ML23156A422

PR-178 - 54FR49763 - Revision of Fee Schedules: Radioisotopes Licenses and Topical Reports

ML23156A422
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/01/1989
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
.PR-178, 54FR49763
Download: ML23156A422 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

'.J CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

I' ADAMS Tern.plate: SECY-067 12/01/1989 *

PR-178 - 54FR49763 - REVISION OF FEE SCHEDUL.ES:

RADIOISOTOPES LICENSES AND TOPICAL REPORTS

.PR-178 54FR49763 RULEMAKING COMMENTS

, Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNS! Review Cornplete

,J

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:

PR-178 RULE NAME:

REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES: RADIOISOTOPES LICENSES AND TOPICAL REPORTS PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

54FR49763 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

12/01/89 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 01/30/90 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

31 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 55FR21173 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 05/23/90 NOTES ON FINAL RULE PUBLISHED AT 55 FR 21173.

ATUS

_RILE LOCATED ON P-1.

RULE TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART ~FFECTED: PR-178 RULE TITLE:

REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES: RADIOISOTOPES LICENSES AND TOPICAL REPORTS

-PROPO'SED RULE SECY PAPER: 89-314 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 90-141 CONTACT1: LEE HILLER CONTACT2:

PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:

11/09/89 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

11/27/89 FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SRM DATE:

04/19/90 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

05/17/90 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE MAIL STOP: MNBB6103 PHONE: 492-7351

DOCKET NO. PR-178 (54FR49763)

In the Matter of REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES: RADIOISOTOPES LICENSES AND TOPICAL REPORTS DATE.

DATE OF TITLE OR

/

DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 11/28/89 11/27/89 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE~ PROPOSED RULE 12/20/89 12/15/89 COMMENT OF SAM-SON INSPECTION & TECHNICAL SERVICES (S. M. HOPKINS, RADIATION OFFICER) (

1)

-12/26/89 12/18/89 COMMENT OF ALLENTOWN LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL CENTER (KENNETH BAAB, VICE PRESIDENT) (

2)

I 12/29/89 12/26/89 COMMENT OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT (GERALD ALLEN, HEALTH PHYSICIST) (

3) 01/02/90 12/19/89 COMMENT OF R. J. CASHWELL (

4) 01/03/90 12/21/89 01/08/90 01/02/90 NRC ANNOUCMENT SENT TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCING A THIRD PUBLIC MEETING IN ADDITIONAL TO THE TWO INDICATED IN THE PROPOSED RULE COMMENT OF SEILER INSTRUMENT & MANUFACTURING CO.

(ANDREW G. LEAHY, RADIATION OFFICER) (

5) 01/09/90 12/29/89 COMMENT OF BRADLEY COLLffiE (

6) 01/16/90 01/09/90 COMMENT OF WILLIAM KIRK (

7) 01/16/90 01/09/90 COMMENT OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 01/17/90

_01/10/90 I

01/17/90 01/11/90 01/23/90 01/16/90 01/23/90 01/18/90 (B. HOKEL,SUPERVISOR & D. FLAT,CHIEF) (

8)

COMMENT OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFm (TERRY LASH, DIRECTOR) (

9)

B. HOKEL AND D. FLATER OF THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT TO THEIR PREVIOUS LETTER (COMMENT #8)

COMMENT OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (GRETA DICUS, DIRECTOR) (

10)

COMMENT OF SOUTH JERSEY HOSPITAL SYSTEM (THOMAS LONERGAN, VICE PRESIDENT) (, 11)

)

DOCKET NO. PR-178 (54FR49763)

DATE DATE OF

• TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 01/25/90 01/22/90 COMMENT OF RICHARD LECHNIR, RPO (

12) 01/29/90 01/22/90 COMMENT OF GE NUCL FUEL & COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING (T. PRESTON WINSLOW) (

13) 01/29/90 01/24/90 COMMENT OF OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT 01/30/90 01/30/90 01/17/90 01/30/90 (K. J. MORRIS) (

14)

COMMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION (C. W. MALODY) (

15)

\\

COMMENT OF CHEM-NUCLEAR (MICHAEL T. RYAN PH.D.) (

01/30/90 01/30/90 COMMENT OF NUCL MANAGEMENT & RESOURCES COUNCIL, INC (JOE F. COLVIN) (

17)*

l 01/30/90 01/29/90 COMMENT.OF TRANSNUCLEAR, INC. (BILL R. TEER) (

18)

16) 01/31/90 01/25/90 COMMENT OF GULF STATES UTILITIES (j. E. BOOKER} (

19}

01/31/90 01/30/90 C.OMMENT OF CYAPC.O AND NNECO (E. J. MROCZKA, SR VICE PRESIDENT) (

20) 02/01/90 01/29/90 COMMENT OF COMPUTALOG WIRELINE SERVICES INC.

02/01/90 02/01/90 02/02/90 01/26/90 01/26/90 01/29/90 (JEFF D. MEEKINS) (

21}

COMMENT OF C-E OWNERS GROUP (EDWARD C. STERLING) (

22}

COMMENT OF THE BWR OWNERS' GROUP (STEPHEN D. FLOYD) {

23}

I COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (HAL B. TUCKER} (

24) 02/02/90 01/29/90 COMMENT OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (6. A. HUNGER, JR.) (

25) 02/02/90 01/30/90 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (AUBREY V. GODWIN) (

26)

\\...

02/05/90 01/25/90 COMMENT OF COMBUSTION ENGINEERING (A. E. SCHERER) (. 27) -

02/06/90 01/16/90 COMMENT OF AMERICAN AIRLINES (A. A. HA~E) (

28) 02/20/90 02/16/90 02/26/90 02/21/90 04/09/90 04/02/90 COMMENT OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (DAVID W. COCKFIELD, VICE PRESIDENT) (

29)

COMMENT OF H & G INSPECTION COMPANY, INC.

(HARRY W. GIBSON) (

30}

COMMENT OF ARKHOLA DIVISION/APAC-ARKANSAS (AL CAMPBELL, PROJECT ENGINEER) (

31)

DOCKET NO. PR-178 (54FR49763)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/21/90 05/17/90 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

)

)

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE

/7 {)

( 5J/,F, 4-q 7~ 3)

COCK[i[()

USNRC

• 90 NAY 21 P 1 :56 0F IC~ OF SLCRETM "*'

Nuclear Regulatory Co111T1iss1i

~\\mG tc~i:.i 'lfT 10 CFR Part 170 RIN:

3150-AD23

[7590-01]

Revision of Fee Schedu les: Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory ColllTlission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations by rev1s1ng its schedules of fees charged for licensing and regulatory services provided by the NRC.

The revised schedule of fees will more completely recover NRC costs incurred in providing services to identifiable recipients, including both materials and facility applicants. The revision is based on the FY 1990 budgeted costs of providing services in accordance with the Commission's license fee guidelines and evaluation of public comments on the proposed rule. All applicants and licensees currently subject to fees under NRC regulations are

_affected by the rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 2, 1990 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Hiller, Deputy Controller, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301 492-7351.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I

Background

II Responses to Comments III Changes Included In the Final Rule IV Section-by-Section Analysis 1

V Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion VI Paperw.ork.. Reduction Act Statement

~'

l VII.. Regulatory' An.aiysis VIII Regulatory Flexibility Certification IX Backfi_t Ana:lysls I.

Background

On December 1, 1989 (54 FR 49763-49771), the Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking for revisions to 10 CFR Part 170 ("Fees for Facilities. and Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Ser-vices***").

This action was necessary for the Commission to update the fee schedules in Part 170 to more completely recover costs incurred by the Connis-sion in providing services to identifiable recipients and to encourage the continued submittal of topical reports.

The notice of proposed rulemaking invited interested persons to submit written comments for consideration in connection with the proposed amendments on or before January 30, 1990.

In addition, the Commission's staff has been available to answer any questions concerning the proposed rulemaking.

Three public meetings were held in Regions I, III, and IV to discuss the proposed changes and consider any questions.

A total of eleven industry and Agreement State representatives attended the three meetings.

The Commission placed a_

0

~nry of the workpapers relating ~o the proposed rule in its PuQlic Document Room at 2120 L. Street NW., Washington, DC, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.

II. Responses to Colllftlents The Commission received twenty-nine (29) letters commenting on the proposed rule.

Eighteen letters were from persons concerned with materials license fees (including five Agreement States) and eleven letters were from utility licensees ano owners groups concerned with fees for Part 50 facilities. The conunents fell into the following broad categories:

2

1.

2.

3.

Increases in fees.

Reestablishment of topical report fee ceiling.

Payment of fees by electronic fund transfer (EFT).

4.

Exemption provisions.

5.

Other comments.

1.

Increases In Fees.

Comment.

Co111TlE!nters' main concern is that the proposed increases were substantial and businesses would find it very difficult to escalate prices on a*

percentage basis as intended by the proposed rule. In several specific areas such as teletherapy and nuclear medicine (Categories 7A and 7C), manufacturing (Category 3B) and research and development (Category 3M) conmenters were con-cerned not only about the proposed increases but why, in some instances, the proposed cost for an application for r~newal would exceed the cost of a new application.

Some co11111enters also indicated that inspection fees are too high because, in some instances, inspections take no more than one hour to perform

• Response.

The Conunission agrees that the proposed increases in many instances may be substantial.* However, as was pointed out in the proposed rule, the last revision to the materials license fees in 10 CFR Part 170 was in 1984 and the fees in that schedule were based on FY 1981 data~

In terms of cost

\\

data, ten years have elapsed-since the schedules were revised. During that time~ the professional* licensjng staff-hour rate increased from $58 per hour to

$92 per hour, a 59% increase. The professional inspection staff-hour rate has

- increased from $53 per hour to $92 per hour, a 74% increase. One coirmenter who supported the proposed changes pointed out that the hourly rate increases have been on an average of 6 to 7 percent per year, barely keeping pace with infla-tion.

In addition, there have been changes in the emphasis on some of the pro-grams resulting in greater professional staff effort being expended for those particular categories of licenses. With respect-to-the question of why renewals*

require more time than new licenses for Category 3B, this type of license often has frequent amendments to add new products or to change existing descriptions of products or processes. The renewal process often requires a review of many documents to determine which descriptions are current and which have been superseded; a situation that does not occur with a new application. In addi-tion, companies applying for new licenses will on the average operate simpler 3

programs using both smaller activities and varieties of radioisotopes than are utilized by the existing licensees.

license renewals in Category 7C require more time on the average than new applications because the average medical use licensee renewing a license is an institution offering a full variety of diagnostic services and often some therapy services. The average applicant for a new medical use license is a small clinic or private physician who is requesting authorization to perform one or a few medical procedures. Because of the total revision of 10 CFR Part 35 which became effective in 1987, new applicants and licensees renewing medical use licenses must submit complete applications and descriptions for all activities to be authorized. Thus the simplifications in the licensing process due to the Part 35 revision have helped reduce review time for th~

simpler programs being initiated more than for the existing programs with more activities to describe.

Some commenters, particularly Agreement States, support the revision in that it strengthens the fee schedules for categories of licenses regulated by Agreement States. The Corrmission will proceed in adjusting the fees in Part 170 because the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 {IOAA) requires that fees be updated as necessary to more fully recover the Commission's costs of processing applications and conducting inspections. With respect to inspections, the inspection fee covers more.than just the time an inspector may spend on the 4t premises conducting the inspection.

As indicated in§ 170.12(9) the inspection fee includes preparation time, time on site and documentation time as well as any associated contractual services costs but excludes the time involved in the processing and issuance of a notice of veio1ation or civil penalty.

2.

Reestablishment of a ceiling for topical report reviews.

Corrment.

Nine COOIJlenters addressed the reestablishment of a ceiling for topical reports. Several commenters supported the $50,000 ceiling as an appro-priate level for reestablishment. One suggested that if the ceiling were re-established it should be set at the previous rate of $20,000. Most of the commenters in this area indicated that the public interest, as well as the interests of NRC and the industry, are better served by en~ouraging the sub-mittal of topical reports.

Two comrnenters suggested that the $50,000 ceiling 4

be made retroactive to January 30, 1989, the date the ceilings for topical reports were removed.

Response.

The Commission has reestablished the fee ceiling for the review of topical reports at $50,000 and the review of any amendments, revisions, or supplements to topical reports at $50,000.

This figure represents an adjust-ment of a previous ceiling of $20,000 to reflect the effects of inflation and is an amount which approximates the median of topical report fees over $20,000 charged in 1989.

As a matter of pol1cy, the Commission will exempt all review costs that exceed $50,000 for those topical report reviews completed on or after January 30, 1989.

Thus, applicants for the review of topical reports or for amendments, revisions, or supplements to topical reports will be treated equally for those reports completed on or after January 30, 1989, because all will be subject to the $50,000 fee ceiling.

3.

Payment of fees by electronic fund transfer (EFT).

Comment.

Six convnenters addressed the proposal to require those bills in excess of $5,000 to be paid by EFT.

One commenter endorsed the concept pointing out that he routinely uses EFT.

Another commenter indicated that specific pay-ment instructions should accompany the bill.

Other convnenters indicated that EFT is not justified.

They pointed out that for many companies EFT is not a common practice, would require special action by them as well as the expenditure of resources to accomplish, and at times, is not available or desirable to use.

Response.

The Commission has established the $5,000 requirement for EFT and will provide specific instructions on its use for those bills issued for more than $5,000.

This is consistent with U.S. Department of Treasury cash management initiatives and will encourage timely receipts and deposits of monies owed to the Federal Government.

4.

Exemption Provisions.

Comment.

Five commenters addressed the changes being proposed in the exemption provisions of§ 170.ll(a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(ll). The comments ranged from the suggestion of totally eliminating all fee exemptions so that -

5

all materials licensees are treated equally from a fee standpoint to that of indicating that exemptions are necessary and those suggested in the proposed rule are appropriate. One comenter was.concerned that exemptions shift a greater cost burden to those institutions/organizations that are not exempt.

One comnenter suggested that the language in§ 170.ll(a)(4) be clarified by using the wording in the Section~by-Section Analysis.

Response. The Commission will maintain the exemption provisions in

§ 170.11 and has made clarifying language changes to 10 CFR 170.ll(a)(4) as suggested. The Con111ission will establish a new exempt~on provision in

§ 170.ll(a){l.t) to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations that are Federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be exempt from payment of fees.

The exemption 1n § 170.ll(a){ll) is modified so that the exemption does not cover licenses authorizing distribution of products or the offering of consultant ser-vices. This is consistent with the exemption provisions of§ 170.ll{a)(4) and (a)(9).

Establishing a new exemption does not shift a greater cost burden to those wno pay fees.

The amount of the fee asses.sed. represents the a.verage time to

-~view a licensing action or to conduct an inspection for those licensees subject To tees as well as those exempt from fee payment.* The costs for processing *

,icensing actions or conducting inspections for exempt licensees are not recov-

• • • ~ There is no attempt to shift that cost to those who are paying fees.

5.

Other, Comments.

a. One commenter suggested the elfmination of the initial $150 application fee required in§ 170.31 for those reviews based on full costs.

He indicated that it adds an unnecessary administrative cost for initiating, processing and tracking the payment for the l~censee as well as the NRC.

Response.

The C01T111ission agrees and has made the necessary,changes to eliminate the $150 filing fee in§ 170.31. This is consistent with a similar change that was made with respect to filing fees in§ 170.21 effective Janu-ary 30, 1989.

6

b.

Two commenters noted the inconsistency between 10 CFR 52.55 *Dura-tion of Certification 11 which provides a 15 year validity of design certificates and§ 170.12 Payment of Fees, *Paragraph {e)(2)(ii)(C) and footnote 4 to§ 170.21 which mandate. a 10 year period over which rev;ew costs are recovered for designs not referenced in utility applications.

Response.

The COD111ission agrees and Part 170 has been amended to correct this inconsistency.

c.

One corrmenter ~uggested that the C01T111ission assess fees for in-spection of general 'licensees because-these costs are not currently recovered.

In addition, the commenter suggested that the Commission reduce the time avail-able for reciprocity currently at 180 days.

