ML22230A051
| ML22230A051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/12/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780112 | |
| Download: ML22230A051 (54) | |
Text
RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC SESSION Policy Session 78-2 Adjudicatory Session 78-4 Place - Washington, D. C.
Date_ Thursday, 12 January 1978 Pages 1 - 51 Telephone :
(202 ) 347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporten 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 2000 l NATlONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on January 12,_1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. \* ~--washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
I (
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument
( contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
(
r l CR6025 MELTZER/mm UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
PUBLIC SESSION 4
Policy Session 78-2 5
Adjudicatory Session 78-4 6
7 8
Room 1130 1717 H Street 9
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, 12 January 1978 10 Hearing in the. above entitled-matter was convened, 11 pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., JOSEPH HENDRIE, Chairman, 12 presiding.
13 PRESENT:
14 JOSEPH HENDRIE, Chairman 15 RICHARD KENNEDY, Commissioner VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 16 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 James Holloway Rich Mallory William 0. Miller Walter McGee 18 Daniel Donoghue Don Hassel Robert Fonner Samuel Chilk 19 Lee V. Gossick Edson Case 20 Trip Rothschild Leo Slaggi 21 R. Cunningham L. Barry 22 Dennis Crutchfield 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
2 mm I N D E X 2 Page 3 SECY-77-301D - License Fees 3 4 Affirmation Items SECY-77-538 - Transient Workers 46 5 SECY-77-627 - Conflict of Interest 47 SECY-A-78 Exxon ALAB-447 - Order 47 6 Extendint Review Time 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
3 mm 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we go ahead and 3 start on the kubject we are meeting this afternoon, on the 4 matter of a new license fee schedule for the Commission.
5 Th~ Commission has had to move forward and look at 6 its fee schedules pursuant to the Independent Offices Appropri -
7 tion Act of '52, and assorted.other compelling judicial 8 legislative pjoducts.
9 A schedule for these was published for comment 10 sometime ago.
11 MR*. MILLER: May 2nd.
12 CHAIR1'\1AN HENDRIE: in May.
- 13 14 15 Th~ Commission had met previously to hear Staff's summary of co~ents. We have had in the course of discussions with architect-engineering firms and nuclear reactor vendor 16 firms mconnection with the :,standardization policy, the 17 matter of fees always arises in regard to those particular 18 things. So we have had a good deal of discussion of fee 19 schedule.
20 Mostrrecently the Staff was asked at a meeting 21 late in Octob~r, to respond to several questions on the 22 proposed fee**. schedule and to make any modifications they 23 thought appropriate in one way or another.
24 We' are gathered here today then to have a briefing Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 from the Staf~ to cover-the answers to those questions, and
4 mm 1 any other u~dating matters that are appropriate to talk about.
2 The proposed fee schedule is before us as a consent calendar 3 item. I don't know that we will want to vote here today, but 4 I think the discussion with the Staff is an important step 5 in arriving at a decision.
6 We may leave it as a consent,item~ whith will be 7 affirmed later on.
8 So, Lee, please add to 1hat background to get it 9 straightened out, if you will, and go on.
10 MR. GOSSICK: I think you have covered i t completely.
11 As you indicated, there were some que:t:ions that 12 were derived after the previous briefing on October 25th.
- 13 14 15 These questions have been addressed to the Stafff and I believ Bill Miller is ready to present them in the form of a briefing here, giving the answers to the questions, and our views.
16 Bill?
17 MR. MILLER: As indicated,there were several 18 questions. And we will jump right into the questions.
19 Allen, if you will put Vugraph No. 4 up there, 20 please.
21 (Slide.)
22 The first question that was raised by the 23 Commission, and for which we have provided an answer, was the 24 question, should revised fee schedules contain. , fees* for Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 applications and licenses for breeder reactors and fuel repro
5 plants.
mm 2 And, as you know, the current policy is to defer --
3 at least as I understand it -- reviews for such applications 4 and we discussed this matter with NRR. And NRR recommended 5 that rather than have: .a fee schedule specifical]y for breeder 6 reactors, we develop a new category called advanced reactors.
7 (Slide.)
8 Now we would define advance reactors as any power 9 plant or power reactor other than light water reactors, and 10 HTGR. So we have for power reactors two categories, a light 11 water reactor -- one category, light water reactor, HTGRs, 12 and a second category which would be taken to account for
- 13 14 15 any changes or advance reactors, covering everything else.
So that is our recommendation insofar as breeders; to delete that particular language, and substitute advance 16 reactors.
17 Insofar as fuel repros 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: As to that category, your 19 slide shows actual costs. I assume you mean precisely that?
20 MR. MILLER: Actual costs with an upper limit. The 21 upper limit being that limit which we specified in the October 22 25 paper.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Good.
24 MR. MILLER:* Yes. So there would be the upper limit.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 In respect to fuel reprocessing plants, there are
6 mm
- l. two considerations here insofar as the Staff is concerned.
2 NMSS recommended that we continue the specific fee schedule 3 or category for fuel repro plants as we currently have in 4 the regulation, as was provided for in our 0ctober 25 paper.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What is the rationale for 6 that? Can you give me the rationale for that?
7 MR. MILLER: I would prefer to let Dick Cunningham 8 respond to that.
9 MR. G.JNNINGHAM: Only for this purpose. Reprocessin 10 . might take place *for* puripo~es. , . other than _recoy-ery of 11 plutonium mixed oxide fuel. There is one school of thought 12 that says it might be processed for more effective waste 13 management, put it in a glass matrix, for example so *it keeps 14 the options open.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see. That is not 16 likely to happen inihe foreseeable future?
17 Some other changes would have to take place b~fore 18 that would be possible, so you would .have plenty of time to 19 deal with the matter and set up a schedule.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well it is certainly not going 21 to take place next year, or the next two or three years.
22 B~w far it will proceed in the future, I 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Suppose you say the r,.,:~-
24 next two or three years --
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I said it.won't.
7 RMG 1 COMMISIONER GILINSKY: Right. So why deal with 2 it here, then?
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There is one exception to that.
4 There was something left open on possible use of the ,Barnwell 5 plant for some purpose. I don't know what that purpose might 6 be.
7 I might also add I don't know how to make a clear 8 distinction between a reprocessing plant, a waste solidificatio 9 plant --
10 COMMISSI:ONER GILINSKY: Have they paid their fees 11 already?
12 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Barnwell?
- 13 14 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
MR. MILLER:
license fee.
