ML20245H941
| ML20245H941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/1989 |
| From: | Fisher W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908170362 | |
| Download: ML20245H941 (2) | |
Text
-_.
p J L 3 1. W
.,*:o.o H
MEMORANDUM FOR:
A. B. Beach, Director.
. Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards i
FROM:
-William _L. Fisher, Chief Nuclear Materials Safety Branch
SUBJECT:
LICENSE AMEN 0 MENT FEE FOR PATHFINDER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING Toda'y I. learned from Dan Martin that OGC has advised the License Fee Management-1 Branch that the fee for the Pathfinder license amendment should be $60.00 in accordance with 10 CFR 170.31 Category 3.P.
The reasoning seems to be simply.
that the Pathfinder site is covered by a Part 30, not a Part 50 license.
Although this position may be legally correct, I would like to argue against it on logical grounds.
In 1968, Northern States-Power (NSP) decided to abandon Pathfinder as a ' nuclear generating station and to convert it to fossil fuel..
In 1971, I believe, AEC issued an Order to dismantle portions of the plant and to place them in a'" safe-store" condition.
The nuclear steam supply system was dismantled to the extent necessary to render it inoperable and incapable of being restored to service.
In 1969, NSP had been issued a Part 30 license (No. 22-08799-02) to cover.the possession and use of:
(1) instrument calibration sources and (2) cobalt-60 and zinc-65.in piping of the fossil fueled power plant.
In March 1973, the license was amended to allow only possession of any byproduct material not to exceed 70,000 curies total.
The license has undergone several minor amendments and now covers possession and storage not-to exceed 17,000 curies total.
I believe the NSP decision to place the facility in " safe store" rather than to completely dismantle it was to permit decay of residual contamination and to defer the-costs of ultimate disposal.
Had NSP completely dismantled the facility under their Part 50 license in the early '70s, they would have paid the AEC whatever fees were appropriate at the time. Had NSP maintained the facility under a Part 50 rather that Part 30 license, they would now have to pay the full cost of NRC efforts related to review and approval of_the NSP decommissioning plan and other documents.
My argument, therefore, is this:
Deferral of dismantlement of Pathfinder occurred for the licensee's benefit, not for AEC/NRC's.
Termination of the Part 50 license and issuance of the Part 30 license did not reduce the effort necessary by NRC to ensure an adequate decommissioning plan. Thus, it is not logical to expect the NRC budget to absorb costs that normally would be borne by the licensee. This argument seems particularly valid in view of the Commission's desire to recover from licensees a greater fraction of its costs.
RI N MSB WLFfther/ch l
1/3}/89 b
1 &
D h 890731
[
PNV
[
y t
l h! "
A. B. Beach.
C. James Holloway's May 1, 1989, memorandum to Robert L. Fonner recommends that the Pathfinder dismantlement be considered a "Special Project," in accordance with Part 170.31, in order to obtain full recovery of costs.
Mr. Fonner replied that it would be inappropriate to consider the dismantling a Special Project and implied that the $60.00 fee would apply.
Perhaps the review of the Decommissioning Plan and other documents could be considered a Special Project, allowing full cost recovery under 170.31 Category 12, while the inspections could be charged at the 170.31 Category 3.P rate.
You might wish to discuss this with Bill Brown.
j f
- ) Fisher, C iefIf Wil iam i.
l Nuclear Materials Safety Branch l
Enclosures:
1.
Memo from C. James Holloway, dated May 1. 1989 2.
Memo from Pcbert L. Fonner, dated May 8, 1989 3.
10 CFR Part 170 bec:
diB - Original (IE-07)
DEMartin, NMSS RDMartin ABBeach WLFisher CLCain RJEverett NMSB AIV Files (2)
WLBrown
- - _ - _ _