He indicated that this would_place licensees in the NRC jurisdiction in a mor~ competitive economic position-with some Agreement State licensees-who do not pay fees. At the present time, a~

Agreement State licensee who does not pay fees can operate for six months in a non-Agreement State in competition wi~h.the NRC licensee who has to pay fees *

, Response.

The Con1T1ission will continue its current policy of not assess-ing, fees to NRC general lic~nsees except for tho~e related to spent fuel storage

, as addressed in the ongoing rulemaldng published for corrment on' May 5, 1989

{54 FR 19379)~

In a majority of cases, general licensees are not required to file an application, do not receive specific approvals and are infrequently inspected. With respect to the reciprocity provision, the CoR111ission recognizes that a difference exists between NRC and Agreement State length of r~.ciprocity and whether or not fees are assessed. Although reciprocity _

is a matter of compatibility with reipect to Agreement State regulation~.

the NRC has concentrated only on the radiation safety-related criteria for granting recipr~city and not the administrative functions such as length of time and whether or not a fee is required.

d.

One corranenter suggested that reasonable limits be established to prevent excessive routine inspections of small programs.

The corrmenter felt that it is ur.acceptable to be charged an inspection fee.any time an inspector chooses to visit a facility.

Response

Similar coD111ents were received on the June 27, 1988, proposed rule (53 FR 24077).

These comments were addressed in the final rule published 7

on Decell}ber 29, 1988 {53 FR 52633). Effective January 30, 1989, the Conunis-sion removed the bHling frequencies for routine inspections of small programs from§ 170.31. The Commission indicated at that time that the routine inspec-tion program is a structured program and that the frequency of inspections is not generally expected to be more frequent than that stipulated in the previous regulation.

e. One cormnenter requested that the C0111Tiission ~onsider establishing a separate fee category for portable gauges and lower the inspection fee, and consider this action for gas ~hromatographs a~ well. A similar c011111ent was re-ceived on the June 27, 1988, proposed rule that Part 170 be revise<!_ to create a new category for d~agnostic devices. The corrrnenter believes that doctors should be charged the same for medical use of an imaging scope as industria1 users.

Response.

Portable gauge and gas chromatograph licenses and licenses which authorize human use of diagnostic devices are grouped for fee purposes with*

other similar license types, such as fixed gauge licenses and other medical uses of byproduct, source or special nuclear material. The fees for these cate-gories of licenses reflect the C011111ission 1s average cost to review applications and perform inspections of these programs.

At this time, it is not practical to develop a separate category for each type of license or authorization or for each manufactured item.

Establishing a separate fee ~ategory for portable gauges, gas chromatographs and diagnostic devices could have an adverse impact 011 licensees because they would be subject to multiple fee categories if their licenses include items other than portable gauges, gas chromatographs, or medi-cal uses of byproduct, source or special nuc,lear material. "The Commission

~ealizes that in using the average-cost method instead of the full-cost method for determining license fees, variations will exist between licenses grouped within a single category. However, in developing the current fee categories, every effort was made to group licenses in the most logical and equitable manner.

The Commission, therefore, has determined that the fees in this final rule are appropriate for portable gauge, gas chromatograph, and medical use type licenses.

f.

One person commenting on the June 27, 1988, proposed revision to§ 170.31 indicated that there was a disparity between the amount of the fee 8

charged for licenses authorizing calibration services and th~t charged for other types of licenses such as manufacturing and distribution licenses.

Response.

Even though comments were received on the materials portion of the fee schedules in 10 CFR Part 170 which became effective January 30, 1989, the Corrmission made no changes to the fee schedule for small 111aterials licenses indicating that adjustments would be made in 1990.

Based on supporting infonna-t1on from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, fee category 3N has been modified with a provision added that licenses which authorize leak test services and/or calibration services only will be subject to fee Category 3P.

This change was highlighted in the proposed rule {54 FR 49765).

III. Changes Included in the Final Rule The changes included in the final rule are outlined below.

Any differen-ces between the final rule and the proposed rule are e~plained in the following discussion. Most of these changes were included in the proposed rule pub-lished on December 1, 1989*(54 FR 49763).

1. Amend§ 170.20 to change the cost per professional staff-hour from $86 per houi to $92 per hour based on the FY 1990 budget.

The $92 per hour rate is a decrease from the proposed $95 per hour. This decrease is *a result of adjust-ments made by Congress to the FY 1990 budget.

The method used for calculating the hourly rate is exactly the same as that used in the proposed rule.

An analysis of the budget which generated this rate is provided in the Section-~y~

Section Analysis.

2. Establish in Part 170 a fee ceiling of $50,000 for topical report reviews and for the review of any amendments, revisions or supplements to topi-cal reports.

3. Update* the schedule of fees in§ 170.3l*for small radioisotope li-censes based on the FY 1990 budget. Because the professional staff-hour rate has decreased from $95 to $92, based on the FY 1990 buoget, all fees. shown in the proposed rule for small radioisotope licenses have been reduced in this final rule to reflect the decrease.

9

4.

Remove the $150 application filing fees in§ 170.31 for those appli-cations where fees are assessed based on the full cost for the review.

5. Modify fee Category 3N with a provision added that licenses which authorize leak test services and/or calibration services only will be subject to fee Category 3P. Change Category 10B in§ 170.31 from full cost fees to flat fees.

6. Delete the exemption-provision in§ 170.ll(a)(3), broaden the exemp-tion in§ 170.ll(a)(4), and clarify the exemption in§ 170.ll(a)(5).

7. Establish a new exemption provision in§ 170.ll(a)(ll) to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations that are federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be exempt from payment of fees.

The exemption is modified so that it does not cover licenses authorizing the distribution of products or the offering of con~ultant services.

8. Amend§ 170.12(d) and (e) and footnote 4 to§ 170.21 to clarify that fees for a standard design certification, if not referenced, will be recovered within fifteen years from the date of certification or renewal of the certification.

9. Revise§ 170.12(h) to request that bills in excess of $5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer.

The agency workpapers which support the final changes to 10 CFR Part 170 are available in the Public Document Room, at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC in the lower level of the Gelman Building.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis The following section-by-section analysis of those section~ affected pro-vides additional explanatory information. All references are to 10 CFR Part 170 1 Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 170.3 Definitions.

This section is revised to remove the paragraph designations for the defi-'

nitions, arrange the definitions in alphabetical order, and add definitions ~f "Indian organization" and "Indian tribe."

10

/

11 lndian organization 11 means any conwercial group, association, partnership, or corporation wholly owned or controlled by an Indian tribe.

11Indian tribe 11 means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or con111unity of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided to Indians by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians.

Section 170.11 Exemptions.

Paragraph (a)(3) is being removed in its entirety.

Fees for any byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials licenses issued under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, or 71 that'~re considered to be incidental to the operation of a nuclea~

reactor will be charged under the respective materials fee category rather than under the 10 CFR Part 50 reactor fee category as has been past practice. There-fore, *for special nuclear materials licenses or any other licenses which are required prior to operation of the reactor, e.g., startup sources, reactor fuel, or calibration or monitoring equipment, fees will be assessed under 10 CFR 170.31 rather than § 170.21.

If an applicant possesses byproduct, source, or specfal nucl~ar material for decontaminatio~, inspection, repaif, modification, or testing of their reactor components, for which a license is required under the Commission's applicable*materials* regulations, fees will be assessed in accor-dance with 10 CFR 170.31.

Paragraph (a)(4} is changed to broaden the exe*mptfon for non-profit educa-tional institutions to include certain activities (e.g. r research) not covered by the current exemption.

The Commission has received several exemption requests from colleges and universities for licensed activities not covered by the cur-

• rent exemption.

Additionally, this change is in keeping with the concern of Congress regarding the impact of the current schedule on some entities and their limited ability to pass through the costs of these charges to the ultimate con-sumer.

Although the legislative history for annual fees contained in Part 171 of this chapter discusses the option of considering modifications to*these fee

~chedul es for hospitals, re~earch and m~di c~ l inst i tut i ~ns and.urani ~m producers.~

the Commission is continuing to limit this particular exemption to non-profit educational institutions.

The exemption has been clarified to indicate that it does not include power reactor licenses and materials licenses which authorize human use, commercial 11

distribution, remunerated service to other persons, or activities perfonned under a Government contract. The Conunission will continue to assess fees for these kinds of activities. For example, fees are charged for licenses which authorize use of strontium 90 eye applic~tors in the treatment of eye diseases and xenon 133 for blood flow pulmoniry functions; distribution of in vitro kits and radiopharmaceuticals; service for a charge to other persons or licensees such as soil density measurements and installation, calibration, and leak test-ing of equipment containing radioactive material and use of licensed material for consulting services.

On the other hand, if a non-profit educational insti-tution provides these or similar services, except human use, to other persons without £harge, the exemption would still apply.

Paragraph (a){5} is changed, for clarification, to include certificates of compliance and other approvals.

Paragraph (a)(ll} is added to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organi-e zations that are Federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be exempt from license fees.

Indian tribes are recognized as separate political entities similar to State governments.

The Commission intends to exempt Indian tribes and wholly owned tribal comnercial organizations conducting licensed activities

• en tribal lands from license fees in the same manner as it does States and

~nvernl11ntal agencies. The exemption. is modified, consistent with§ 170.ll(a)(4}

nnd (a)(9), so that the exemption does not cover licenses authorizing the distri-hution of products or the offering of consultant service~.

S~ction 170.12 Payment of Fees.

As indicated in the proposed rule, par:agraph*s (a), (b), (c), and (d) are r~vise9 to more clearly distinguish the fee payment requirements for *materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost from the requirements for other licensed activities that are subject to full cost. In addition, paragraphs (d) and (e) are being revised to change the 10 year period of cost recovery to a 15 year period to be consist~nt with§ 52.55. This is consistent with the intent of the Corrmission as stated 1n the final 10 CFR Part 52 rule (54 FR 15376) that an applicant for design certification does not have to pay an application fee, but the applicant will have to ~ay the full cost of the NRC review of the appli-cation, although not until the certification is referenced in an application for a construction permit or combined license or, failing that, not until the 12

certification expires.

Also paragraphs (e) and (f) are being revised to elimi-nate the $150 application fee for those applications where fees are determined based on full cost.

Paragraph (h) is being revised to indicate that (1) paymenis may also be made by electronic fund transfer (EFT) and (2) that where specific instructions regarding payment are P.rovided on the bills, payment should be made accordingly.

It is the intent of the Convnission to request payment by electronic fund tra.ns-fer of those bills which are in excess of $5,000. This change is being made to encourage timely receipts and deposits in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury cash management initiatives.

Section 170.20 Average Cost Per Professional Staff~Hour.

This* section is modified to reflect an agency-wide_ professional staff-hour rate based on FY 1990 costs to the Agency.

Accordingly, the professional staff rate for the NRC for FY 1990 for all fee categories that are based on full cost is $92 per hour, or $161.4 thousand per FTE (professional staff year).

For FY 1990, the budgeted obligations by direct program are: (1) Salaries and Benefits,

$203.16 million; *c2) Administrative Support, $74.64 million; (3) Travel, $12.27 million, and (4) Program Support, $148.70 million.

In FY 1990, 1,636 FTEs are considered to be in direct support ~f NRC programs applicable to fees (see Table I).

Of the total 3,180 FTEs; 1,544 FTEs will be considered overhead (sup-ervisory and support) or exempted (due to their program funct_ion).

Of these l,~44 FTEs, a total of 286 FTEs and.the resulting $26.1 million in support are exempted from the fee base due to the nature of theJr functions (i.e., en~orce-ment activities,and other NRC functions currently exempted by Commission policy).

Table I - Allocation of direct FTEs by Office Office NRR.....**....*..*.......

RESEARCH.................

NMSS........ ~.... :.... - **

AEOD.............. ;.....,.

ASLAP/ASLBP......... ',....

ACRS ***************..****

OGC...*.......... *... -. * * *

• Total Direct FTE.......

Number of direct FTEs1 1,007.5 146.0 317.3 85.0 22.2 25.0 33.0 1,636.0 1Regional employees are counted in the office of the program each supports 13

I In determining the cost for each direct labor FTE (an FTE whose position/

function is such that it can be identified to a specific license or class of licenses) whose function, in the NRC's judgment, is necessary to the r_egulatory process, the following rationale is used:

1.

All direct FTEs are identified by office.

2.

NRC plans, budgets, and controls on the following four major categories (see Table II):

(a) Salaries and Benefits.

(b) Administrative Support.

(c) Travel.

(d) Program Support.

3.

Program Support, the use of contract or other services for which the NRC pays for support from outside the Co111T1ission, is charged to various categories as used.

4.

All other costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel, and Administra-tive Support) represent 11 in-house 11 costs and are.to be collected by allocating them uniformly over the total number of direct FTEs.