Yes.
They have not paid an operating 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, they can't get an 17 operating license fee for reprocessing without some major 18 policy changes taking place.
19 MR. MILLER: Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So I think there is nothing 21 to talk about on that score.
22 You know, why reach that, why deal with this matter 23 when you can deal with it at some later point when it becomes 24 appropriate, if it ever does.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What other sorts of activities
8 RMG 2 might the repr0cessing fee cover?
2 MR. !*CUNNINGHAM: I might add that we have always 3 considered the:waste ~olidification part of the plant as part 4 of 1:1...reprocessing plant. Now, we do -- there is a possibili:t,y 5 that the waste solidification plant would have to built in 1
6 connectioh with the NMS plant 7 There_is a possibility that some of these commercial 8 the military wastes that are in liquid form might have to be 9 solidified. Tl;lat might be done commercially. I don't know; 10 it's uncertain.
11 CHA+RMAN HENDRIE: I think it leaves a gap with 12 regard to wast~s management.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What harm is done by leaving 14 it there?
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If you want to qualify the words 16 a little bit, why, that might be a helpful way to deal with it.
17 What is the present nomenclature? I don't have the big book 18 for the presen} nomenclature.
19 MR.;MILLER: "Reprocessing plant complex means a 20 facility for processing spent fuel and associated facilities 21 for spent fuel:receipt and storagep uranium and plutonium 22 conversio~ and;waste solidification." That is the definition 23 of the --
24 C0~ISSIONER:**KENNEDY: I hope i t includes fuel Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 storage also.
9 RMG 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: In connection with repro-2 cessing.
3 MR. MILLER: That's the definition of a ~eprocessing 4 plant complex.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: .Question: if Morris were 6 to come in with ... a .. license request to expand their current 7 storage facilities, where would that have been considered in 8 our fee schedules?
9 MR. MILLER: That would fall into a separate cate-10 gory.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Different one.
12 MR. MILLER: A separate category. We did create
- 13 14 15 in that last paper in- October spent fuel storage facility*.
So that is ~eparate.
As an alternative to -- and I've mentioned this to 16 Dick, also, and he might care to respond to it -- as an alter-17 native, we could put in a category special projects, let it fal 18 under a special project category. There are a number of specia 19 projects which are not defined, and just put it on an actual 20 cost basis. Down the road someplace --
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Anything else from m+/-s-22 cellaneous? anything else that might come up?
23 MR. MILLER: Yes. As a catchall --
24 COMMISS*IONER GILINSKY: That would simply be a Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 policy statement that whatever else we do, we would do on an
10 RMG 4 cost basis.
2 MR. MILLER: How do you fe~l about that, Dick, as 3 an alternative?
4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I,_don't think it's a great issue.
5 It makes it easier for us if we hav~ for any applicant, if they 6 know what the fee 1s going to be ahead of time.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think actual cost 8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Actual cost -- would the 9 ceiling in the October paper apply? Do you have to establish 10 ad.different one?
11 MR. MILLER: Not for special projects, because we 12 don't know what they would be, so we couldn't establish a 13 ceiling, of course.
14 You know, we -- in the October paper we had a 15 special project which was a catchall, which would have been 16 strictly actual cost. We also had a fuel repro complex which 17 did have a ceiling.
18 Now, if we decide to drop the fuel repro complex, 19 handle it under special projects, there would be no ceiling 20 because we 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, it certainly would be more 22 consistent with what NRR is doing with advance reactors.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Except that they do have a 24 ceiling.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
11 RMG 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Please carry on, I will:*be right 2 back.
3 MR. MILLER: The next question that the Commission 4 asked us to respond to.
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. MILLER: Should fees for permits and licenses,,.
7 for custom-designed power reactors be based on actual cost, 8 actual cost not to exceed those fees that were set forth in the 9 October 25 paper, the schedule that was considered at that time.
10 Should the actual cost proviso, with the upper limit, be ex-11 tended to test facilities and research facilities?
12 And we discussed this again with the licensing staff 13 NRR in particular, and they recommend and we recommend that we 14 go to actual manpower cost, to actual cost in lieu of a fixed 15 fee which we previously had in the paper, and that there be 16 an upper limit, the upper limit being the limit that was pre-17 scribed in the October 25 proposed rule.
18 So that is our recommendation, that we go away from 19 the fixed fee, go to an actual cost with an upper limit.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And what is the upper limit?
21 MR. MILLER: The upper limit is roughly $900,000, 22 as I recall, for a construction permit, and about $1 million 23 for an operating license. Jim, you can give him an exact --
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And how do those relate to Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 the average cost?
12 RMG 6 MR. MILLER: Well, that is the average cost, as a 2 matter of fact. The upper limit is the average cost, based on 3 our experience for construction permit £6r a custom-type plant.
4 Now, we're only talking about custom plants here.
5 We_do have other categories for standardized plants, if you 6 recall. They are somewhat less than that for a custom plant.
7 MR. CASE: Just let me make sure. At the time we 8 did this, it was the average cost. Since that time, with the 9 more recent cases, average actual costs have gone up beyond the 10 number Bill mentioned.
11 MR. MILLER: Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So would it be keyed to the 13 average cost, or to this number?
14 MR. CASE: To that number.
15 MR. MILLER: The number we have.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the current average 17 cost? Is it significantly different?
18 MR. CASE: Yes. High.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: How much higher?
20 MR. CASE: 50 percent or more.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 50 percent or more?
22 MR. CASE: 50. 5-0.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 50. percent more than $1 1.,.:.~ .
24 million? You mean $1.5 million?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc*.
25 MR. CASE: Yes.
13 RMG 7 MR. CRU'ICHFIELD :* : $1.5 million is also composed of other's 2 time. NRR's contribution to the total manyears is only like 3 about 6 manyears out of what, I think, I guess, 10.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And :~the rest?
5 ........ :. __ .. _,
6 MR. MILLER: Quality assurance,,ACRS --
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So, let's see, what is the 8 justification, I mean, since the point of it was to gear it to 9 what the average cost:~as 10 MR. CASE: The justification was, let's get this one 11 out, and then next year there will be another fee schedule whic 12 will take into account the differences that have happened since 13 we made these previous calculations.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do you do this annually?
