not part of the NRC statutory mission.
Because Pubii; Law 101-508, Omnibus Budge nd Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, requires the NRG to collect fees that approxi ate 100 percent of its budget authority (less appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fu
), adding the cost of this review to the NRC budget request increases fees paid by NRC lice ees. To eliminate.he inequity of NRC licensees paying for NRC work performed for ot r Federal agencies, we cannot include resources in our budjet for review of the SAR for dry orage of spent fuel at the NRF in Idaho. If you would like the NRC staff to perform this work, e will do so on a reimbursable basis.
I believe that members of our t chnical staffs need to meet soon to discuss how this new reimbursable procedure will w rk and to plan for FY 2000. The NRC point of contact is Ross Chappell, Chief, Spent Fuel scensing Section, and he may be reached at (301) 415-8510 Sincerely, E. William Brach, Director Spent Fuel Project 7ffice Office of Nuclear Material Safety l
end Safeguards cc: Barry iles DISTR!
TION:
NRC F)fe Center Public S F P O r/f NMSS r/f G:\\HKUMANN\\DOENRFAC.WPD JPH 3/30
{
C:
SFPO SFPO SFPO.DD OCFO SFPO:D EHeumaNjh RChappell SShankman EWBrach NAME:
DATE:
h [/99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i