Using this method, w~ich was described in the Dece~ber 1, 1989, proposed rule (54 FR 49763) and the FY 1990 budget, and excluding budgeted Program Sup-port obligations, the remaining $263.97 million ai'located uniformly to the direct FTEs (1,636) results in a calculation of $161.4 thousand per FTE for FY

~~~~ (a~ hourly rate of $92).

Table II - FY 1990 Budget by Major Category

[$ in Millions]

Salaries and benefits **************

A~m~nistrative support *************

Travel *****************************

Total nonprogram support obliga-tions..........................

Program support *******************

Total budget *******************

14

$203.16 74.64 12.27 290.07 148.70

$438. 77

The Direct FTE Productive Hourly Rate ($92/hour rounded down to the nearest whole dollar) is calculated by dividing the annual nonprogram support cost

($290.07 million) less the amount applicable to exempted functions (26.1 million) by the product of the direct FTE (1,636 FTE) and the number of productive hours in one year (1,744 hours0.00861 days <br />0.207 hours <br />0.00123 weeks <br />2.83092e-4 months <br />) as indicated in 0MB Circular A-76, "Performance of Commercial Activities.

11 Section 170.21 Schedule of Fees for Production and Utilization Facilities, Review of Standard Reference Design Approvals, Special Projects and Inspections.

Since the Commission decision to remove the fee ceiling for topical report reviews (53 FR 52633; December 29, 1988) and as discussed in the proposed rule published December 1, 1989, the number of topical reports submitted for review has significantly decreased. It appears that the principal reason for the re-duction 'in topical reports being submitted is the uncertain and potentially unlimited fee for NRC review of these reports. This is counterproductive to the agency because, in many cases, the regulatory effort gains significant bene-fit in terms of (1) the resolution of safety significant problems, and (2) the staff time saved by conducting a generic review of a topical item thereby saving extensive plant-by-plant review in the same or similar areas.

Examples of bene-ficial topical initiatives are numerous.

The recent B&W Owners Group decision to undertake a complete reassessment of all B&W reactor designs, thus eliminat-ing a costly NRC review, saved time and produced a more complete technical re-view than could have been accomplished by NRC alone.

Another example is the CE Owner's Group development of EP Guidelines for all of its units. This generic effort saves NRC costly review time assessing plant-by-plant guidelines. These are just two of many examples where the public interest is served by an industry undertaking to resolve an issue.

The surfacing of safety significant items stemming from the review of topical reports and the subsequent resource savings to the NRC, as well as the overall high level of technical competence available from industry, justifies NRC encouragement of industry submittal of these reports.

In conclusion, a balance must'be maintained between the need to encourage industry submittal of these reports and the need to assess fees for the costs of reviewing the reports.

The current system of charging a fee with no ceiling for NRC review of these reports appears to have had ~n inhibiting effect on the 15

industry. As a result, the Commission is amending 10 CFR 170.21, Category J, Special Projects, to provide that the maximum fee for review of~ topical report shall not exceed $50,000 and any amendments, revisions, or supplements to topical reports shall not exceed $50,000. This figure represents an adjustment of a previous ceiling of $20,000 to reflect the effects of inflation and is an amount which approximates the median of topical report fees over $20,000 charged in 1989. The COfTlllission, as a matter of policy, will exempt all costs exceeding

$50,000 for topical report reviews completed on or after January 30, 1989.

The professional hourly rate assessed for the services provided under the

. schedule is revised as shown 'in§ 170.20. Footnote 2 of§ 170.21 is revised to provide that the professional hours expended up to the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989, rules, as appropriate.

Any professional hours ex-pended on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the FY 1990 rates shown in this final rule. Footnote 4 of% 170.21 is revised to clarify that the period for payment of fees for standard design certifications is extended from 10 to 15 years. Footnote 5 has been added to§ 170.21 to indicate that *$50,000 is the maximum amount that may be assessed for each topical report or each amendment, revision and supplement to a topical report.

Section 170.31 Schedule of Fees for Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Services.

The licensing and inspection fees in this section are modified to reflect

• the FY 1990 budgeted costs and to more completely recover costs incurred by the

,e.

ColJlllission in providing licensing and inspection services to identifiable reci-pients. It includes the addition of a category for deconvnissioning applications for byproduct material. The fees shown in this final rule will apply to those decorrmissioning applications that are currently pending NRC review* as well as subsequently filed applications. Fee Category 13, establishing fees for spent fuel storage cask Certificates of Compliance and for inspections related to storage of spent fuel, remains a part of the final rule. (Th* proposed rule relating to spent fuel storage was published for corrrnent on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379)). A final rule relating to the storage of spent fuel in NRC approved storage casks at power reactor sites is currently being processed for publication in the near future.

Fee categories lA, 18, 2A, 4A, 5B, lOA, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are revised to delete the $150 initial application fee.

Fees for these categories are based on the full cost (professional staff hours and any contractual services costs) 16

to conduct the licensing review. Because licensees are billed for these costs and are required to pay invoices within a specified time, this will eliminate the administrative cost related to initiating, processing and tracking the $150 payment for the licensee as well as the NRC.

Fee Category 3N is modified with a provision added that licenses which auth-orize leak test services and/or calibration services only will be subject to fee Category 3P.

Fee Category 108 is changed from full-cost to flat fees. This change is based on an analysis of the actual staff-hours expended for the review and ap-proval of the Part 71 quality assurance programs.

Fee Category 12, Special Projects, is revised to provide that the maximum fee for review of a topical report and any amendments, revisions or supplements*

to topical reports shall not exceed $50,000. This is consistent with the change made to§ 170.21, Category J.

V.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22{c)(l}. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental impact assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

VI.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This rule contains no information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

{44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.}.

VII. Regulatory Analysis This rule was developed pursuant to Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C 9701) and the Commission's fee guidelines. These guidelines took into account guidance provided by the U.S.

Supreme Court on March 4, 1974, in its decision of National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974) and Federal Power Com-mission v. New England Power Company, 415 U.S. 345 (1974).

In these decisions, the Court held that the IOAA authorizes an agency to charge fees for special benefits rendered to identifiable persons measured by the "value to the recipient" of the agency service. The meaning of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act 17

of 1952 w~s further clarified on December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. National Cable Television Associ-ation v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F. 2d 1094 (1976); National Asso-ciation of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1118

( 1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Federa 1 Connnunications COllllliss ion, 554 F.2d 1109 (1976) and Capital Cities Co11111unication 1 Inc. v. Federal Corrmunications Corrmission, 554 F.2d 1135 (1976). These decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop fee guidelines that are still used for cost recovery and fee development purposes.

The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, when the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Mississippi Power and Light Co. *

v. U.S. *Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission, 601 F.2d 223 (1979, cert. denied 44 U.S.

1102 (1980)), that (1) the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission had the authority to re-e cover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries*; (2) the NRC could properly assess a fee for the costs of providing routine inspections necessary to ensure a licensee's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and with applicabl.e regulations; (3) the -NRC could charge for costs incurred in conduct-ing environmental reviews required by NEPA; (4) the NRC properly included in the fee schedule the costs of uncontested hearings and of administrative and tech-

.. ;cal support services; (5) th*e NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license to 0~erate a low-level radioactive waste burial site; and (6) the NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.

The NRC doe*s not believe that the increase in fees that would result from

• the adoption of this rule would result in*significant economic impact on most e

materials licensees. The increase in the annual cost that would be imposed on thes~ licensees would not be significant in terms of their gross annual receipts.

This rule revision will not have significant impact on state*and local govern-ments and geograph1cal regions or on health, safety and the environment. The foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for the final rule.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In the notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 1, 1989 (54 FR 49763), the Con~iission determined in its Regulatory Flexibility Certification that, based upon the available information,_this rule was not expected to have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small tntities as 18

defined by the Small Business Act or the Small Business Administration regula-tions issued pursuant to the Act (13 CFR Part 121).

The Commission did, however, invite any *licensee who considered itself to be a small entity to provide addi-tional information by responding to four general questions on how the regulation could be modified to take into account the differing needs of small entities.

In keeping with its normal practice, the Commission mailed the proposed rule document to each of its more than 8,000 licensees. Also, the Commission held public meetings in three regions to discuss the proposed rule.

The Commission received 29 comments on the proposed rule, representing less than one-half percent of all NRC licensees.

Of the 29 comments, none mentioned the Regulatory Flexibility issue directly although several commenters expressed concern over the substantial increases in the fees assessed for specific cate-gories of licenses.

A total of seven comments are believed to have come from small entities based upon a review of information contained in their comments.

Two of these comments were from hospitals, one from an industrial radiographer, one from a well logger, one from an engineering consultant, and two from other small re-search and development and manufacturing licensees.

Although several of these commenters expressed concern over the percentage rate of increase in the fees which would be assessed for certain categories of licenses, these commenters neither indicated that the increased fees would significantly affect their ability to do business nor provided the NRC with the information needed for NRC to make that determination.

The fees assessed by the NRC for each category of license are intended to reflect the level of effort required by the NRC to con-duct the necessary licensing and inspection actions for that category.

To this extent, the NRC has attempted to 11tier 11 the costs imposed on its licensees to the *1evel of effort that is required for the NRC to ensure that licensed acti-vities are conducted in a manner that adequately protects public health and safety.

Based upon the number of comments received on the proposed rule and comments from attendees at the public meetings, as well as an analysis of these comments, the Commission certifies that this rule wil~*not have a significant-economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The increase in the annual cost imposed on most of these licensees is not significant in terms of their gross annual receipts. There is no annual recordkeeping burden imposed by the final rule.

19

IX.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for 1t because these amendments do not require the 110dificat1on of or addition to sys-

- terns, structures, components or ges1gn of a facility or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facilit~.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 Byproduct material, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials,- Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Speci-al nuclear material. -

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the follow-ing amendments to 10 CFR Part 170.

PART 170--FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

1. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat.

222 (42 u.s.c. 2201w); sec 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 u.s.c. 5841).

2. In§ 170.3, remove the paragraph designations for the definitions, arrange the definitions in alphabetical order, and add definitions of *Indian organization 11 and "Indian tribe" to rea_d as follows:

§ 170.3 Definitions.

e 11 Indian organization" means any cmrmerci al group, association, partnership,

• or corporation wholly owned or controlled by an Indian tribe.

20

Mlndian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band. nation, or other organized group or community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians.

3. In§ 170.11, paragraph (a)(3) is removed and reserved; paragraphs (a)(4),

and (a)(S) are revised and paragraph {a)(ll) is added to read as follows:

§ 170.11 Exemptions.

(a)*~*

(3) [Reserved]

(4) A construction permit or license applied for by, or issued to, a non-profit educational institution for a production or utilization facility, other than a power reactor, or for the possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material. This exemption does not apply to those byproduct, source or special nucle~r material licenses which authorize (1) human use; {ii) remunerated services to other persons; (iff) dfstrfbution of byproduct material, source material, *or special nuclear material or products containing by-product materia 1, source material, or spec.fa 1 *n_uclear material; and (iv) activi-ties performed under a Government agency contract.

(5) A *construction permit, license, certificate of compliance, or other e

approval applied for by, or issued to, a Government agency, except ror a utili-zation facility designed to produce electrical or heat energy pursuant to Sec-*

tion 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

(11) A license for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material or other approval applied for by or issued to an Indian tribe -or an* India-n otganization conautting licensed activities* on tribal lands, except for licenses w.hich authorize distribution of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, or licenses authorizing services to any person other than an Indian tribe or an Indian organization.

21

4. In§ 170.12, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (h) are revise to read as follows:

§ 170.12 Payment of fees.

(a) Application fees.

Each application for which a fee is prescribed shall be accompanied by a remittance in the full amount of the fee.

Applications subject to fees for which no remittance is received will not be processed and may be returned to the applicant. All application fees will be charged irre-spective of the Commission's disposition of the application or a withdrawal of the application.

(b) License fees. (1) Fees for applications for materials licenses not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for permits and licenses that are subject to fees based on the full cost of the reviews are payable upon notification by the Com-mission.

Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each appli-

• cation the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is com~leted.

Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.

(3) For early site reviews issued under 10 CFR Part 52, there is no appli-cation fee.

Fees for the review of an application for an early site permit are

. deferred as follows:

The permit holder shall pa~ the applica~le fees for the permit at the time an application for a construction permit or combined license referencing the early site permit is filed. If, at the end of the initial period of the permit, no facility application referencing the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit.

Each biJl will identify the applications and costs related to each.

(c) Amendment fees and other required approvals. (1) Amendment fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for license amendments, other required approvals and requests for dismantling, decommissioning and termination of licensed acti-vities that are subject to full cost recovery are payable upon notification by 22

/

the Commission.

Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed, except for amendment and other approvals for early site permits which will be billed in a deferred manner consistent with that addressed in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.

(d) Renewal fees. (1) Renewal fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject-to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for renewals that are subject to the full cost of the review are payable upon notification by the Commission.

Except as noted in paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application that the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed.

Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.

(3) Fees for review of an application for renewal of *a standard design certification shall be deferred as follows:

The full cost of review for a renewed standard design certification must be paid by the applicant for renewal or other entity supplying the design to an applicant for a construction permit, combined license issued under Part 52, or operating license, as appropriate, in five (5) equal installments. _An installment is payable each of the first five times the renewed certification is referenced in an applicatiorr for a con-struction permit, combined license, or operating license.

The gppl~cant for renewal shall pay the installment, unless another entity is supplying_the design to the applicant for the construction permit, combined license, or operating license, in which case the entity shall pay the -installment.

If the design is not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within fifteen years after the date of renewal of the certification, the applicant for renewal shall pay the costs for the review of the application for renewal, or remainder of those I

costs, at that time.

(4) Fees fol'.' the_ revie"'.' of an applicati_on_ for renewal Qf an early site per-mit shall be deferred as follows:

The holder of the renewed permit shall pay the applicable fees for the renewed permit at the time an application for a construction permit or combined license referencing the permit is filed.

If, 23

at the end of the renewal period of the permit, no facility application refer~

encing the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit.

(e) Approval fees.

(1) Fees for applications for materials approvals that are not subject to full cost recovery must accompany the application when it is filed. Fees for those applications subject to full cost reviews are payable upon notification by the Co1T111ission.

Each applicant will be billed at six month intervals until the review is completed.

Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.

(2){i) There is no application fee for standardized design approvals or certifications issued under 10 CFR Part 52. The full cost of review for a standardized design approval or certification must be paid by the holder of the design approval, the applicant for certification, or other entity supplying the design to an applicant for a construction pennit, combined license issued under Part 52, or operating license, (as appropriate, in five (5) equal install-ments.

An installment is payable each of the first five times the approved/

certified design is referenced in an application for a construction permit, combined license issued under 10 CFR Part 52, or operating license. In the case

~~"a standard design certification, the applicant for certification sh~ll pay the installment, unless another entity is supplying the design to the a~plicant for the construction permit, combined license, or operating license, in which

~:~e the other entity shall pay the installment.

(ii)(A) In the case of a design which has been approved but not certified a~d for which no application for certification is pend~ng, if the design is*

not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered; within five years after the

~~+e of the preliminary design approval (PDA) or the final design approval (FDA),

the applicant sh~ll pay the costs, or remainder of those costs, at that time; (B) In the case of a design which has been approved and for whic~ an appli-cation for certification is pending, no fees are due until after the certifica-tion is granted. If the design is not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within fifteen years after the date of certification, the applicant shall pay the costs, or remainder of those costs, at that time.

(C) In the case of a design for which a certification has been gr~nted, if the design is not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within fifteen

-24

years after the date of the certification, the applicant shall pay the costs for the review of the application, or remainder of those costs, *at that time.

(f) Special Project Fees.

Fees for applications for special projects such as topical reports are based on full_tost of th~ reviews and are payable upon notification by the Commission.

Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals until the review is completed.

Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.

(h) Method of payment.

Fee payments 'shall be made by check, draft, money order or electronic fund transfer made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Where specific payment instructions *are provided on the bills to ap-plicants or licensees, payment should be made accordingly, e.g., bills of $5,000 or more will normally indicate payment by electronic fund transfer.

5. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:

§ 170.20 Average cost per professional staff-hour.

Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, Part 55 requalification and replacement examinations and tests, other required approvals and inspections under§§ 170.21 and 170.31 which are based upon the full costs for the review or irspection will be calculated using a professional staff rate per hour equivalent to the sum of the averag~ cost to the agency for a profes-sional staff member, including salary and benefits, administrative support and travel.

The professional staff-hour rate for the NRC for FY 1990 is $92 per hour.

6. In§ 170.21, Category J. Special Projects and Footnotes 2 and 4 to the schedule are revised and Footnote 5 is added to read as follows:

§ 170.21 Schedule of fees for production and utilization *facilities, review of standard reference design approvals, special projects, and inspections.

25

J. Special projects Approvals:

1.

Topical reports5 ***************************************

2.

Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports5 * ************.*********************************

3.

All other approvals, special projects, reports and amendments except those specified in 1 and 2 above..*.*

$50,000

$50,000 Full Cost 2Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.

For those applications cur-rently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the pro-fessional rates established for the June 20, 1984, and January 30, 1989, rule *

. revisions, as appropriate.

For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached the applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984, rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant.

Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable-rates established by§ 170.20, as appropriate, except for topical reports whose costs e exceed $50,000.

Costs which exceed $50,000 for each topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to a topical report completed or under review from Janu-ary 30, 1989, to the effective date of this rule will not be billed to the appli-cant.

For topical reports, and amendments, revisions, and supplements to topical reports, the amount shown is the maximum that may be assessed for each report or each amendment, 'revision and supplement.

In no event will the total review costs be less than $150.

4Collection "'Of the review costs for a preliminary design approval (PDA) and final design approval (FDA) are deferred, respectively, for a period of 26

five years from the approvJ1; except that, if the design is referenced during that period, 20 percent of the total costs will be payable by the holder of the design approval or certificate as each reference is made until the full costs are paid.

If the design is certified, the five-year deferral period is extended to 15 years from the certification, with the same proviso that 20 percent of the costs will be payable each time the design is referenced.

In the event the full costs are not recovered by the end of the applicable deferral period, the holder of the design approval or certificate must pay the remainder of any costs not previously recovered by the NRC.

Applications for amendments to PDAs, FDAs and certifications are subject to full costs and will be billed upon completion of the review.

5The amount shown represents the maximum amount that may be assessed for each topical report or each amendment, revision, and supplement to a topical report.

7.

Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:

§ 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services including inspections.

• Applicants for materials iicenses and other regulatory services and

• holders of materials licenses shall.pay fees for the following categories of services. This schedule includes fees for health and safety, and safeguards inspections, where applicable.

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES (See footnotes at end of table)

Category of materials 1* 1 i censes and type of fees 1

1.

Special nuclear material:

A.

Licenses for possession and use of 200 grams or more of plutonium in unsealed form or 350 grams 27 Fee2 3

B.

or more of contained U-235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more of U-233 in unsealed form.

This includes applications to terminate licenses as well as licenses authorizing possession only:

License, Renewal, Amendment..*...*.**..**.....

-Inspections:

Routine......................... "........

Nonroutine...*.............*..*..*......*

Licenses for receipt and storage of.spent fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI):

License, Renewal, Amendment...................

Inspections:

Full Cost Full Cost Full Cost Full Cost Routine..........*.............. :........

Full Cost Nonroutine....................... ~.......

Full Cost C.

Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers: 4 Application - New license.....................

Re new a 1 *..*...*..*..**.*****..**..**.*.****.*.

Amendment........**.......*....*....*..........

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine.....................

~.................

D.

All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical quantity, as 28

$ 400

$ 400

$ 300

$ 370

$1,100

defined in§ 150.11 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those for Category lA: 4 Application - New license.....................

$ 550 Renewal......................... *.............

$ 550 Amendment.....................................

$ 180 Inspections:

Rout i ne..................................

Nonrout_i ne

2.

Source material:

A.

Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as mill-ing, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride,-*ore buying stations, _ion ex-change facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses author-izing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode:

License, Renewal, Amendment Inspections:

Routine Nonroutine...............................

B.

Licenses for possession and use of *source material for shielding, except as provided for in§ 170.ll(a)(S):

29

$ 550

$ 640 Full Cost Full Cost Full Cost

Application - New license... *..... * *....... *..

90 Renewa 1.. *............... * *.... *..... *.. *....

• 90 Amendment.....*......... _. *.... *...............

90 Inspections:

Routine.. *........... *.... *....... *... * * *

$ 230 Non routine. * * *.... *... *..... *........ *. *.

$ 280 C.

All other source material licenses:

Application - New license.......................

Renewa 1.......................................

Amendment...*....*.........................*...

Inspections:

Routine...................... *......

c ******

Nonroutine

3.

Byproduct material:

A.*

Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manu-facturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution.

Application - New license................... -...

$ 630

$ 600

$ 360

$ 640

$1,200

$1,800 Renewa 1.......................................

$1,100 Amendment................................ *....

$ 180 Inspections: 5 Routine................*.....*.*......... $1,700 Nonroutine..................*...*........ $1,700 B.

Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 _of this chapter for processing or man.ufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution.

30

Application~ New license.....................

$1,000 Renewal ***********************.******.********

$1,800 Amendment.....................................

$ 440 Inspections:5 Routine..................................

$ 830 Nonrout1ne *******************************

$1,600 C.

Licenses issued pursuant to§§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceut1cals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material:

Application - New license ********************* $2,700 Renewal ********************.****************** $1,100 Amendment **...********.*..*******.************ $ 370 Inspections:

Routine *....******.*.*.*********.*******. $1,100 Nonroutine **..*.******..********.******.. $1 1 500

o.

Licenses and approvals issued pursuant to

§§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing distribution or re-distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, genera-tors, reagent kits and/or sources or devices not involving processing of byproduct material:

Application - New license.....................

$ 900 Renewal ***.*********.*.**..*.*****.***********

$ 400 Amendment.....................................

$ 250 Inspections:

Routine..................................

$ 640 Nonroutine ****.*.****..******************

$ 920 31

E.

Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed *sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units):

Application - New license.....................

$ 400 Renewal *****************************.*********

$ 380 Amendment.....................................

$ 200 Inspections:

Routine ******** ~.........................

$ 370 Nonroutine *****.************.************

$ 550 F.

Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes:

Application - New license.....................

$ 920 Renewal ****.************.*********************

$ 320 Amendment.....................................

$ 280 Inspections:

Routine..................................

$ 460 Nonroutine ***** ;.........................

$1,000 G.

Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes:

• Application - New license ********************* $3.700 Renewal ********...********************.*.***** $1,500 Amendment ******************.****************** $ 370 Inspections:

Routine..******************************** $ 830 Nonroutine ******.********..************** $1,100 32

H.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:

Application - New license.....................

Renewal.......................................

Amendment..................................*..

Inspections:

$1,700

$ 850 200 Routine..................................

$ 550 Nonroutine...............................

$ 550 I.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter-to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distributio~ to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:

. Application - New license..... * *..............

$2, 100 Renewal.... *......................... *.... *. * *

$ 960 Amendment........................ *............

$ 280 Inspections:

Routine..................................

$ 370 Non routine...............................

$ 550 33

J.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:

Application - New license.....................

Renewa 1..**....*...*.*......*....*..*..**....*

Amendment...............

Inspections:

• Routine..................................

Non routine...............................

K.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32.

of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or qu~ntities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution, of items that have been

$2,000

$ 460

$ 310

$ 550

$ 550 authorized for distribution to persons generally e

licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:

Application - New license.....................

$1,500 Renewal.......................................

$ 750 Amendment.............*......... *. * *.... *.... *.

$ 230 Inspections:

Rout i ne..................... *...... *.....

$ 550 Nonroutine...........*......*............

$ 550 L.

Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 34

33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:

Application - New license.....................

Renewal.......................................

Amendment.....................................

Inspections:

Routine...............*..................

Non routine...............................

M.

Other.licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for research and. development that do not authorize commercial distribution:

Application - New license Renewal.......................................

Amendment.....................................

Inspections:.

$1,800

$1,600

$ 400 740

$ 920

$ 900

$ 900

$ 500 Routine..................................

$ 640 Nonrouti ne...............................

$ 740' N.

Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except (1) licenses that authorize calibration and/or leak testing services only are subject to the fees specified in fee Category 3P, and (2) licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee Categories 4A, 48, and 4C:

Application - New license................. :...

$1,100 Renewal......................,....... *........... $ 640 Amendment.....................................

$ 320 Inspections:

Routine.......................... ~.......

Nonrout'i ne 35

$ 550

$ 550

0.

Licenses for possession and use of byproduct mate-rial issued pursuant to Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations:

Application - New 1 i cense................. *.. *

$2,400 Renewal.............. *......... *....... *......

$1,400 Amendment.............. *............. *.... *...

$ 390 Inspections: 5 Routine............................. *....

$ 920 Non routine...............* :.. '*...........

$2,000 P.

All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4A through 9D:

Application - New license.....................

Renewa 1...................*...................

Amendment.....................................

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Non routine...............................

4.

Waste disposal and processing:

A.

Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of commercial disposal by land burial by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for treatment or disposal by incineration, packaging of residues resulting from incineration and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material:

36

$ 400

$ 400 300

$ 920

$ 920

License, renewal, amendment...................

Inspections:

Routine Nonroutine...............................

8.

Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the mate-rial.

The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material:

Full Cost Full Cost Full Cost Application - New license.....................

$2,200 Renewal.......................................

$1,500

• Amendment................ ~................ :...

$ 160 Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine...............................

C.

Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons.

The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer t9 another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material:

Application - New license Renewal.......................................

Amendment.....................................

_ Inspections:

$1,700

$1,300

$1,500

$ 740

$ 180

-Routine...... :-..... ~........ :... -.. :......

-$1,300-Nonroutine

$1,700 37

5.

Well logging:

A.

Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well loggi.ng-, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies:

Application - New license.....................

$2,700 Renewal.......................................

$1,600 Amendment.. *...... *... *.... *. *....... *. *... *..

430 Inspections:

Routine..................................

$ 640 Non routine... *...... * * * *........... *..... \\. $ 640 B.

Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies:

License, renewal, amendment...................

Full Cost Inspections:

Routine.......................*..........

Nonroutine

6.

Nuclear laundries:

A.

Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material:

$ 550 830 App 1 icat ion - New license *............. *......

$1,100 Renewal......................... *.. *..........

$1,100 Amendment.............................. *..... *

$ 280 Inspections:

Routine..................................

$ 920 Nonroutine...............................

$1,500 38

7.

~uman use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material:

A.

Licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct mate-*

rial, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:

B.

App 1 i cat ion - New 1 i cense....-.................

Renewal.......................................

Amendment.....................................

Inspections:

, Routine.......................... _........

Nonroutine ***************************** i Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institu-tions or two or more physicians pursuant to Parts 30, 33, 35, 40 and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and developmentf including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:

Application - New license... -................. -.

Renewal.... _... '................................

Amendment.. -...................................

Inspections:

$2,700

$ 630

$ 340

$ 920

$1,500

$1,800

$1,600

$ 290 Routine,_................... -..............

$1,300 Nonrouti ne...............................

$1,400 C.

Other licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, -35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material,.

39

source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:

Application - New license.......*.....**......

$ 570 Renewa 1..... * *........... *..... *...... * *.... *

• 830 Amen*dment * * *... * * *.. * *... * * * *.. * * *. * * * * * * * * *..

$ 340 Inspections:

Routine........................ *-*..........

$ 830 Nonroutine

$1,200

8.

Civil defense:

9.

A.

Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense*activities:

App 1 i cation - New license.....................

$ 460 Renewa 1.......................................

$ 320 Amendment......................................

$ 250 Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine Device, product or sealed source safety evaluation:

A.

Safety evaluation of devices or products con-taining byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution:

$ 550*

$ 550 Application - each device.....................

$2,600 Amendment - each device....'............. *.....

$ 920 Inspections B.

Safety evaluation of devices or products con-taining byproduct material, source material, 40 None

or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices:

Application - each device.....................

Amendment - each device.......................

Inspections C.

Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for 1commercial distribution.

Application - each source.....................

Amendment - each source.......................

I nsp,ect ions I

D.

Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, *source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured.in-accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel:

Application - each source.....................

Amendment - each source...... :......... ;......

Inspections

10.

Transportation of radioactive mater-ial:

A.

Evaluation of c~sks, packages, and shipping containers:

$1,300

$ 460 None

$ 550

$ 180 None

$ 280 90 None Approval, Renewal, Amendment.................. Full Cost Inspections...................................

None 41

B.

Evaluation of Part 71 quality assurance programs:

App 1 i cat ion - Approval.......... *.............

180 Renewa 1... *.............. *........ *...........

180 Amendment.......... *.. * *... *. *......... *......

180 Inspections...................................

None

11.

Review of standardized spent fuel facilities:

Approval, Renewal, Amendment.................. Full Cost Inspections.;~................................

None

12.

Special projects:

Approval:

1.

Topical reports6........................... $50,000

2.

Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports6 **********************

3.

All other approvals (including trans-portation route approvals), special projects, reports and amendments except those specified in 1 and 2

$50,000 above.................................... Full Cost Inspections...................................

13.

A.

Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:

None Approvals.......................*..........*.. Full Cost Amendments, revisions and supplements........* Full Cost Reapproval........... ********~**************** Full Cost B.

Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:

42

Routine *************************************** Full Cost Nonroutine ************************************ Full Cost

c.

Inspections relatea to storage of spent fuel under§ 72.210 of Part 72 of this chapter:

Routine *************************************** Full Cost Nonroutine ************************************ Full Cost

14. Byproduct, source or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decollll'lissioning, decon-tamination, reclamation or site*restoration actiy1t1es pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70 and 72:

Approval, Renewal, Amendment ****************** Full Cost Inspection:

Routine *******************.************** Full Cost Nonroutine............................... Full Cost lTypes of fees - Separate charges as shown in the schedule will be assessed for applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new licenses and approvals, amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals, safety evaluations of sealed sources and devices, and inspec-tions. The following guidelines apply. to thes~ charges:

(a) Application fees - Applications for new materials licenses and approvals or applications to reinstate expired licenses and approvals, except those s1.1bject to fees assessed at ful 1 *cost, must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category, except that applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source materia 1 must be* accompanied by the *preser-ibed -app l-icat ion fee for the -

highest fee category.

(b) License/approval fees - Fees for applications for new licenses and approvals subject to full cost f~es (fee Categories lA, 1B, 2A, 4A, 43

5B, lOA, 11, 12, 13A and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(b), (e), and (f).

(c) Renewal/reapproval fees - Applications for renewal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category; except that fees for applications for renewal of licenses and approvals subject to full cost fees (fee Categories lA, 1B, 2A, 4A, 58, lOA, 11, 12, 13A and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(d).

(d) Amendment fees - Applications for amendments to licenses and approvals, except those subject to fees assessed at full costs, must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for each license affected.

An application for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more than one fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee f~r the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply.

For those licenses and approvals subject to full costs, (fee Categories lA, 1B, 2A, 4A, SB, lOA, 11, 12, 13A and 14) amendment fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(c).

An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that wnuld place the license or approval in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new category.

An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a licensee 1s program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.

Applications to terminate licenses authorizing small materials pro-grams, when no dismantling or decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fee.

44

(e) Inspection fees - Separate charges will be assessed for each routine and nonroutine inspection performed, except that inspections resulting from investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and nonroutine inspections that result from third-party allegations will not be subject to fees.

If a licensee holds more than one materials license at a single location, a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the licenses will be assessed if the inspections are conducted at the same time, except in cases when the inspection fees are based on the full cost to conduct the i~spection.

The fees assessed at full cost will be determined based on the professional staff time required to con-duct the inspection multiplied by the rate established under§ 170.20 of this part, to which any applicable contractual support service costs incurred will be added.

Licenses covering more than one category will be charged a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the license.

Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(g). See Footnote 5 for other inspection notes.

2Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission pur-suant to§ 2.204 of Part 2 nor for amendments resulting specifically from such Commission orders.

However, fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific exemption provision of the Commission's.

regulations under T~tle 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g.,

.§§ 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other such sections now or hereafter in effect) regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form.

In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in Categories 9A through 90.