15 MR. MILLER: Well, if you follow 0MB you would.
16 Their Circular 825 specifies that we review fee strudtures or 17 schedules and make adjustment on an annual basis. We have not 18 done that, but we did at one time. We have not in the last two 19 or three years ~:
20 COMMISISONER GILINSKY: We have or have not?
21 MR. MILLER: Have not.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Did we do that formally?
23 MR. MILLER: At one time we did, yes, back beginning 24 Ace-Federal Re~rters, Inc.
in '70, '71, '72, '73 -- the schedule was adjusted every year.
25
'73 was the last.
14 RMG 8 I might add that, of course, we are aware of the 2 recommendation that NRR said and, even as I recall, and Ed, 3 you may correct me -- their recommendation that the ceiling be 4 increased.
5 But we would have a problem, I think, Dan, with 6 that, because we could,~not -- we don't feel that we could --
7 and the lawyers may speak to this point -- we could not go out 8 with a schedule, if the Commission decided to go foward with 9 this schedule, and increase the limit, the upper limit, without 10 going out for comment, as a proposed rule again. We'd have to 11 start over and go out for_"public comment.
12 So we would prefer and recommend that ,_the Commission 13 if they so choose, adopt this schedule and put it in the place, 14 and then some time later we can reassess costs.*
15 MR. DONOGHUE: This schedule really sets the frame-16 work for any future, any further reviews, assuming this 17 schedule will hold up, tne concept, if we're tested in court~
18 would merely be reviewin the cost to see whether the fees 19 ought to be rai~ed 6r lowered, rather than dealing with concept.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see. You are establishing 21 a new basis for charging fees.
22 MR. DONOGHUE: Correct. In~line with the court 23 decisions.
24 MR. MILLER: The guidelines that the Commission Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 furnished us last February, that's correct.
15 RMG 9 The third question dealt with research reactors and 2 the question was should the Commission continue to exempt from 3 license fees 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The Commission is melting 5 awayi here.
6 (Laughter.)
7 (Slide.)
8 MR ..MILLER: This was Commissioner Bradford's 9 question, as I recall. But the question was, should the 10 Commission continue to exempt research reactors which may be 11 involved in a commercial venture~ reactors were located at 12 nonprofit education institutions, continue to exempt them from 13 fees?
14 Now, we did send to the Commission a month or so 15 ago a preliminary report on this question, and pointing out 16 that there is some competition, but we were. making a survey, 0
17 we are working with what was ERDA and their group that provides 18 grants to some of these universities.
19 So we are suggesting that we hold that question in 20 abeyance and come back to the Commission with a separate paper 21 on it because there is a lot --
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It actually is a real ques-23 tion?
24 MR. MILLER: rt* is a real question and there are a Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 lot of difficult --
16 RMG 10 MR. DONOGHUE: Policy issues associated with it.
2 MR. MILLER: Right. That's correct. So we would 3 recommend holding that, considering it separate.
4 The next question that was brought up concerned 5 topical~r~ports, and the question the Commission asked is the 6 $20,000 maximum fee a reasonable fee for topical reports. And, 7 as you may recall, this was the -- when we came forward with 8 the paper in October, we pointed out that the Office of 9 Nuclear Reactor Regulation recommended if there was to be fees 10 for topical reports, that we set an upper limit of #20,000 and 11 a minimum limit of $5,000.
12 Now, we recommended to the Commission that we go
- 13 14 15 along with the upper limit of $20,000, but drop the minimum, because there are some cases where the cost is actually less than $5,000, and therefore we couldn't do that. ,;,.,We wouldn't 16 have a floor, but we would have a ceiling.
17 Now, after -- based on the Commission's request for 18 further~iriformation, we went back and we looked -- Jim and I --
19 we looked at 33 topical reports~ thbse 33 that were completed 20 in ,:fiscal '77. And we found that the manpower required to 21 complete these reports ranged from 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> to more than 700 22 professional manhours, the cost ranged from roughly $1,000 to 23 about $28,000, as I recall. Most of the reports were under 24 $10,000 in cost. The average, as I recall, was about $5,000, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 wasn't it, Jim?
17 RMG 11 Now, this is a very -- as you well appreciate, this 2 is a very controversial area. Industry feels very strongly, 3 they've stated, and we've said in our paper last October at the 4 meeting, that industry feels very strongly that there should be 5 no fees for topical reports, that this is something that benefi s 6 primarity the Commission.
7 But we feel in the Office of Administration that thi 8 is an area where the activities specifically requested, the 9 review, there should be fees.
10 Now, we feel that $25,000 is a reasonable --
11 VOICES: $20,000.
12 MR. MILLER: $20,000. $20,000 is a reasonable fee.
- 13 14 15 And the proposal that we've --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
requested by --
This is for a topical report 16 MR. MILLER: Industry.
17 COMMISS*I0NER KENNEDY: Okay.
18 MR. MILLER: By a vendor.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: In other words, if NRR 20 initiates one itself --
21 MR. MILLER: If it is something that iiLinitiated 22 by the Commission, ther:r we would not charge. An application, 23 a request comes in from industry. That is correct~
24 So it would be based on actual cost, again, with the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 upper ceiling of $20,000.
18 RMG 12 NRR did propose, or suggest that perhaps what we 2 should do is consider, rather than the $20,000 limit, we should 3 go on actuals, and recover 75 percent of the actual cost.
4 Now, there are some of these -- for example, the 5 Westinghouse emergency core cooling study, which has not been 6 completed, the Commission has already spent in excess of 7 $150,000. So some of these, there a few of them where the cost 8 is substantial.
9 And NRR recommended,.:.that perhaps we should go 7 5 10 percent of actual cost, the Commission absorb 25. But as I 11 understand i t -- Bob, you may speak to this point -- that there 12 may be some question in defending this kind of a proposal for
- 13 14 15 an .allocation. One of you --
MR. FONNER: :I will say just a few words, and then Leo might want to amplify it a little bit.
16 We felt in OELD that absent some kind of justifi-17 cation for such a reduction, it would not be a reasonable way 18 of approaching the topical report fee scale.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why is that any different 20 from the maximum?
21 MR. FONNER: What we don't -- well, the 75 percent 22 of actual cost is what I'm addressing.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That might turn out to be 24 a greater return than the $20,000 maximum.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. FONNER: For some individual cases, yes. But;:mos
19 of these, as indicated in the answer in the paper, fall below 2 that.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, what fraction of the 4 t6tal expenditures on topical reports would you obtain on the 5 basis of the first recommendation?
6 MR. FONNER: Bill.
7 MR. MILLER: Well, I don't-recall specifically, but 8 we would recover most of the money, because there were only 9 a couple that were outside the $20,000. As I s~id, the average 10 was about $5,000. Most of therµ 90 percent of them, are under 11
$10,000.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would this exempt the
- 13 14 15 research reactors?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As an..::-old research reactor designer, I think that's a very kind thing to do.
16 MR. FONNER: May I continue?
17 The point is, I.:think very simply put, that we have 18 no greater basis to justify a 25 percent reduction here than 19 has been expressed, and do it here and not do it elsewhere.
20 We're putting outselves into a fairly vulnerable position on 21 the legality of that particular part of the fee schedule. And 22 I think the consensus among the lawyers is that this adds some 23 additional increment to the legal risk in the fee schedule.
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. DONOGHUE: What we are getting into +/-s .an 25 apportionment of benefits again, which we've never been able
20 RMG 14 to do across the board. And this is sort of an arbitrary 2 determination that 25 percent is for the benefit.
3 It's really not the benefit of the public, it's the 4 benefit of the Commission, which I think introduces a problem 5 into this. thing.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is hopefully of a benefit 7 to the Commission, thus a benefit to the public, since the 8 Commission works for the public.
9 MR. DONOGHUE: Right. But I don't think it would be 10 construed as an independent public --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Just a philosophical point.
12 (Laughter.)
13 MR. MILLER: Well, in any event, our recommendation 14 is that we go with the ceiling of $25,000 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: $20,000.
16 MR. MILLER: $20,000. I don't know why I'm trying 17 to raise it. But in any event, $20,000. And then after a 18 year or so, we can look at this, look at the impact of the fee 19 and see if it does in fact have an adverse effect to the sub-20 mission of topical reports as industry indicated it might very 21 well do. So this is our recommendation at this time. We go 22 with the ceiling and then look at it a year or so from now to 23 see what we know what we've been receiving, and the number 24 of reports, types of reports.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
21 mrnl COMMISSIONF.R GILINSKY: Then you are saying you 2 would only miss the basis of say, the experience of the 3 last year or two, a couple of reports?
4 MR. MILLER: Costwise, most of them, yes. That's 5 right.
6 Now there are a lot .,...-
- we only looked at those 7 that were completed in fiscal '77. There were a number in 8 progress. A lot of.them were, of course, done prior to 9 fiscal '77. But we did look at the 33 that were completed in 10 fiscal '77.
11 As I indicated, the costs ranged for those that 12 were completed, from $1000 to roughly $28,000. The average 13 cost was $5000. Most of them fell under $10,000 cost.
14 Now there are others, obviously, that were in a 15 continuing -- the highest o.ne so far was the Westinghouse 16 one that I mentioned, which we have already put $150,000 into.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you, are 18 these expenditures reasonably predictable?
19 In other words, if someone submits a topical 20 report, can he have a rough idea at the outset of what it 21 would cost to review?
22 Is it a matter of entering into some random pro-23 cess?
24 MR. CASE: I think it would be very difficult to Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 predict in advance how much it would cost.
22 rnm2 MR. MILLER: I don't think you could tell, the*
2 average cost is such and such, 'and most of them fall under 3 it.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So that in a way is the 5 reason for having a ceiling?
6 MR. MILLER: Yes. I would think so.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: At least you would know 8 it would be less than that~ .,
9 MR. GOSSICK: He doesn~t have an open-ended 10 liability.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think he has in other parts 12 of the fee schedule. Haying a ceiling is very helpful in that
- 13 14 15 regard. Otherwise it is really an open and running cost, and the guy doesn't have any chance to cut it off without just saying, you know, stop, I withdraw, in which case it becomes 16 waste, total waste.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You don't provide an appli-18 cant with any kind of an estimate, then?
19 MR. MILLER: No.
20 of course we have never charged for this before.
21 This is the first time around.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, there wasn't any 23 reason to do so.
24 MR. MILLER: This is the first time it has ever been Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 proposed.
23 mm3 Shall I go on to the next one?
2 (Slide.)
3 The fifth question that was raised, what method 4 of fee*assessment should be adopted by the Commission.for 5 reactor vendors filing standard *NSSS designs and AEs.filing 6 standard BOP designs.
7 And in an earlier paper, which as I recall came 8 in early October to the Commission, we did provide five 9 alternatives for assessment of these plants and we recommended 10 alternative number one, which provided that ti).e Commission 11 would assess an application fee of $50,000 and take the 12 remaining cost with an upper limit here again for the PDA
- 13 14 15 or FDA, take the.remaining cost up to that limit and divide it over the first five units sold.
- coMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Excuse me, what was the 16 limit?
17 MR. MILLER: The limit for a preliminary design 18 is roughly $450-, $500,000. The final design is roughly 19 themme. So you are talking combined, about $1 million, yes.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay.
21 MR. MILLER: So in a nutshell, we are talking 22 about an application fee, the remaining cost up to this limit 23 would be spread across the first five units sold, if the 24 Commission did not -- if the vendor or AE didn't sell the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 units, then the Commission ,would lose these costs, of course.
24 rnm4 So it would be they recover 20 percent.
And we still feel that this is the best approach 2
3 of the alternatives that we have looked at and we discussed 4 previously with the Commission.
5 NRR, that was one of the alternatives that we 6
mentioned last October, which we felt there were problems with 7
and I think the legal staff agreed.
8 They have recommended we collect an application 9
fee and pass the cost, the remaining cost on to the utility.
10 And I think there are some legal problems, as I understand, 11 with that, because the utility was not the applicant for the 12 review.
- 13 14 15 We indicated that in our discussion last October.
Isn't that basically about it?
MR. FONNER: Yes.
16 We felt that the requirement of the Independent 17 Offices Appropriation Act as explained and interpreted by -the 18 Court of Appeals and .the Supreme Court, would preclude passing 19 of a fee that would be due from the applicant, recipient of 20 services, to a third party.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or at least collecting it from the third party. What.the second and third parties do by way 22 23 of exchanging, that's their business.
24 MR. FONNER: That is an economic and commercial Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 relationship.
25 rnm5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And at this level I believe it 2 turns out that there is a slight saving for a utility that 3 uses standard design. If he uses an archi ted:.--engineer' s 4 standard design, the reduction for the whole, sort of like 5 the whole plant proposition, which would include then a 6 standardized NSSS, the reduction in the utility's construction 7 permit fee 8 MR. MILLER: Was about $230,000.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: is* just about awash with that 10 one-fifth of the standard review fee that the AE is going to 11 have to pay.