3 Fu11 co.st fees w_j 11 be determined based on _the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.

For those applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the 45

June 20, 1984, and January 30, 1~89, rules, as appropriate.

For those appli-cations currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984, rule, but are still pending comple-tion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant.

Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable rates established by§ 170.20, as appropriate, except for topical reports whose costs exceed $50,000.

Costs which exceed $50,000 for each topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to a topical report com-pleted or under review from January 30, 1989, to the effective date of this rule will not be billed to the applicant.

In no event will the total review costs be less than $150.

4Licensees paying fees under Categories 1A and 18 are not subject to fees under Categories lC and 1D for sealed sources authorized in the same license except in those instances in which an application deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license.

Applicants for new licenses or renewal of existing licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear matertal in sealed sources for use in gaug-ing devices will pay the appropriate application or renewal fee for fee Category lC only.

5For a license authorizing shielded radiographic installations or manufacturing installations at more than one address, a separate fee will be assessed for inspection of each location, except that if the multiple installations are inspected during a single visit, a single inspection fee will be assessed.

6The amount shown represents the maximum amount that may be assessed for each topical report or each amendment, revision, and supplement to a topical report.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1990.

e Commission.

46

JI arkhola oocKET NUMBER PR 17 IJ 54 r/2 t../-Cf' 7t 3)

ARKHo ~R~~ 81E AVELcoMPANv DIVISION OF APAC-ARKANSAS, INC.

523 GARRISON AVENUE

• 501/785-4271 COC.:l\\[iEO USNRC P.O. BOX 1627

• FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS 72902-1627

• 90 APR -9 AlO :o 7 April 2, 1990 OFFICE OF SECRETAHY DOCKfilNG & SfilVICL BRANCH Secretary of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Services Research Gentlemen:

RE:

Comments towards proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 concerning increasing license fees Please accept these comments even though they are late in being submitted, for it took a recently arrived inspection fee invoice to raise my curiosity towards fees imposed on my company by the NRC.

After contacting Mr. Charles Cain with the NRC inspection branch out of Fort Worth, I was informed that what I al -

ready considered to be a high inspection fee was under consideration to be increase almost twofold.

I wish to voice Arkhola Division/APAC-Arkansas opinion of keeping both the inspection fee and the amendment fee at their current levels.

As reinforcement to our opinion consider the following issues:

1.

Our initial inspection involved an office meeting with a NRC inspection lasting approximately two hours.

In the future, will this justify a

$950 inspection fee?

2.

In the future we anticipate supervisory personnel changes due to promotion.

These people are also designated as our Radiation Safety Officers.

Does a change of a RSO constitute a $310 amendment fee.

Acknowledged by card 9/JP..jci.t.......*

l.J.-:>. I* *.*.,

I '.: REGULATO~Y COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 4.3-f-_..__O ___ _

Copies Received __ / ______ _

Ari *1 C

• ii:is Reproouced _3 __

sv tion_'--'-"~.- -P/JIC. __

--//t:,:/

Secretary of the U. S. Nuclear Page 2 April 2, 1990

3.

Arkhola Division/APAC-Arkansas also has a similar radioactive materials license issued by the State of Arkansas.

There are no fees associated with inspections and amendments.

Arkansas receives revenue from license holders from a $150 per year fee.

A comparison of fees for a 5 year time interval period between the State of Arkansas and the NRC is as follows:

A.

Arkansas= (150 $/yearly fee)(5 years)+ one inspection+ one amendment= $750 B.

NRC = 5 year renewal fee ($420) + one amendment ($310) + one inspection ($950) =

$1680 It is my understanding that governmental agencies covered by similar radioactive material licenses issued by the NRC, are exempt from all fees.

I am concerned tha t private enterprise companies are unfairly having to cover the cost of not only our own inspections but also those inspections of governmental agencies too.

rp Sincerely, Ii~

Al Campbell Project Engineer

• e DOCKET NUMBfR I ~ O PROPOSED RULE c s4 F

'7 :f)

H & G INSPECTION COMPANY, INC.

P. 0. BOX 721856

• 713-498-6517 oicttfRirn HOUSTON, TEXAS 77272 February 21, 1990 secretary US Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D c 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Fee Changes

Dear Sir:

-W FEB 26 PS :40 OFFICE OF SECRElARY 00CKEltNG & srnv1cr:

BRANCH I realize that the date for comments has passed, but I hope that you will still consider these comments.

The NRC proposed fee changes will triple the existing fees.

This is not in keeping with the Regulatory Flexibility Act as congress has enacted.

Furthermore, when you include all the new changes in our industry, the estimated cost to a firm such as ours exceeds one quarter of a million dollars over the next six years.

We have a total of 20 radiographic exposure devices that will have to be replaced at a cost of $6,000.00 each.

This totals up to $120,000.00.

We have an average of 40 employees that will need the new personal alarm ratemeters at a cost of

$350.00 each, for a total of $14,000.00.

The NRC proposal of third party certification could add up to another $120,000.00.

License renewal, amendments, and inspection fees could add up to $4,950.00 per year.

When you add all the new changes now in progress, the' total impact on a

small or large business is out of proportion.

• The total figures for this firm, for a six year period, are approximately $284,000.00.

Mobile, Alabama 205-433-9653 Jay, Florida 904-675-4029 Evanston, Wyoming 307-789-0804

. NUCLEAR REGlAATOlY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SRVIQ SKTION OFFICE OF TH£ SECUTAlV Of THE COMMIISION Document Stettstks Postmark Date

~

/;;. ~19 ()

i Copies lle<:eived

/

Add' I Copies Reproduced.3

~Ill Diatrl>ution Rt r:,s, l'DR..,

Secretary NRC February 21, 1990 Page Two H & G INSPECTION COMPANY, INC.

P. 0. BOX 721856

• 713-498-6517 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77272 I feel that these changes are being brought on by the NRC because they do not enforce the rules now on the books.

I do not feel that these changes will improve or solve the problem of overexposures.

However, more required training of personnel before they are allowed in the field, and more field inspections by the governing agencies will solve the problem.

Pricing the small business person out of business does nothing for our nation's unemployment or tax revenues.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Yours truly,

&~

President and Radiation Safety Director HWG:vm Mobile, Alabama 205-433-9653 Jay, Florida 904-675-4029 Evanston, Wyoming 307-789-0804

-~~OPOS£1J t<ULt d / 7 0,

{f 1-Pf L./9 76~

~7K[;Lo Portland General Electric ~ny usNRc David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear

'90 FEB 20 P4 :15 Secretary of the Commission Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555

Dear Sir:

uH!CE OF S£CRl:.1ARY February 15DO ~g-,NG & Sf itVICf RANCJi Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50- 344 License NPF-1 Impact of Proposed Rule for Fees (54 FR 49763)

On December 1, 1989, the Commission published for comment (54 FR 49763) its proposed rule [Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 170 (10 CFR 170)] on various revisions to the fee schedule.

Portland General Electric Company (PGE) has reviewed the proposed rule and suggests that the impact on licensees of removal of the exemption in 10 CFR 170.ll(a)(3) regarding fees for byproduct, source, or special nuclear material be clarified.

Because it was not clear in the Federal Register what impact removal of this exemption would have, PGE contacted the NRC Deputy Controller's Office (the listed point of contact in the proposed rule). It was determined that the exemption removal did not affect PGE's current operating license for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, which grants us permission to receive, possess, and use source, byproduct, or special nuclear material nor would it require any new fee payments by PGE.

c:

Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. David Stewart-Smith State of Oregon Department of Energy Mr. R. C. Barr NRC Resident Inspector Trojan Nuclear Plant 121 S.W Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204 Sincerely, IMR s 1990 AeknOWledged by card ** _,. ____ _

, I

, I l '

l j

',. I U S. M I.

~

(,LI* f. r')1,y '-0 'M ISSION Dv rl Ot

(;,

I De, 3

_ P ZJ£1 lcr i}.5

=-~ :;!_aNry

AmericanAirlines MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING CENTER DOCKET NUMBER PR /7 o PROPOSED RULE (c;~-; Ff( '-/17£3)

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 DOCKETED USNRC

• 90 FEB -6 A 9 :38 l / t,R{!~F Sf CRfTA.RY

... * **** * ~..,

i~ __.,,- "<'l '!:r

Subject:

Revision 0£ Fee Schedules, 10 CFR Part 170 While it is understandable that £ees must continue to be increased to re£lect higher cost 0£ government, some reasonable limits must be established.

Under the present program, a licensee can be charged £or any number 0£ Routine Inspections in a given year.

The previous regulations allowed only one Routine Inspection £ee per year.

American Airlines received two routine inspections during 1989.

The £irst inspection was a surprise visit in February and the second was the annual audit in August.

A typical example 0£ excessive £ee assessment:

In February, two inspectors £ram Region IV made a surprise visit to American Airlines, Tulsa Facility.

They requested to observe an Isotope Inspection, i£ any were being accomplished.

No inspections were being accomplished, so they le£t.

They were on the premises approximately one hour.

We were billed ($530) £or a Routine Inspection.

Other NDT £acilities within the Tulsa area have received similar inspections.

In summary, we can accept higher £ees, made necessary to support the industrial radiography inspection program,

however, some restraints must be established to prevent excessive inspections.

American Airlines £eels it's unacceptable to be charged an inspection £ee any time an inspector chooses to visit.?; £acility.

cc:

J.E. Martin C.H. Eads B.W. Nethercutt 6C~

A.A. Hale Vice President, Engineering

~

t,relfd.... lA

.. lR __

5 _1990_*

M ---P.O. BOX582809, TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74158-2809, CABLEADDRESSAMAIR

C,*,

C:

Postmark C:1': ::Lfl /Jd Copies RE-... '.

/

Add'I Ccc**' :, 1 r.;

J J Special Di~:r1Sut1<)n ft:S /Jr --PfTE'"'

Ho /(cJ LM

--~ '..J:;;1 -

~

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 IMPORTANT NOTICE December 1, 1989 TO:

ALL PARTS 30, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72, and 73 LICENSEES, APPLICANTS AND REACTOR VENDORS

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR 170 ON LICENSE FEES Gentlemen:

On December 1, 1989 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission published in the Federal Register {54 FR 49763} for public conrnent the enclosed Notice of Proposed Ruiemak1ng. This notice proposes revisions to the fee requirements of 10 CFR 170 {"Fees for Facilities and Materials Licenses and other Regulatory Services ***** "}. These revisions are being made to update the current materials license and inspection fees and the cost per professional staff-hour which is assessed for those reviews based on the full cost method.

Comments should be submitted by January 30, 1990. The NRC staff will hold a publ ic meeting in Region I at 1:00 pm, January 8, 1990, Sheraton-Radisson Hotel, Erie Room, 1200 First Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania and a public meeting in Region III at 1:00 pm, January 11, 1990, Holiday Inn, 5540 North River Road, Rosemont, Illinois to discuss the proposed changes and to answer any questions.

The major changes proposed to Part 170 would:

1. Update the schedule of fees in 10 CFR 170.31 for small radioisotope programs including the addition of a fee for byproduct material applications for deco11111issioning.

2.

Amend 10 CFR 170.20 to change the cost per professional staff-hour from $86 per hour to $95 per hour.

3. Establish a ceiling of $50,000 for Topical Report Reviews.

4. Delete the exemption provisions in 170.ll(a}{3}, broaden the exemption in 170.ll{a){4} and clarify the exemption in 170.1l(a}{5}.

5. Add a new exemption provision in 170.ll(a)(ll) to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations that are federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be exempt from payment of fees.

6. Revise 10 CFR 170.12(h) to request that bills in excess of $5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer.

All parties desiring to submit written comments for consideration should send them to the Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, D~C.

20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Questions relating to the proposed revision should be directed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, D.C.

20555, Attention: Office of the Controller.

Enclosure:

Federal Register Notice Sincerely",

rt i/,Jt..

f Ronald M. Scroggins Office of the Controller

Proposed Rules This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains *notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 170 RIN 3150-AD23 Revision of Fee Schedules:

Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations governing licensing fees for all topical reports and licensing and inspection fees for radioisotope licenses (small programs covered by parts 30, 40 and 70). The proposed amendments would (1) establish a ceiling of $50,000 for topical report reviews, (2) update the schedule of fees for small radioisotope programs, including the addition of a fee for byproduct material applications for decommissioning, (3) change the cost per professional staff hour for all full-cost fees from $86 to $95 per hour based on the FY 1990 budget, (4) delete certain exemption provisions and clarify others for ease of administration, (5) add a new exemption provision to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations will be exempt from payment of fees and (6) request that bills in excess of

$5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer in accordance with U.S.

Department of the Treasury cash management initiatives. The proposed action is intended to more completely recover costs incurred by the Commission in providing services to identifiable recipients and to encourage the continued submittal of topical reports.

DATES: The comment period expires January 30, 1990. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm (Telephone 301-492-1966).

Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.

The NRC will hold a public meeting on January 8, 1990 in Region I at 1:00 pm, Sheraton-Radisson Hotel, Erie Room, 1200 First Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and a public meeting on January 11, 1990 in Region III at 1:00 pm, Holiday Inn, 5440 North River Road, Rosemont, Illinois, to discuss the proposed changes and answer any questions.

The agency workpapers which support these proposed changes to 10 CFR 170 are available in the Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lee Hiller, Deputy Controller, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301-492-7351.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background II. Proposed Action III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement VI. Regulatory Analysis VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification VIII. Backfit Analysis IX. Subject terms I. Background On December 29, 1988, the Commission published its final amended regulations which revised the fee schedules contained in 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 (53 FR 52632). In the response to comments received on the published proposed rule, the Commission indicated that a portion of the 10 CFR part 170 fee schedule for certain small materials licenses is outdated and in need of revision (53 FR 52633). The Commission further stated that a rulemaking on this issue would be initiated in 1989.

Part 170 implements title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act Federal Register Vol. 54. No. 230 Friday. December 1, 1989 49763 of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701). The fees assessed under part 170 recover the costs lo the NCR of providing individually identifiable services to applicants for and holders of NRC licenses and approvals. The fees for radioisotope licenses issued under 10 CFR parts 30, 40 and 70 and for inspections of these licenses were last revised on May 21, 1984 (49 FR 21293).

The 1984 revision was based on cost and professional staff hour data for fiscal year (FY) 1981. In the final rule published on December 29, 1988, the previous policy of charging inspection fees based on the routine inspection frequency for small materials programs was changed to provide for the assessment of fees for each inspection under 10 CFR 170.31.

II. Proposed Action The Commission proposes to amend 10 CFR part 170 to update the licensing fees for materials licenses to more fully recover costs for application reviews and other services based on FY 1987 and FY 1988 licensing data. For inspection fees, the professional staff hours used in the 1984 rule to conduct an inspection have been maintained while the Commission explores ways to unify the fee categories with the Regulatory Information Tracking System (RITS) inspection categories and licensing program codes. Therefore the routine and nonroutine inspection fees have increased due to the change in the hourly rate only. It is proposed that the professional hourly rate of $86 for FY 1989 shown in 10 CFR 170.20 will be revised to $95 per hour based on the FY 1990 budget. (Note that the December 1988 rule revision did not apply the $86 per hour charge to the materials fee schedule, but retained the 1981 rate of

$58 per hour.) In addition, it is proposed that a fee ceiling be reestablished for all topical reports.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis The following section-by-section analysis of those sections affected provides additional explanatory information. All references are to title 10, chapter I, part 170, Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 170.3 Definitions This section is revised to remove the paragraph designations for the definitions, arrange the definitions in

49764 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday. December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules alphabetical order. and add definitions of "Indian organization" and "Indian tribe."

"Indian organization" means any commercial group, association, partnership, or corporation wholly owned or controlled by an Indian tribe.

"Indian ~ribe" means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided to Indians by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians.

Section 170.11 Exemptions Paragraph (a)(3) is being removed in its entirety. Fees for any byproduct, source or special nuclear materials licenses issued under 10 CFR part 30, 40, 70, or 71 that are considered to be incidental to operation of a nuclear reactor will be charged under respective materials fee category rather than under the 10 CFR part 50 reactor fee category as has been past practice. Therefore, for a special nuclear materials license or any other licenses which are required prior to operation of the reactor, e.g.,

startup sources, reactor fuel, or calibration or monitoring equipment, fees will be assessed under 10 CFR 170.31 rather than § 170.21. If an applicant possesses byproduct, source or special nuclear material for decontamination, inspection, repair, modification or testing of their reactor components, for which a license is required under the Commission's applicable materials regulations, fees will be assessed in accordance with 10 CFR 170.31.

• Paragraph (a)(4) is changed to broaden the exemption for non-profit educational institutions to include certain activities (e.g.. research) not covered by the current exemption. It would not include power reactor licenses and materials licenses which authorize human use, commercial distribution, or remunerated service to other persons or activities performed under a government contract. If a non-profit educational institutions provides services to other persons without charge, the exemption would apply. The Commission has received several fee exemption requests from colleges and universities for licensed activities not covered by the current exemption.

Additionally, this change is in keeping with the concern of Congress regarding the impact of the current schedule on some entities and their limited ability to pass through the costs of these charges to the ultimate consumer. Although the legislative history for annual fees contained in part 171 of this chapter discusses the option of considering modifications to these fee schedules for hospitals, research and medical institutions and uranium producers, the Commission is continuing to limit this particular exemption to non-profit educational institutions.

Paragraph (a)(5) is changed, for clarification, to include certificates of compliance and other approvals.

Paragraph (a)(11) is added to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations will be exempt from license fees. Indian tribes are recognized as separate political entities similar to State governments. The Commission intends to exempt Indian tribes and wholly owned tribal commercial organizations conducting licensed activities on tribal lands from license fees in the same manner as it does States and governmental agencies.

Section 170.12 Payment of Fees Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are revised to more clearly distinguish the fee payment requirements for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost from the requirements for other licensed activities that are subject to full cost.

Paragraph (h) is being revised to indicate that (1) payments may also be made by electronic fund transfer (EFf) and (2) that were specific instructions regarding payment are provided on the bills, payment should be made accordingly. It is the intent of the Commission to request payment by electronic fund transfer of those bills which are in excess of $5.000. This change is being made to encourage timely receipts and deposits in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations relating to cash management initiatives.

Section 170.20Average Cost Per Professional Staff-Hour This section is modified to reflect an agency-wide professional staff-hour rate based on FY 1990 costs to the Agency.

Accordingly, the proposed professional staff rate for the NRC for FY 1990 for all fee categories that are based on full cost is $95 per hour, or $166.8 thousand per FTE (professional staff year). For FY 1990, the budgeted obligations by direct program are: (1) Salaries and Benefits,

$196.4 million: (2) Administrative Support, $87.95 million; (3) Travel, $12.31 million, and (4) Program Support, $178.34 million. In FY 1990, 1,618 FTEs are considered to be in direct support of NRC programs applicable to fees (see Table I). Of the total 3,180 FTEs, 1,562 FTEs will be considered overhead (supervisory and support) or exempted (due to their program function). Of these 1,562 FTEs, a total of 286 FTEs and the resulting $26.8 million in support are exempted from the fee base due to the nature of their functions (i.e..

enforcement activities and other NRC functions currently exempted by Commission policy).

T ABLE 1.-ALLOCATION OF DIRECT FTES BY OFFICE Office Number of direct FTEs 1 NRR/SP...........................,

982.2 RESEARCH.....................

155.0 NMSS...............................

307.5 AEOD...............................

93.1 ASLAP/ASLBP................

22.2