12 So we have here constructed a system which does
- 13 14 15 not provide afty notable dollar incentives for standardization, but at least appears not to have constructed any substantial monetary disincentives to standardization. I have always 16 to that as an important sort of minimum position to be taking 17 if we are, in fact, tryj_ng to encourage people to go in that 18 direction.
19 MR. MILLER: The other factor, too, arong that 20 line, based on what Ed Case has said, 1he upper factor or the 21 upper limits for standard plants -- in other words the 22 maximum fee*for standard plant is based on a hi'gh learning 23 curve.
24 Theoretically these costs should come down, the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 actual costs should come down, and I think that is the way
26 rnm6 you feel, isn't that right?
2 MR.CASE: Yes.
3 MR. MILLER: So there would be greater savings as 4 we gain experience _in this area, since we have a maximum fee, 5 of course for standard plantsr as we do for custom now. So 6 there -should be a greater saving in the future.
7 The sixth question:
8 (Slj_de.)
9 Is the proposed fee scheduled in conflict ~o some 10 extent with other federal statutes such as the Small Business 11 Act, where the question was raised, real estate licensees 12 may have some advantage, antitrust laws, or any other-class
- 13 14 15 of laws or policy directives?
And, should the Commission continue -- should the Commission set fees below the cost or rendering service for 16 certain classes or categories of licensees?
17 And is there a basis for setting certain fees 18 below cost?
19 Well, in discussing this of course with the legal 20 staff, they .advise us that this proposed schedule is not in 21 conflict with either the Small Business Act, or with other 22 federal statutes.
23 That the overriding statutes for licensees for 24 cost recovery for agencies such as NRC is Title V of the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Independent Offices Appropriation Act.
27 The legal staff also ad~ises ~s that fees cannot 2 be cut arbitrarily for one category_without providing the 3 same kind of benefit for other license categories. In other 4 words, you can't arbitrarily cut one category unless there is 5 some particular regulatory obligation or unique situation 6 which, ih discussing this with the lawyers, we have not been 7 able to come up with any particular unique situations, nor 8 can we find a regulatory obligation. For example, like 9 standardization i~ not a regulatory obligation, there is 10 no statute providing for standardization, or regulations, as 11 I understand it, which would make that a unique case for 12 cutting fees.
13 So we do not see that this proposed fee schedule 14 is in conflict with any federal statutes.
15 Also, another question which was asked, could 16 one tie fees, cost recovery to, say, the volume of business, 17 to the size of the licensee.
18 And here again we are ad~ised by the legal staff 19 that we can't do that under Title V. So there does not 20 appear to be a ba~is, as I understand it, for cutting fees.
21 And in a nutshell, we recommend, right,. Dan, that 22 fees be based on cost recovery. They reflect cost.
23 Shall I go to the next question, Mr. Chairman?
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There seems to be a certain Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 lack of
28 mm8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Not at all, I'm listening with avid interest to this. It is being done so beautifully, 2
3 there are no questions.
(Laughter.)
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well that makes*~me uneasy when 5
6 there are no questions.
7 (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Very effective presentation.
8 9
- MR~ M_ILLER: That makes me happy.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I keep looking around to see 11 if we still have a quorum.
12 (Laughter.)
13 Please go on.
14 (Slide.)
15 MR. MILLER: The last question, the seventh questio, 16 should the fee schedule be somewhat more simply drawn or more 17 arbitrarily drawn?
18 And the answer to that, as far as we felt is no, 19 because this is one of the areas where, for example FCC got 20 into difficulty. They lacked specificity and ended up in 21 court, and they had problems. They lacked:*specificity and the 22 Court of Appe.als and so forth has said that these fees, and 23 the costs shou.ld be specifically drawn, you have-10 show the 24 basis for, you know, what you a.:m,putting into your fee Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 schedule, the cost you are putting into your feel schedule.
29 mrn9 And so we see no basis -- we think we are on the 2 right track, in other words, in this schedule. And I think 3 the General Counsel and the Executive Legal Director 4 advise that we are.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As a lay observer of the legal 6 scene, I* must say that *.the complexity in this schedule certain y 7 must offer the benefit that if sued, we can retreat into it 8 and the court will have hell's own time *sorting this out.
(Laughter.)
10 MR. ROTHSCHILD: This is not a seat you want to 11 lose. I see there is something in this morning's paper about 12 the FCC was ordered to refund fees, and apparently they have 13 told the court it is going to take at least two years to.
14 refund fees, to unsort their schedule.
15 COMMISpIONER.BRADFORD: Yes, but they made a 16 serious mistake. They are in the wrong business~ They were 17 collecting $4 fees from people all over the country. When 18 we collect one fee, it is a good one.
19 (Laughter.)
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: .We have done that as well, 21 have we not?
22 Will we get them all refunded?
23 MR. MILLER: We refunded about $7 million.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: To how many people?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. MILLER: Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000.
30 mml0 MR. BARRY: We have not refunded all of them, everyone. Because a lot of the people who were due a refund 2
3 are no longer in business,and there -was nobody to refund it 4 to.
We have_refunded everyone that has requested, and 5
6 we think.we are probably close to closing up everyone who is 7 eligible.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
9 Most of those would have been byproduct license 10 people, wouldn't they?
11 MR. BARRY: That's correct.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You are quite right with 13 regard to reactors. Those are more easily counted.
14 MR. MILLER: Going on then into the recommendations, 15 Staff's recommendations:
16 (Slide.)
17 We recommend that the Commission approve this 18 schedule that we discussed with you last October with the 19 following modification.
20 One, of course, we delete the term bieeder.reactor 21 and substitute advanced reactors in accordance with our earlie 22 discussion.
23 That fees for custom power plants go on an actual 24 cost basis with an upper limit.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can I just ask you, how do
31 mmll
] the fees in category 1 differ from the fees in category 2?
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There is a factor of about two 3 difference.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see.
5 The first one being higher.
6 MR. MILLER: CPP is roughly $2 million.
7 And it is very likely i t may be considerably 8 higher than that as time passes.
9 Going on then, we would delete there or we would 10 go on actual for custom plants, and we would do the same for 11 research and test reactors.
12 We would recommend that vendors and AE pay an 13 application fee of $50,000;*that the cost, remaining cost 14 with an upper limit be spread over the first five units sold, 15 if they are sold.
16 And we would recommend that the schedule become 17 effective in 30 days.
18 I list that as one of the ~~ems, simply because in 19 the earlier paper when we talked to you last October, we 20 suggested 90 days rather than 30 days. And talking to Bob 21 Fonner and to the lawyers, they felt that there might be 22 some problems extending it out for a longer period of tiroe.
23 And we can be ready if the Commission decides to go, within 24 30 days.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. DONOGHUE: We would be concerned whether we
l 32 mml2 would be geared up to make the changes and actually start implementing the schedule in less.than 90 days, but since 2
3 that time we have been able to --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
4 Let's see,. the proposal as you make it -- what was 5
the thing about university reactors?
6 COMMISSIONER GILI}lSKY: That was taken as .a 7
8 separate.item.
MR. MILLER: We mentioned that earlier. We would 9
10 consider that -- set that aside. We would continue the 11 exemption until the Commission makes a decision later.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
- 13 14 15 And in the event we ever get one again, we can include HTGRs with the light water machines?
MR. MILLER: That's right, we would include that.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. It is a clear enough 17 proposition to me.
18 How do you feel abOut it?
19 .COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It looks like a reasonable 20 proposition to me, too. I do have one*question, and. that pertains to, :I think_ we. got a letter late in December from 21 the radiography outfit raising a number of interesting 22 23 questions, arid I just am not clear as to the answers.
24 Did you review those?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. MILLER: Yes.
33 As I recall, it is a technical operations problem.
mml3 2 They asked a number of questions. One of the questions, of 3 course, was concerned with evaluation of containers and 4 casks.
5 And we did in the final rule -- and I mentioned 6 this last October -- we did set aside a category of containers 7 to make what we think a more reasonable basis for assigning 8 fees for evaluation of shipping casks and other forms of 9 containers which would benefit them.
10 Another question they asked, of course was, they 11 were concerned about, I guess their customers, primarily, 12 operating in agreement states. These are radiographers.
- 13 14 15 Unfair competitimwas the argument. That.those in the agreemen states, tbey say, do not pay fee~; where here, in the non-agreement states, they would have *o pay fees.
- 16 Now that is not completely the case, of course, 17 because there are five agreement states that do assess fees.
18 Some are very minimal, like $50. California, as I recall, is 19 $200 or $300, depending on the quantity. It can go to $500.
20 It could even be more than *ours.
21 Many of the states, I am informed by Ryan's group, 22 state programs are moving in the direction of assessing fees 23 as a basis for revenues, if for no other reason.
24 And so I guess that problem will resolve itself Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 in certain cases.
34 mml4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: On that point, I have some concerns, because I noticed some rather high fees in several 2
areas; you know, the order of $100,000. And if you have got 3
a guy in an agreement state who doesn't -- you know, who pays 4
$100 for the same operation, but a guy in a nonagreement state*
5 has to pay $100,000,that is why I raised the issue.
6 You know, if there is something in**ihe Small 7
Business Act or something that says don 1 t do that to people.
8 But on looking closer with the Staff, what they 9
10 point out to me is that the places where the fee is of that 11 magnitude are limited to, let's see, low-level, commercial, 12 waste *burial grounds, which are not what I call a thriving business, a thriving industry with a large population of 13 14 operators.
15 MR. MILLER: Mills is another.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Uranium mills. But I think they 17 are all -- you said they are not all.
MR. MILLER: There are some in Wyoming.
18 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What about UF-6 plants?
MR. MILLER: Your fuel cycle, it doesn't make any 20 difference because they are all under Commission -- anything 21 22 we have -- S&M,*critical quantities, it is all under 23 Commission jurisdiction.
24 (Simultaneous discussion.)
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Six conversions.
35 mml5 MR'., MILLER: Oh, conversions. The same thing applies 2 as mills.
3 MR. FONNER: I think both of the UF-6 conversion 4 plants*that we license, that are active, we license. The 5 Sequoyah plant .in Oklahoma, and the Metropolis Plant in 6 Illinois~
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So that those two are licensed.
8 Well, to sort of summarize,wihat I found. then, my 9 concern . that we were affecting_ a large number of the smaller 10 commercial enterprises in byproduct material use, or radio-11 graphers, was not the case. That there the fee levels 12 were typically $100 or a few hundred dollars for a five-year 13 license.
14 And for even a small radioagraphic operation, why 15 $400 for a five-year license, the fee does not seem to me 16 that that is sort of a break or make economic issue.
17 So my concern was cons*iderably relieved by those 18 statistics.
19 MR. MILLER: Your area of big fees, most of them 20 are commission retained. Your fuel cycles, there are few:*
21 of those. Commission retains jurisdiction. The mills are 22 the exception, waste disposal like Dr. Hendrie has mentioned.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Low level. High levels we 24 license, and everybody would get the full benefit of our Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 charges.*
36 rnml6 MR. FONNER: As an additional element of fact, on the low-level commercial burial ground,thereare only two 2
companies inthe business; Nuclear Engineering Company and 3
4 Chem Nuclear.
And Nuclear Engineering is the only liQEmsee that 5
6 we have, but it is .the only company also operating--:- i t also operates two burial qrounds in agreement states. And the 7
8 other company op_era.tes only one in an agreement state.
9 So, it is both an advantage and a disadvantage 10 at the same time.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: .There were some other things 12 you were about to add on about answers?
- 13 14 15 MR. MILLER: I don 1 t remember all of Dr. Clark's questions now.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, one of them pertained 16 to and I was looking up a footnote. He said he was curious 17 as to why -- I am too -- why a multiple location radiographer 18 licensee should pay a higher inspection fee for a location 19 than a single location licensee would pay.
20 MR. MILLER: Well we have .two types of radioagrapher 21 licensees. They are licensed on two bases. Dick's shop licenses them under two circumstances; one as indicated is 22 23 a fixed location, a single location; and multiple location.
24 The reason the fee* is higher for multiple locations is Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 because people have to travel, our inspectors have to travel
37 rnrnl7 around, you know, run around to follow these guys inthe 2 fields.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But his allegation, if I 4 read this correctly, is a single location is only $700 per 5 year.
6 MR. MILLER: Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Whereas multiple location 8 licensees would pay $980 per year, per location.