~~~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I

~~:g Total Direct FTE......

1,618. 0 1 Regional employees are counted 1n the office of the program each supports.

In determining the cost for each direct labor FTE (an FTE whose position/

function is such that it can be identified to a specific licensee or class of licensees) whose function, in the NRC's judgment, is necessary to the regulatory process, the following *rationale is used:

1. All direct FTEs are identified by office.

2. NRC plans, budgets, and controls on the following four major categories (see Table II):

(a) Salaries and Benefits.

(b) Administrative Support.

(c) Travel.

(d) Program Support.

3. Program Support, the use of contract or other services for which the NRC pays for support from outside the Commission, is charged to various categories as used.

4. All other costs (i.e.. Salaries and Benefits, Travel, and Administrative Support) represent "in-house" costs and are to be collected by allocating them uniformly over the total number of direct FTEs.

Using this method was described in the December 29, 1988 final rule (53 FR 52639] and the FY 1990 budget, and excluding budgeted Program Support obligations, the remaining S269.9 million alloca led uniformly to the direct FTEs (1,618] results in a calculation of $166.8 thousand per FTE for FY 1990 (an hourly rate of $95).

TABLE 11.-FY 1990 BUDGET BY MAJOR CATEGORY

[$ in Millions]

Sslaries and benefits..............................

Administrative support.............................

Travel.........................................................

Total nonprogram support obliga*

lions................................................

$196.40 87.95 12.31 296.66

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules 49765 TABLE 11.-FY 1990 BUDGET BY MAJOR CATEGORY-Continued CS in Millions]

Program support....................................... ;

178.34 Total budget........ ___

475.0 The Direct ITE Productive Hourly Rate ($95/hour rounded to the nearest whole dollar) is calculated by dividing the annual nonprogram support costs

($296.66 million) less the amount applicable to exempted functions ($26.8 million) by the product of the direct ITE (1,618 ITE) and the number of productive hours in one year (1,744 hours0.00861 days <br />0.207 hours <br />0.00123 weeks <br />2.83092e-4 months <br />) as indicated in 0MB Circular A-76, "Performance of Commercial Activities."

For subsequent fiscal years the professional staff-hour rate will be revised, as needed, using the same methodology to arrive at a new hourly rate as described above. Any changes in the staff-hour rate for future fiscal years will be published in the Federal Register prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which they will become effective.

Section 170.21 Schedule of Fees for Production and Utilization Facilities, Review of Standard Reference Design Approvals, Special Projects and Inspections Since the Commission decision (53 FR 52633; December 29, 1988) to remove the fee ceiling for topical reports reviews, the number of topical reports submitted for review has significantly decreased. It appears that the principal reason for the reduction in topical reports being submitted is the uncertain and potentially unlimited fee for NRC review of these reports. This is counterproductive to the agency because, in many cases, the regulatory effort gains significant benefit in terms of (1) the resolution of safety significant problems, and (2) the staff time saved by conducting a generic review of a topical item thereby saving extensive plant-by-plant review in the same or similar areas. Examples of beneficial topical initiatives are numerous. The recent B&W Owners Group decision to undertake a complete reassessment of all B&W reactor designs, thus eliminating a costly NRC review, saved lime and produced a more complete technical review than could have been accomplished by NRC alone. Another example is the CE Owner's Group development of EP Guidelines for all of its units. This generic effort saves NRC costly review time assessing plant-by-plant guidelines. These are just two of many examples where the public interest is served by an industry undertaking to resolve an issue. The surfacing of safety significant items stemming from the review of topical reports and the subsequent resource savings to the NRC, as well as the overall high level of technical competence available from industry, justifies NRC encouragement of industry submittal of these reports.

In conclusion, a balance must be maintained between the need to encourage industry submittal of these reports and the need to assess fees for the costs of reviewing the reports. The current system of charging a fee with no ceiling for NRC review of these reports appears to have had an inhibiting effect on the industry. As a result, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 170.21, Category J, Special Projects, to provide that the maximum fee for review of a topical report shall not exceed S50.000 and any amendments, revisions. or supplements to topical reports shall not exceed $50,000. This figure represents an adjustment of a previous ceiling of $20,000 to reflect the effects of inflation and is an amount which approximates the median of topical report fees charged over $20,000 thus far in 1989.

The professional hourly rate assessed for the services provided under the schedule is revised as shown in § 170.20.

Footnote 2 of § 170.21 is revised to provide that the professional hours expended up to the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989 rules, as appropriate. Any professional hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the FY 1990 rates shown in this proposed rule.

Section 170.31 Schedule of Fees for Materials licenses and Other Regulatory Services The licensing and inspection fees in this section are modified to reflect the FY 1990 budgeted costs and to more completely recover costs incurred by the Commission in providing licensing._and inspection services to identifiable *

• recipients. It includes the addition of a category for decommissioning applications for byproduct material.

After the effective date of this final rule, the fees shown in this proposed rule will apply to those decommissioning applications that are currently pending NRC review and subsequently filed applications.

Fee Category 3N is revised to include licenses which authorize leak test services, with a provision added that licenses which authorize leak test services and/or calibration services only will be subject to fee Category 3P.

This revision is in response to Health Physics Associates' July 22, 1988 comment on the June 27, 1988 proposed revision to 10 CFR 170, other comments received from applicants and licensees since the inception of the June 1984 revision, and to supporting information provided by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

By letter dated July 19, 1988, Lixi, Inc.

commented on the June 27, 1988 proposed rule that 10 CFR 170 should be revised to create a new category for diagnostic devices. Lixi believes doctors should be charged the same for medical use of the Lixi Imaging Scope as industrial users. At this time. it is not practical to make a separate category for each manufactured item. The fee Categories in 10 CFR 170.31 are based on the use of the material rather than specific types of products or equipment.

In addition, in using the average-cost instead of the full-cost method for materials license fees, variations will exist between licenses grouped within a single category. However, in developing the current fee categories, every effort was made to group licenses in the most logical and equitable manner.

Many licenses which authorize human use of diagnostic devices also authorize other medical uses of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material. These licenses are currently subject to fee Category 7C. If a separate category existed for diagnostic devices only, these licenses could be subject to the fees in the new category in addition to the fees in Category 7C.

For these reasons, applications for human use of the Lixi Imaging Scope and other diagnostic devices will continue to be subject to fee Category 7C and industrial uses of the Lixi Imaging Scope will continue to be subject to fee Category 3P.

Fee Category 10B is changed from full-cost to flat fees. This change is based on an analysis of the actual staff-hours expended for the review and approval of the part 71 quality assurance programs.

Fee Category 12, Special Projects, is revised to provide that the maximum fee for review of a topical report and any amendments, revisions or supplements to topical reports shall not exceed

$50,000.

49766 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed rule revision is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental impact assessment has been prepared for this proposed revision.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

VI. Regulatory Analysis The proposed revision was developed A

pursuant to Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (32 U.S.C. 9701) and the Commission's fee guidelines. These guidelines took into account guidance provided by the U.S. Supreme Court_ on March 4, 1974, in its decision of National Cable Television Association, Inc. v.

United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974) and Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Company, 415 U.S. 345 (1974). In these decisions, the Court held that the IOAA authorizes an agency to charge fees for special benefits rendered to identifiable persons measured by the "value to the recipient" of the agency service. The meaning of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 was further clarified on December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

.A National Cable Television Association W v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1094 (1976);

National Associations of Broadcasters

v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1118 (1976);

Electronic Industries Association v.

Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109 (1976); and Capital Cities Communication, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F. 2d 1135 (1976) These decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop fee guidelines that are still used for cost recovery and fee development purposes.

The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Mississippi Power and light Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 801 F.2d 223 (1979), cert.

denied 44 U.S. 1102 (1980), that (1) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had the authority to recover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries; (2) the NRC could properly assess a fee for the costs of providing routine inspections necessary to ensur~

a licensee's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and with applicable regulations; (3) the NRC could charge for costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews required by NEPA; (4) the NRC properly included in the fee schedule the costs of uncontested hearings and of administrative and technical support services; (5) the NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license to operate a low-level radioactive waste burial site; and (6) the NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.

This proposed rule revision will not have significant impact on state and local governments and geographical regions; on health, safety, and t~e environment; or create substantial costs to licensees, the NRC, or other Federal agencies. The foregoing discussi~n constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980; 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significai:it economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule affects about 9,000 specific licenses under 10 CFR part 30-35, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, and 72. Approximately 8,000 of these licensees could be considered small entities, particularly in the area of materials licensing under parts 30-35.

There is no annual recordkeeping burden imposed by the proposed rule.

The NRC does not believe that the increase in fees that would result from the adoption of this proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on most materials licensees. The increase in the annual cost that would be imposed on these licensees w_ould not be significant in terms of their gross annual receipts.

Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that, because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse economic impact should notify the Commission of this in a comment that indicates the following:

(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would result in a significant economic burden upon th_e licensee as compared to the economic burden on a larger licensee.

(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities.

(c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the licensee.

[d) How the proposed regulation. as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages to any individual or group.

VIII. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for it because these amendments do not require the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components or design of a facility or the design approval~~

manufacturing license for a fac1hty or the procedures or organization requ!r~d to design, construct or operate a fac1hty.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 170 Byproduct material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Source material.

Special nuclear material.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 533, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 170.

PART 170-FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

1. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051: sec. 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C.

2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 u.s.c. 5841).

2. In § 170.3, remove the paragraph designations for the defini~ions, arrange the definitions in alphabetical order, and add definitions of "Indian organization" and "Indian tribe" to read as follows:

§ 170.3 Definitions.

"Indian organization" means any commercial group, association.

partnership, or corporation wholly owned or controlled by an Indian tribe.

"Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians.

l

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules 49767

3. In § 170.11, paragraph (a)(3) is removed and reserved: paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) are revised and paragraph (a)(11) is added to read as follows:

§ 170.11 Exemptions.

[a) * * *

(3) [Reserved]

(4) A construction permit or license applied for by, or issued to, a non-profit educational institution for a production or utilization facility, other than a power reactor, or for the possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material except for licenses which authorize (i) human use:

(ii) remunerated services to other persons: (iii) distribution of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material; and (iv) activities performed under a Government agency contract.

(5) A construction permit, license, certificate of compliance, or other approval applied for by, or issued to. a Government agency, except for a utilization facility designed to produce electrical or heat energy pursuant to section 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

(11) A license for possession and use of byproduct material, source material.

or special nuclear material or other approval applied for by or issued to an Indian tribe or an Indian organization conducting licensed activities on tribal lands.

4. In § 170.12, paragraphs (a), (b), (c),

(d) and (h) are revised to read as follows:

§ 170.12 Payment of fees.

(a) Application fees. Each application for which a fee is prescribed shall be accompanied by a remittance in the full amount of the fee. Applications for which no remittance is received will not be processed and may be returned to the applicant. All application fees will be charged irrespective of the Commission's disposition of the application or a withdrawal of the application.

(b) License fees. (1) Fees for applications for materials licenses not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for permits and licenses that are subject to fees based on the full cost of the reviews are payable upon notification by the Commission. Except as provided in paragraph (b )(3) of this section. each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed. Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.

(3) For early site reviews issued under 10 CFR part 52, there is no application fee. Fees for the review of an application for an early site permit are deferred as follows: The permit holder shall pay the applicable fees for the permit at the time an application for a construction permit or combined license referencing the early site permit is filed. If, at the end of the initial period of the permit, no facility application referencing the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit. Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.

(c) Amendment fees and other required approvals. (1) Amendment fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for license amendments, other required approvals and requests for dismantling, decommissioning and termination of licensed activities that are subject to full cost recovery are payable upon notification by the Commission. Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed, except for amendment and other approvals for early site permits which will be billed in a deferred manner consistent with that addressed in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.

(d) Renewal fees. (1) Renewal fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for renewals that are subject to the full cost of the review are payable upon notification by the Commission. Except as noted in paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application that the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed. Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.

(3) Fees for review of an application for renewal of a standard design certification shall be deferred as follows: The full cost of review for a renewed standard design certification must be paid by the applicant for renewal or other entity supplying the design to an applicant for a construction permit, combined license issued under part 52, or operating license, as appropriate, in five (5) equal installments. An installment is payable each of the first five times the renewed certification is referenced in an application for a construction permit, combined license, or operating license.

The applicant for renewal shall pay the installment, unless another entity is supplying the design to the applicant for the construction permit. combined license, or operating license, in which case the entity shall pay the installment.

If the design is not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within ten years after the date of renewal of the certification, the applicant for renewal shall pay the costs for the review of the application for renewal, or remainder of those costs, at that time.

(4) Fees for the review of an application for renewal of an early site permit shall be deferred as follows: The holder of the renewed permit shall pay the applicable fees for the renewed permit at the time an application for a construction permit or combined license referencing the permit is filed. If, at the end of the renewal period of the permit.

no facility application referencing the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit.

(h) Method of payment. Fee payments shall be made by check, draft, money order or electronic fund transfer made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Where specific payment instructions are provided on the bills to applicants or licenses, payment should be made accordingly, e.g., bills of $5.000 or more will normally indicate payment by electronic fund transfer.

5. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:

§ 170.20 Average cost per professional staff-hour.

Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects.

part 55 requalification and replacement examinations and tests, other required approvals and inspections under

§ § 170.21 and 170.31 will be calculated based upon the full costs for the review using a professional staff rate per hour

49768 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules equivalent to the sum of the average cost to the agency for a professional staff member. including salary and benefits, administrative support and travel. The professional staff rate for the NRC for FY 1990 is $95 per hour.

Subsequent changes to this rate will be published in the Federal Register prior to the fiscal year for which a new professional staff-hour rate is effective.

6. In § 170.21, Category J, Special Projects and Footnote 2 to the schedule are revised to read as follows:

§ 170.21 Schedule of fees for production and utilization facilities, review of standard reference design approvals, special projects, and Inspections.

J. Special projects Approvals:

1. Topical reports.....................................

2. Amendments. revisions and sup-plements to topical reports................

3.

All other approvals, special projects and reports except those specified in 1 and 2 above.................

$50,000

$50,000 Full Cost 2 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended. For those applies lions currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the profeHional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 and Janaury 30, 1989 rule revisions, as appropriate. For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached the applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20. 1984 rule. but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29. 1989, will not be billed to the applicant. Any profeHional staff-hours expended above those ceilings since January 29, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable rate established by § 170.20. In no event will the total review costs be less than $150.

7. Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:

§ 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services Including Inspections.

Applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services and holders of materials licenses shall pay fees for the following categories of services. This schedule includes fees for health and safety, and safeguards inspections, where applicable.

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES (See footnotes at end of table)

Category of materials license* and type of fees*

1. Special nuclear material:

A. Licenses for possession and use of 200 grams or more of plutonium in unsealed form or 350 grams or ore of contained U-235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more of U-233 in un-sealed form. This includes applt-cations to terminate licenses as well as licenses authorizing pos-session only:

Fee**

Application........................................ S 150.

License, Renewal. Amendment..... Full Cost.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... Full Cost.

Nonroutine.................................... Full Cost.

B. Licenses for receipt and stor-age of spent fuel at an inde-pendent spent fuel storage in-stallation (ISFSI):

Application........................................ $150.

License, Renewal. Amendment..... F,ull Cost.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... Full Cost.

Nonroutine.................................... Full Cost.

C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial meas-uring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers:

• Application-New license............... $420.

Renewal............................................ $420.

Amendment...................................... $310.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $380.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,100.

D. All other special nuclear materi-al licenses, except licenses au-thorizing special nuclear material in unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical quantity, as defined in § 150.11 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those for Category 1 A:

• Application-New license............... $570.

Renewal............................................ $570.

Amendment...................................... $190.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $570.

Nonroutine.................................... $670.

2. Source material:

A. Licenses for possession and use of source material in recov-ery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concen-trates to uranium hexafluoride, ore buying stations, ion ex-change facilities and in process-ing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery oper-ations, as well as licenses au-thorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode:

Application........................................ $150.