9 MR. MILLER: No, that's not the way it works.
10 I know Dr. Clark, I will write to him. That was 11 not the intent.
12 COMMISSIONER .KENNEDY: I would think not.
- 13 14 15 Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Although where you have multiple locations -- and there was a lot of discussion about this 16 subject. For example, just pick out of the air, :.there is 17 Magnaflux,. or Pittsburgh Testing, norie of these companies that 18 do run around the country, have a lot of laborator.ies about 19 the town, they will have to pay a *fee for these facilities 20 where you go to Indianapolis to inspect versus Dayton, Ohio, 21 because there is a facility that the Commission's inspectors 22 would have to visit, and they will have to pay for that.
23 Sb the bigger you are, in that case, the ~ore 24 laboratories you have, the total cost will be higher as far Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 as inspection is concerned.
38 mmlB MR. GOSSICK: .For laboratory costs, you would stay 2 the same.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would -- you are asking 3
4 me what I think?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think so.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would not include the 7 reprocessing category merely because the President has asked 8 that commercial reprocessing be deferred. Some people might 9 get the idea we were just raring to go. And it .doesn't seem 10 to be necessary. It can be taken up at some later point if 11 that seems appropriate.
12 We could have an "other" category that simply
- 13 14 15 deals with withever may come in the way of solidification facilities or whatever, simply indicate that that would be on a reimbursed basis, possibly with some maximum?
16 MR. MILLER: We have a special projects category, 17 we did have in October, and that would cover solidification 18 or other areas.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Whatever. It is not even 20 clear whether we would be licensing those facilities. But if 21 we do, we could certainly cover it on that basis and they presumably would be run wouldn't these be run by DOE?
22 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:* I would. think so.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Not to put a maximum on the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 fee, then.
39 mml9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It could be. I suppose it could be a contractor operation, but that would still make it a DOE 2
facility.
3 MR. DONOGHUE: I don 1 t think we would have authority 4
5 for that kind of a facility, even for a licensing to charge 6 a fee. I think we are limited to power reactors only, aren't 7 we?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would there be a fee, say 8
9 for a waste depository?
10 MR. FONNER: Well I think the question is that if 11 you are talking about, say, solidifcation of the material at 12 Hanford, the military waste 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That is what- we are talking 14 about.
15 MR. FONNER:. Th@n we:do not license that at the 16 present time, and I imagine we would mt licAnse the solidifica 17 tion of material in those plants.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It is conceivable that 19 Congress, in appropriating money for that, might indicate --
20 MR. FONNER: Yes, but.that's a different -- that 21 is looking into the future,and I can't respond to that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And also there is another 22 23 point here, and it doesn't appear all that likely at this 24 moment, but it is not out of the question that a*contractor Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 might be taken on to do that solidification process, and we
40 mm would end up having to license him. After all,we licensed 2
the Admiral -- to our regret, we lir.ense the Admiral's 3 fuel processing plant.
4 MR. MILLER: We license all contractors, we always 5 have.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, why don'*t we get a 7 catchall MR. CUNNINGHAM: A better case in poi-nt w*ould be 8
9 NFS certification.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well fine, why not have a 11 catchall category?
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Just so it doesn't look as though
- 13 14 15 we have omitted the possibility, could we include some words in the description which takes note of the fact that for such things as possible waste solidification facilities that 16 we might find occasion to license and so on, that the fees 17 for these, if they were commercial licenses, would be treated 18 under the "other projects" category.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sure.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: As I understand it, for 22 some, I take it, good reason,this whole structure does not
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
address the costs and any possible fees that would come out of the export license process.
25 MR. MILLER: That's correct.
41 mm21 We have never assessed fees for export licensing.
2 It was a Commission decision which we affirmed, as I recall, a year or two ago.
3 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Does Commerce charge fees?
I 5 MR. MILLER: They do not.
6 When I say the Commission, I am speaking merely 7 of .the AEC. It was asked not to by the Department of Commerce, 8 not to assess fees a number of years ago, as kind of a policy 9 to encourage exporting and so forth. So the Commissioners 10 went along with it.
11 (Laughter.)
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think we just may have . a new
- 13 14 15 arrow in the quiver.~*
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, did the 0MB directive, pursuant or whatever it is, pursuant to which we assess other 16 fees and so forth, in any way exempt the export process?
17 MR. MILLER: 0MB does not, not that I am aware of.
18 It was just a decision of the Commission so far as I am con-19 cerned, based on consultation.
20 There was a couple General Counsel came up with 21 a constitutional -- there was some constitutional questions 22 here in that area.
I - 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. FONNER: We wouldn't push that point too but I believe the export program is administered today, and strong y, 25 I would stand to be corrected, I don't work directly in it, in
42 mm22 OELD. But I think the amount of effort that goes into the processing of the applications within the agency is fairly 2
minimal. There may be a great deal of time spent on other 3
policy considerations, and at the time the fee schedule was 4
developed, this was one of the considerations that was 5
6 involved.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And NMSS does spend a 7
certain amount of* time inspecting some of the facilities to 8
9 which some .. of these exports are bound?
10 MR.FONNER: Overseas, there have been some joint 11 inspection efforts in the past in conjunction with ERDA 12 for phy:sica.1--:seaurity >'
13 MR. GOSSICK: We have a real problem in trying to 14 allocate.those costs for application, because they generally 15 apply to more than one export.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Apply exports over time?
17 MR. GOSSICK: Over time, yes.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: There is nothing about the 19 0MB directive that compels the application of a fee 20 schedule to export*licensees?
21 MR. MILLER: No. The 0MB Circular 825 does not 22 deal with the question.
23 MR. ROTHSCHILD: The other agencies involved, such 24 as Department of State, Department of.Energy also involved Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 in some of these processes, they do not charge a fee.
43 mm23 If-we were to were to do so, we'd be the only agency to charge.*
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I wonder how much business we 2
could discourage that way?
3 (Laughter.)
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Some of the reasons advanced 5
6 such as the difficulty and the.low cost anyway, made some sense. I am not sure I would reasonably subscribe to it on 7
the rationa-le- that you wanted to encourage filing of these 8
9 things.
10 (Laughter.)
11 MR. HOLLOWAY: There was one other finding that 12 the Commission makes with respect to export licenses, and
- 13 14 15 that 1s whether or not it is inimical to -the common defense and security rather than the health and safety.
And again the legal thinking at the time is if 16 you make a finding of common defense and security, you would 17 not charge fees for that.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But aren't we charging fees 19 for safeguard costs now?
20 MR. MILLER: Only the safeguards licensing and 21 inspection, but not the I know what you are saying, but yes, we are.
22 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could we have** this matter 24 just examined and reviewed in a brief paper?
Ace-Federal Report!)rs, Inc.
25 MR. MILLER: Yes.
44 mm24 As a matter of fact, we did write a paper on this 2
subject, as I recall, a year or two ago.
Yes, I will be very happy to do so, dealingw.th 3
4 -that very question.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you feel able to vote for 6
this thing as amended?
7 Take out the reprocessing category, move some language into the general discussion and say, look, the waste 8
9 treatment sorts of things* treated under other
- projects, the 10 advanced reactor, the name change there-on the category of 11 advanced reactors and so on?
12 If you feel -- maybe we will just go ahead and
- 13 14 15 vote on this. There is .nothing that bars us.
me a certain satisfaction not to see this again.
Those in favor, say aye.
It would give.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Aye.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Aye ..
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Aye.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So ordered.
20 MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I ask one quick question?
21 Procedurally, you asked for this paper on export 22 fees. I assume that would be treated in a separate paper 23 like the education research?
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, indeed. Completely Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 separate.
45 mm25 MR. MILLER: We will go ahead and get this ready, 2 making the changes and cleaning up for the, Federal Register.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thank you.
4 (Pause.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
46 RMG 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Get us on the way to affirming.
2 MR. CHILK: ,_ One of the affirmations deals with 3 SECY:.* 77-538, which is a proposed amendment to 10:cFR,, ..
1e 4 parts 19 and 20 for controlled radiation exposure to transient 5 workers. This is a_proposed rule to prevent possible radiation 6 doses above the limits of 10 CFR~ Part 1.
7 You were briefed by the Staff on this early in 8 January, and subsequent to that Commissioner Kennedy has ap~
9 proved it; Mr. Bradford approved it; Chairman Hendrie approved 10 it, to ask for comments in the proposed rule, but indicated he 11 would like to consider the cost-benefit aspects before agreeing 12 to implementation; and Commissioner Gilinsky noted without 13 objection.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: .'Those in favor?
15 (Chorus of ayes.)
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I would like to 17 associate myself with for comment only_for this.
18 MR. CHILK: For comment only.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: My concurrence on that is 20 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it's all for comment.
22 (Laughter.)
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But somehow it doesn't 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
commit you 25 MR. CHILK: You would like to reconsider the matter
47 RMG 16 after the comments have been 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
3 MR. CHILK: The second item deals with SECYi, 4 77-627, which is a proposed rule to implement Commission policy 5
and Public Law 95-209 on the avoidance of contracts of organ-6 izational conflicts of interest. This is required by our 7
authorization legislation, and the proposed rule would super-8 cede our present policy statement.
9 It contains a number of categories in which pro-10
~pe~tive contractors must indicate that they don't oppose.
11 The Chairman and Commissioner Kennedy and Commission r ..
12 Bradford have approved it; Commissioner Gilinsky has again 13 voted without objection.
14 May I have your ::affirmation on it?
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Aye.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I give mine through gritted 17 teeth.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: (Affirmatively raised hand.)
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: (Affirmatively raised 'hand.)
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So ordered.
21 MR. CHILK: One other matter which has come up 22 deals with SECY-A-78-4. This is a Commission review of ALAB, 23 in which the general counsel propose that the time for review 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
be allowed to expire without Commission action. The paper was 25 late coming to us. I understand that all of you have
48 RMG 17 requested additional time for that consideration, and if you 2 would like to comment, if you would like to handle it, __ I need 3 a vote to consider it on short notice. And then I need a vote 4 to extend the time as ..:recommended by the general counsel until 5 January 19.
6 May I have the vote to consider it?
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Aye, aye, on both scores.
8 MR. CHIL~: Aye on both scores for both 9f_you?
9 Mr. Chairman?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: (Nods affirmatively.)
11 I'm agin it.
12 13 This is the one where we've abolished the proceeding 14 MR. HASSEL: No.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No? 78-4?
16 MR. HASSEL: Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you 17 meant S-3.
18 MR. CHILK: We're not deciding it; we're just 19 extending the time. We're just extending the time to review 20 it, to make the decision.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All we are doing is e~tending 22 the time to decide it.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So you're saying there is 24 no point in bothering with it?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. This is a proceeding we
49 RMG 18 have terminated. I do not.kn0w.what we would do if we extended 2 the time for review. That's why I. didn't see, why I wasn't 3 enthused about the extension. But I don't care.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I suppose what they are 5 contemplating would be filing a petition for reconsideration?
6 MR. CHILK: Commissioner Kennedy started by re-7 questing additional time for the Commission to consider it.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, this is the Commission '.s 9 review on its own discretion.
10 VOICE: The purpose is:- to give you time to 11 review the paper, which we got .. out lat:e.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I have seen the wisdom of 13 the Chairman's argument.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I can't vote. I haven't 15 even had time to read the damn thing. And let me make note 16 for the record that I informed the general counsel of this, 17 and informed him that I would abstain on all such matters.
18 I will not. accept papers in my office in which I 19 am required to vote within the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. I read them.
20 Every last word of them.
21 MR. CHILK: I ,.. think that's a growing concern, ..
22 Mr. Chairman, and all of you have complairied about it lately.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I received two of them in 24 the same afternoon with the requirement to act on them within Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. I don't intend to do that.
50 RMG 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Actually, that has happened 2 a .number of times.
3 COMMlliSSIONER KENNEDY: Regularly.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And particularly from the 5 general counsel's office.
6 MR. _CHILK: Froro the general counsel, and also from 7 the Staff.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Please note, general counselors.
9 :"\_) i:~: ,-,., *- COMMJ?SS.IONER KENNEDY: Note that up till now I have 10 registered my unhappiness in this regard orally. If necessary, 11 I shall begin to reduce my unhappiness to writing.
12 MR. ROTHCHILD: We will inform Mr. Nelson.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, if people don't have a,._.-
14 chance to read it, why, I don't know~-
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am not suggesting that we 16 do anything with it; I don't know .. I would like to have the 17 opportunity to read it and come to that conclusion. That's all 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we vote to extend a 19 week just to allow people a chance to read it?
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Then there will probably 21 be nothing needed but an affirmation.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Just a week .
23 MR. CHILK: That is the only thing.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, so we need to vote --
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. CHILK: You have voted to consider it and you
51 RMG 20 unless you want to revote now to extend the time.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Vote to consider, vote to 3 extend for one week. Okay?
1e 4 (Show:of _hands.)
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
6 (Whereupon, abA:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25