License, Renewal, Amendment..... Full Cost.

Category of matenals hcenses and type of fees '

Inspections:

Routine.......................................

Nonrout1ne...................................

B. Licenses for possession and use of source matenal for shielding, except as provided for in § 170.1 1 (8)(8)

Application-New hcense...............

Renewal............................................

Amendment......................................

Inspections:

Routine.........................................

Nonroutrne....................................

C. All other source matenal li-censes:

Application-New l.Jcense.............

Renewal............................................

Amendment.....................................

Inspections:

Fee

• 3 Full Cost.

Full Cost.

$100.

$100.

$100.

$240.

$290.

$660.

$630.

$370.

Routine......................................... $670.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,200.

3. Byproduct material:

A. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byprod-uct material issued pursuant to parts 30 and 33 of thrs chapter for processing or manufacturing j of items containrng byproduct I material for commencal drstnbu-1 lion.

Application-New license.............. $1,900.

Renewal............................................ $1,100.

Amendment...................................... $190.

Inspections:

• Routine......................................... $1,700.

Nonroutrne.................................... $1,800.

B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items conta,n.

ing byproduct material tor com-merical distribution.

Application-New license............... $1,100.

Renewal............................................ $1,900.

Amendment...................................... $460.

Inspections:

• Routine......................................... $860.

Nonrout1ne.................................... $1,600.

C. Licenses issued pursuant to

§§32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of part 32 of this chapter authonz-ing the processing or manufac-turing and distribution or redistri-bution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent luts and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material:

Application-New license............... $2,800.

Renewal............................................ $1,200.

Amendment...................................... $380.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $1,100.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,500.

0. Licenses and approvals issued pursuant to

§§ 32. 72,

32. 73, and/ or 32. 7 4 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing distribution or redistribution of radiopharma-ceuticals, generators.

reagent kits and/ or sources or devices not invoMng processing of by-product material:

Application-New license............... $930.

Renewal............................................ $410.

Amendment...................................... $260.

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules 49769 Category of materials licenses and type of tees 1 Inspections:

Fee **

Routine......................................... $670.

NOIYoutine.................................... $950.

E. Licenses tor possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources tor irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (sett-shielded units):

Application-New license............... $41 O.

Renewal............................................ $390.

Amendment...................................... $210.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $380.

N01Youtine.................................... $570.

F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materi-als in which the source is ex-posed for irradiation purposes:

Application-New license............... $950.

Renewal............................................ $330.

Amendment...................................... $290.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $480.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,000.

G. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materi-als in which the source is ex-posed for irradiation purposes:

Application-New license............... $3,800.

Renewal............................................ $1,500.

Amendment...................................... $380.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $860.

Norvoutine.................................... $1,100.

H. Licenses issued pursuant to subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items con-taining byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing re-quirements of part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items lhal have been authorized for distribution lo persons exempt from the licensing re-quirements of part 30 of this chapter.

Application-New license............... $1,800.

Renewal............................................ $870.

Amendment...................................... $210.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $570.

Nonroutine.................................... $570.

I. Licenses issued pursuant lo sub-part A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing by-product material or quantities of byproduct material lhal do not require device evaluation lo per-sons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter, except tor specific li-censes authorizing redistribution of items that have been author-ized tor distribution to persons exempt from the licensing re-quirements of part 30 of this chapter.

Application-New license............... $2,200.

Renewal............................................ $990.

Amendment...................................... $290.

category of materials licenses and type of fees

• Fee 2

• lnE:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I :::

J. Licenses issued pursuant to subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items con-taining byproduct material that require sealed source and/ or device review lo persons gener-ally licensed under part 31 of this chapter, except specific li-censes authorizing redistribution of items that have been author-ized tor distribution lo persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter:

Application-New license............... $2,100.

Renewal............................................ $480.

Amendment...................................... $320.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $570.

Nonroutine.................................... $570.

K. Licenses issued pursuant to subpart 8 of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items con-taining byproduct material or quantities by byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/ or device review lo persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses author-izing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distri-bution to persons generally li-censed under part 31 of this chapter:

Application-New license............... $1,500.

Renewal............................................ $770.

Amendment...................................... $240.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $570.

Nonroutine.................................... $570.

L Licenses of broad scope for possession and use by byprod-uct material issued pursuant to parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commer-cial distribution:

Application-New license............... $1,900.

Renewal............................................ $1,600.

Amendment...................................... $420.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $760.

Nonroutine.................................... $950.

M. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not author-ize commercial distribution:

Application-New license............... $930.

Renewal............................................ $930.

Amendment..................................... $520.

Inspections:

Routine........................................ $670.

Nonroutine.................................... $760.

N. Licenses that authorize services tor other licensees, except (1) licenses that authorize calibra-tion and/ or leak testing services only are subject to the tees specified in fee Category 3P, and (2) licenses that authorize waste disposal services are sub-ject to the tees specified in fee Categones 4A, 48, and 4C:

Application-New license............... $1,100.

Renewal............................................ $670.

category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Amendment....................

Inspections:

Routine.........................................

Nonroutine......................

0. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to part 34 of this chap-ter for industrial radiography op-erations:

Application-New license...............

Renewal.......................

Amendment......................

Inspections:

Routine.......................

Fee 2 *

$330.

$570.

$570.

$2,500.

$1,500.

$400.

$950.

Nonroutine.................................... $2,100.

P. All other specific byproduct ma-terial licenses, except those in categories 4A through 90:

Application-New license............... $420.

Renewal............................................ $420.

Amendment...................................... $310.

Inspections:*

Routine......................................... $950.

Nonroutine.................................... $950.

4. Waste disposal:

A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material. source material or spe-cial nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of com-mercial disposal by land burial by the licensee: or licenses au-thorizing contingency storage of low level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reac-tors; or licenses tor treatment or disposal by incineration, packag-ing of residues resulting from in-cineration and transfer of pack-ages to another person author-ized to receive or dispose of waste material:

Application....................................... $150.

License, renewal, amendment....... Full Cost.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... Full Cost.

Nonrouline....................................

B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or spe-cial nuclear material from other persons tor the purpose of pack-aging or repackaging the materi-al. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to an-other person authorized to re-ceive or dispose of the material:

Full Cost.

Application-New license............... $2,300.

Renewal............................................ $1,500.

Amendment...................................... $160.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $1,800.

Nonroutine....................................

C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct

material, source material, or special nu-clear material from other per-sons. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to re-ceive or dispose of the material:

$1,300.

Application-New license............... $1,500.

Renewal............................................ $760.

Amendment...................................... $190.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $1,300.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,700.

£;c.J1e~t 70~

'10 0

2. '.l 0

49770 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1

5. Well logging:

A. licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct material.

source material, or special mate-rial, and/or special nuclear ma-terial for well logging, well sur-veys, and tracer studies other 1 than field flooding tracer studies:

Fee* 3 Application-New license............... ; $2.800.

Renewal............................................ : $1.700.

Amendment...................................... 1 $450.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... 1 $670.

B. i%:~:t:~~.. ~~;;;~.. *;~.. I 5610 use of byproduct material for I

~~i1=~~.. ~~~~.. ~.~~'............ I $150.

license, renewal, amendment....... : Full Cost.

Inspections:

~~:ti;:;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i :~:

6. Nuclear laundries:

I A. Licenses for commercial collec-tion and laundry of items con-taminated With byproduct materi-al, source material, or special I nuclear material:

Application-New license............... ! $1,100.

Renewal............................................ $1,100.

Amendment...................................... $290.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... S950.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,500.

7. Human use of byproduct source, or special nuclear material:

A. Licenses issued pursuant to parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of by-product material, source materi-al, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in tel-etherapy devices:

Applicatio~New license............... S2,700 Renewal............................................ $660 Amendment...................................... $350 Inspections:

Routine......................................... S950.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,500.

B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians pursuam to I parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of I this chapter authorizing research I and development, including I human use of byproduct materi-al, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or spe-cial nuclear material in sealed I sources contained in teletherapy I divices:

Applicatio~New license............... : $1,900.

1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 ~~*

Routine......................................... 1 $1,300.

Nonroutine.................................... : $1,400.

C. Other licenses issued pursuant I to parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of I this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source mate-I rial, and/or special nuclear ma-I terial, except licenses for by-product material, source materi-al, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in tel-etherapy devices:

Applicatio~New license............... S590.

Renewal............................................ $860.

Amendment...................................... $350.

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Inspections:

Fee* 3 Routine............................

$860.

Nonroutine.................................... $1,200.

8. Civil defense:

A. licenses for possession and use of byproduct

material, source material, or special nu-clear material for civil defense activities:

Application-New license............... $480.

Renewal............................................ $330.

Amendment...................................... $260.

Inspections:

Routine......................................... $570.

Nonroutine.................................... $570.

9. Device, product or sealed source safety evaluation:

A. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or spe-cial nuclear material, except re-actor fuel devices, for commer-cial distribution:

Application-each device............... $2,700.

Amendment-each device............. $950.

Inspections....................................... None.

B. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or spe-cial nuclear material manufac-tured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices:

Application-each device............... $1,300.

Amendment-each device............. $480.

Inspections....................................... None.

C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or spe-cial nuclear material, except re-actor fuel, for commercial distri-bution.

Application-each source.............. S570.

Amendment-each source............. S190.

Inspections....................................... None.

D. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or spe-cial nuclear material, manufac-tured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel:

Application-each source.............. $290.

Amendment-each source............. $100.

Inspections....................................... None.

10. Transportation of radioactive ma-terial:

A. Evaluation of casks, packages, and shipping containers:

Application........................................ $150.

Approval, Renewal, Amendment... Full Cost Inspections....................................... None.

B. Evaluation of part 71 quality assurance programs:

Application-Approval....................... $190.

Renewal............................................ 190.

Amendment...................................... 190.

Inspections....................................... None.

11. Review of standardized spent fuel facilities:

Application.......................................... $150.

ApprO',al, Renewal, Amf'nd1,1ent....... Full Cost lnspE;ctions........................................... None.

12. Special projects:

Application........................................... $150.

Approval:

1. Topical reports............................ $50,000.

2. Amendments, revisions and

$50,000.

supplements to topical reports.

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee *'

3. All other approvals, special Full Cost reports and reports except those specified in 1 and 2 above.

Inspections....................................... 1 None.

13.

I A. Spent fuel storage cask Certifi-I cate of Compliance:

Application........................................ [ $150.

Approvals......................................... Full Cost Amendments, revisions and sup-Full Cost plements.

Reapproval....................................... Full Cost B. Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Com-pliance:

Routine............................................. Full Cost Nonroutine........................................ Full Cost C. Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under § 72.210 of part 72 of this chapter:

Routine............................................. Full Cost Nonroutine........................................ Full Cost

14. Byproduct, source or special nu-clear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommis-sioning, decontamination, reclama-tion or site restoration activities pursuant to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 70and 72:

Application........................................... $150.

Approval, Renewal, Amendment....... Full Cost Inspection:

Routine............................................. Full Cost Nonroutine........................................ Full Cost

• Types of fees-Separate charges as shown in the schedul& will be assessed for applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new li-censes and approvals, amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals, and inspecbons.

The following guidelines apply to these chargeS:

(a) Application fees-Applications for new materi-als licenses and approvals or those applications filed in support of expired licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category, except that applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source material must be accom-panied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category.

(b) License/approval fees-For new licenses and approvals issued in fee Categories 1 A. 1 B. 2A. 4A.

5B. 10A, 11, 12, 13A and 14, the recipient shall pay the license or approval fee as determined by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(b), (e), and (f).

(c) Renewal/reapproval fees-Applications for re-newal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except that applications for renewal of licenses and approvals in fee Categories 1A, 1B. 2A, 4A, 5B, 10A, 11, 12, 13A and 14 must be accompa-nied by an application fee of $150, with the balance due upon notification by the Commission in accord-ance with the procedures specified in § 170.12(d).

(d) Amendment fees-Applications for amend-ments must be accompanied by the prescnbed amendment fee for each license affected. An appli-cation for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more than one category must be ac-companied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee catego-ries in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply, except that appli-cations for amendment of licenses in fee Categories 1A, 1B, 2A, 4A, 5B, 10A, 11, 12, 13A and 14 must be accompanied by an application fee of $150 with the balance due upon notification by the Commis-sion in accordance with§ 170.12(c).

An application for amendment to a materials li-cense or approval that would place the license or approval in a higher fee cate~ory or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescnbed application fee for the new category.

l e Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules 49771 An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a licens-ee's program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.

An application to terminate licenses authorizing small materials programs, when no dismantling or decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fee.

(e) Inspection fees-Separate charges will be as-sessed for each routine and nonroutine InspectIon performed, except that InspectIons resulting rom invest,gat,ons conducted by the Office of lnvest1ga-tIons and nonrout,ne inspections that result from third-party allegations will not be sub1ect to fees. If a licensee holds more than one matenals license at a single location, a fee equal to the highest fee cate-gory covered by the licenses will be assessed if the inspections are conducted at the same time. except in cases when the inspection fees are based on the full cost to conduct the inspection. The fees as-sessed at full cost will be determined based on the professional staff lime required to conduct the in-spection multiplied by the rate established under

§ 170.20 of this part, to which any applicable con-tractual support service costs incurred will be added.

Licenses covering more than one category will be charged a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the license. Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(9). See Footnote 5 for other inspection notes.

• Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission pursuant to § 2.204 of Part 2 nor for amendments resulting specifically from such Com-mission orders. However, fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under rrtte 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g.,

§§30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other such sections now or hereafter in effect) regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in Categories 9A through 9D.

• Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff lime and appropnate contractual support services expended. For those applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates estab-lished for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989 rules, as appropriate. For those applications current-ly on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after the ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989 will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours ex-pended since January 29, 1989 and/or on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the applicable rate established by § 170.20 of this part.

In no event will the total review costs be less than the application fee.

• Licensees paying fees under Categories 1 A and 1 B are not subject to fees under Categories 1 C and 1 D for sealed sources authorized in the same li-cense except in those instances in which an applica-tion deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license. Applicants for new licenses or renew-al of existing licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed sources for use in gauging devices will pay the appropriate application or renewal fee for fee Cate-gory 1C only.

• For a license authorizing shielded radiographic installations or manufacturing installations at more than one address, a separate fee will be assessed for inspection of each location, except that if the multiple installations are inspected during a single visit, a single inspection fee will be assessed.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of November 1989.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 89-28157 Filed 11-30-89; 8:45 am]

BIWNG CODE 7590-01-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 89-CE-32-AD)

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Models SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, SA226-TC, SA227-TT, SA227-AT, and SA227-AC Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY

This Notice proposes to adopt a new Airworthiness Directive (AD), applicable to certain Fairchild SA226 and SA227 series airplanes, requiring inspection and rework as necessary of the main landing gear door to nacelle skin to assure proper clearance. The proposed AD is prompted by several wheels-up landings caused by the main landing gear doors jamming against the nacelle which prevents extension of the main landing gear. The proposed actions will correct this unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 1990.

ADDRESSES: Fairchild Service Bulletin Nos. SA226-32--055 and SA227-32--027, both dated December 8, 1988, applicable to this AD, may be obtained from the Fairchild Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box 790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279--0490.

This information also may be examined at the Rules Docket at the address below. Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 89-CE AD, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Bannister, Airplane Certification Office, FAA Southwest Region, Fort Worth, Texas 76193--0150; Telephone (817) 624-5163.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above.

All communications received on or before the closing date for comments specified above will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental.

and energy aspects of the proposed rule.

All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact, concerned with the substance of this proposal. will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Availability of NPRMs Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 89-CE-32-AD, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Discussion The FAA has determined that a safety of flight condition exists on Fairchild SA226 and SA227 series airplanes.

Several accidents have occurred in which the main landing gear would not extend and the airplane was forced to land "wheel8 up". Five of the accidents were attributed to the landing gear doors becoming jammed against the nacelle skin thus preventing extension of the landing gear.

Since the condition described is likely to exist or develop in other Fairchild SA226 and SA227 series airplanes of the same design, the proposed AD would require visual inspection and adjustment of the landing gear door to nacelle skin gap in accordance with Fairchild Service Bulletins 226-32--055 and 227-32--027, as applicable.

The FAA has determined there are approximately 656 airplanes affected by the proposed AD. The cost of the inspections and adjustments specified in the proposed AD is estimated to be $300 per airplane. The total cost is estimated to be $196,800. The cost of compliance with the proposed AD is so small that the expense of compliance will not have a significant financial impact on any small entities operating these airplanes.

The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this proposal would not have sufficient federalism

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 AMERICAN AIRLINES, 1NC.

ATTN: ~GR NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST.

3800 N. HINGO P.O. BOX 582809 TULSA, OK 741582809 ATTN: BURL W. NETHERCUTT FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE ft FEES PAID USNRC PERMIT No. G-457 aD23.

COMBUSTION~ ENGINEERING Mr. Samuel J. Chilk OUtKIT NUMBER PR 1--1 /1\\

PROPOSED RULE -- *:.u.t (5k/ Ff2. '-/1163)

January 25, 1990 LD-90-007 The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555 OOUU. irn USNHC "SO FEB -5 P3 :32 uFF!C~ OF SE. CR 1AR'f DOCK[ TING & SEi<VICL BRANC!-i

Subject:

Proposed Rule 10 CFR 170 "Fees for Facilities and Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Services, Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended" (54FR49763)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The purpose of this letter is to provide to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Combustion Engineering's position on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 on license fees.

Combustion Engineering has taken the position in the past, and continues to believe, that there is benefit to the public and the NRC in avoiding unnecessary repetitive, plant-specific reviews whenever possible.

Combustion Engineering, therefore, favors the proposed ceiling for Topical Report review fees and recommends its adoption.

We also note that Footnote ( 4) to the Fee Schedule in 170. 21 has not been revised to indicate a deferral period of 15 years for a certified design, consistent with the final version of 10 CFR 52.

The proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 provide an opportunity to correct the current inconsistency.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.

If the Staff should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. S. A. Toelle of my staff at (203) 285-5213.

AES:jeb Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Very truly yours, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

~A/

A.

. Scherer Director Nuclear Licensing IAR S 199(1

~now~ b1 Clfd *... ::.: sale a : a 1000 Prospect Hill Road Post Office Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500

~

(203) 688-1911 Telex: 99297

,JI -'

V.FI~( ~) f-1-~-

1

~ ~~(S:E'L~RY OF TH f CO~/.. '-.m: ION Do..:, 7 -

~

l"" :..i:,.:.!; cs Postmrk Da:e

/ /'k f I°/ c} __

J 1tI1>3,;~iw; Add' ! c,,

Spec1ill D1 *rib,1ri;;r, Ha!J-t1-~

Claude Earl Fox, M.D., M.P.H.

State Health Officer Secretary State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama January 30, 1990 "W FEB -2 P OF F!CE: OF SECRE:_'V_&f:HNG ADDRESS DOCKE11NG & Sr-ilo/l ~ontoe Street BRANCH Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1701 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re:

10CFRl 70 Gentlemen:

On December 1, 1989 you published proposed changes to 10CFR170.31 We support these changes with the following suggested improvements:

1.

Add to the inspection fees footnote the following:

"A charge conducting 10CFR31. 5, not subject inspected."

will be assessed for inspections of persons operations pursuant to the authority granted in 10CFR40.25, or 10CFR150.20 if such persons are to another inspection fee for the location being This should be adopted because at the present time any effort expended in inspecting general licensees is not recovered.

Adding this to the footnote would not require an inspection of this class,

but, when something like the static eliminator problem arises both the NRC and the Agreement States can recover part of the costs for the taxpayer.

2.

Reduce the time available for reciprocity.

This would place the licensees in the NRC jurisdiction in a more competitive economic position with Agreement States Licensees.

At the present time an Agreement State licensee who may not be paying a

fee for his license can operate six (6) months in competition with the NRC licensee who have to pay both a license fee and an inspection fee.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposal.

AVG:psc Sincerely,

~

A/4 //.

~br~; J. Godwin,

rector Division of Radiation Control Bureau of Environmental & Health Service Standards IAR 5 1990

"<=knowfedged ~ ellld *.;;~;;;;:;:; ** :r;i;;. i.r.;saiiQI*-

-~.,,.

oc.***:,c~*-

l

) I.II<

<;., ;-* :,:; r;,;: *1:1[:.'*...

• 1 0,-:.

t1'1

~ CU.,\\~ t: S ~.*JN

~:~KET NUMBER PR i1-

--1'-~

'\\POSED RULE - ~--

.,v (qLj FYL '-I 976:})

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPArN~t,rn U NRC NUCLEAR GROUP HEA DQUARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD. "S'()

fEB -2 Pl2 :25 WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 (ZI !I) U0-6000 OFFIC~ Of SECH!:. TARY DOCKE f I G & Sf iiVICf 8RANCl-i J a nuar y 29, 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Comments Concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule 10 CFR 170, "Revision of Fee Schedule; Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports" (54 FR 49763, dated December 1, 1989)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is being submitted in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC 's) request for comments concerning the Proposed Rule 10 CFR 170, "Revision of Fee Schedule; Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports," published in the Federal Register (54 FR 49763, dated December 1, 1989).

The Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

PECo agrees with the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 described in 54 FR 49763.

We endorse the NRC' s efforts and support promulgation as a final rule.

In addition, we fully support the Nuclear Management Resources Council

• (NUMARC) positions and comments regarding this proposed rule.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, J a. b:_, ~

G. A. Hunger, Jr.

Director Licensing Section "1:know IAR 5 7990 bycmf **..._.....,.. __

.S. NUCLEAR REGULAIUKY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Dc>c111renl S*c, 1 1cs

DOCKET NUMBER p 1 ()' '1 @)

1<0POSED RULE -

DUKEPOWERGOMPANY

-(_5Lj FYl 4 Cf76)

COL KET EC U5NRC P.O. BOX 33189 OHARLOTl'E, N.O. 28242 HAL B. TUGKER VJCJ:E PRESIDENT Ktl'OLE.A.Jl PODUOTION

-W FEB -2 A11 :41 TELEPHONE (704) 373-4M1 January 29, 1990 The Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Revision of Fee Schedules:

Radioisotope License and Topical Reports:

Proposed Rul e Duke Power Company Comments

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Regist er (54FR49763) dated December 1, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a proposed rule to amend its regulations governing fees for all topical reports and licensing and inspection fees for radioisotope licenses.

Duke Power Company has reviewed the proposed rule and feels that the commission should not limit the means of payment to electronic funds transfer only.

At times, electronic fund transfer i s not available or desired to be used.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the regulatory process.

• __s;y truly y~

/

7'7~4 ~

Hal B. Tucker DM474/td MAR 5 1!190 AdlnOWfedead by... = !;

I ilil

1

..,_ ~-

U(LfAR REGULA TORY COMMISSIOt'i DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THf CO'-AMISSION

. !. NIJ("I r. Docu:rcr t S*o: -tics Postmark Date Copies Rc--ei" J

DOCKET NUMBER PR

.:J?OSED RULE

• ~~--7

( 5 '-/ F (L 1-f C/1 l -3]

BWR OWNERS' GROUP L'OtKE.Ti I USt'1fl~~en D. Flot,1d, Chairman (919) 546-690 l BWROG-9007 January 26, 1990 do Carolina Power & light Companv

• 411 F

• tta~teep ~ ~figh, NC 27602 QFf"IC[ OF s c~n uOClff TING & s1il A~Y BRANCI-( VtC[

Secretary U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION TO FEE SCHEDULE The BWR -Owners' Group (BWROG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the NRC ' s proposal to amend its regulations governing licensing fees.

The BWROG endorses the proposed change that would establish a ceiling of

$50,000 for topical report reviews.

The BWROG is involved with numerous act ivities that require NRC review and approval.

While some of these

• activities are undertaken in response to regulatory requirements, many others are voluntarily originated by the BWROG in order to improve plant safety and performance.

Establishing a ceil ing on the cost of the NRC

~eview will encourage the BWROG to continue initiating activities with pl ant safety benefits.

The proposed ceiling places a reasonable limit on the cost of reviewing these activities, and knowing the cost in advance enables the BWROG to more effectively plan allocation of its resources.

4t The BWROG has no comments on the other proposed changes.

Stephen *o. Floyd, Chairman BWR Owners' Group cc:

G. J. Beck, BWROG Vice Chairman D. N. Grace, RRG Chairman BWROG Executive Oversight Committee BWROG Primary Representatives

l. S. Gifford, GE S. J. Stark, GE IMR 5 1990 M:knowlldRld bJ

• tt,.; La a c =

,\\,

--ob/ k.::C/ J Fv* I Hlf

~..,do::

a1t.';] vewiso, NCIS;tw.-.r.,")

J ll 3r1

, J..., 1,., ~ *r lll J. j(\\ I l J * '

11:ns v,,,.. ;$ "2 '""' 11 17*,~,=.

-.intc: 1 wo) 1,:e,1vi1IS,;il ~v* 1A1N *;,.

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP @

Arizona Public Service Co.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.

Florida Power & Light Co.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

oi,;QG fft&i,fcf)f~wer District FtlJ8Ntte St. Lucie I, 2 Maine Yankee Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 Arkansas Power & Light Co.

Calvert Cliffs I, 2 Consumers Power Co.

Louisiana Power & Light Co.

Northeast Utilities Service Co.

Southern California Edison Co.

ANO 2 Palisades Waterford 3 Millstone 2 SONGS 2, 3 Edward C. Sterling, III, P.E., Chairman "SU FEB -l p 4 :09 c/o Arizona Public Service/ 11226 N. 23rd Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85029/Station 7034 OOCK£T NUMBER PR 11... U

• 1

• wpoSED RULE --

i'1

('i~/ Ffl ~CJ7t?y Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 January 26, 1990 CEOG-90-071 OFF!~f: Of SECRETARY OOCKfTING & Sti(Vff:f' BRANCH

Subject:

Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 170 on License Fees The purpose of this letter is to provide to the NRC the C-E Owners Group 's (CEOG) position on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170, "Fees for Facil ities and Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended", including the reestablishment of a ceiling on review fees for topical reports.

The CEOG has long believed that the NRC and the public benefit when the NRC reviews generic reports. Topical generic reports allow repetitive, plant-specific reviews to be avoided that could ultimately delay the implementati on of safety improvement changes.

Since early 1989, the absence of a review fee ceiling has hampered the submittal of topical reports. Considering the pending requests for exemption to various topical report fees, the C-E Owners Group also believes that the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 should include provisions to retroactively apply the review fee ceiling to the beginning of 1989.

The CEOG strongly favors the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170, especially reestablishing a ceiling for topical report reviews and agrees with the staff that this action will encourage the submittal of topical reports.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.

If you have any questions 1 please do not hesitate to call me at (602) 371 -4176.

ECS/cmd Very truly yours, d"W'- >? -e+ {,,<

Edward C. Sterling Chairman, C-E Owners Group MAR 5 1990 AetmoWlldllltbf... wc I iid

• .J. l*v *... *.

,. '-, _.,.._, '-J,(r ( QMMISSIOti DOCK Hit-JG & SER.VI CE SECT ION OFF ICE OF THE SECRET ARY Q£ THE.. C.Otv\\M!SSIOt:-l Dornm"nl Sta: ist ics

r""KET !JUMBER PR J+O-.;,r~

\\ ) µ ~, I r

I

,tD RULE --

/1l!lfWl~r.liM COCKE1EO t41WYJTitJa.t#;1fJ1U'f/JI/III USNHC

( c; j FR L-/ q7 t3)

January 29, 1990 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

• 90 FEB -1 P2 :lQ vFF!C~ OF SECRf,1ARV DOCKE TING,~. SEt?V![L BRANCl-i RE:

Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 170 on License Fees

Dear Sirs:

Computalog Wireline Services Inc. wishes to comment on scheduled license fee increases specifically concerning WELL LOGGING.

Computalog is against the scheduled increase.

The oilfield service industry that Computalog operates in is a competitive bid market.

Most wireline service industries are using revised 1981-84 price lists and discounting 35-65% on most jobs.

Profit margins after tax are small and some district operations are trying to break even in the current marketplace.

The proposed license and fee increases cannot be passed on to the customer.

Fee increases by NRC will likely trigger fee increases by the Agreement States.

The proposed license and fee increases put a hardship on smaller wireline service companies as we oftentimes amend licenses several times annually to move into profitable market areas and terminate service in non-profitable areas.

On 1-10-90, Richard Leonardi from Halliburton in Duncan, Ok. spoke with me on the phone and he expressed that Halliburton opposes and dislikes the fee and license increases.

It is our companies opinion that the proposed license and inspection fee increases be dropped concerning the Well Logging industry.

Current license and inspection fees are adequate.

6671 Southwest Freeway, Suite 410, Houston, Texas 77074 (713) 779-1971, FAX (713) 778-0346 1990 a

t..l $

MA.1.tAR RF.GULA TO~Y COMMI 55t<:>>il DOCKETl~~G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE CO,V,MISSION

~cic11 Di !r,b;,!ion

,c:;/,~A

Our final comment would be that NRC see that all meetings such as the 1-17-90 Arlington, Tx. meeting be announced at least 30 days in advance and that notice be sent specifically to each companies RSO.

Notification of the Arlington, Tx. meeting was less than 7 days prior.

Sincerely, h

D~ ee~c;;}

Safety Manager JDM/kl

I NORTHEAST UTILITIES

(([!]

THE CONNECTIQJT LIGHT AHO POWER CDl,/IIPAHV WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY HOt. YOKE WATER POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY NORTHEAST NUClEAR ENERGY COMPANY DJ~nc.l 1~u1vldbR PR J 7 {)

PROPOSED RULE

@)

General Offices* Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut

~

~OCKL1ED 5° L P.O. BOX 270 USNHC

( -; prz ?-/.1163 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 J ~ I\\ 3 )

• 90.J'.af"jf A9:37 January 30, 1990 Docket No. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 B13431 OFF!C~ UF SECR[TARY GOCKE flNG ~ sn1v1cr BRANCl-i Re:

10CFR170, Proposed Revision Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Comments on Proposed Revisi on to IOCFR Part 170 On December 1, 1989, the NRC published in the Federal Register (54 Fed. Reg. 49763) a proposed revision to the 10 CFR Part 170 fee schedule for fiscal year 1990.

This revision is intended to recover costs incurred in providing services for small programs on a more equitable basis.

The public comment period for this proposed revision expires on January 30, 1990.

In accordance with this schedule, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) are providing the following comments on this proposal.

Most of the proposed revisions are directed to materials licensees and would only minimally affect Part,170 fees for Part 50 licensees.

While the new fee schedule would represent an almost across the board increase in licensing and inspection fees for radioactive material licensees, the NRC Staff has proposed a $50,000 ceiling for the review of topical reports.

CYAPCO and NNECO agree with the Staff that the current uncertainty associated with the potential unlimited fee for NRC review of topical reports has discouraged the submittal of such reports.

CYAPCO and NNECO support the Staff's proposal for a ceiling limit on NRC Staff reviews of topical reports.

The most direct impact of the proposed rule revision on Part 50 licensees would be an increase in the cost per NRC professional staff hour from $86 to

$95.

However, because the NRC will recover 45 percent of its budget through Part 170 and Part 171 fees regardless of the specific hourly rate assigned, this increase should not significantly affect the Part 50 licensees total fee obligation.

In fact, to the extent the proposed revision will increase the fee responsibility of materials licensees under Part 170, licensees under Part 50 should notice a slight downward adjustment with respect to their Part 0S3422 REV. 4-88

_MAR 5 1990

~*mowtedAldllf iilft *ILJ§I b

iii. 5. l'd\\h""lFAR T

e, \\I\\IS:,11_,

ltOCK-HINC & ~ERVICE SECTION QFH(i CF illE srCRH ARY Ct THE ~')*I\\MI SSION

,~rmm Oilr

/ /3111 o Coi,1~ Rccoiv'*l

/

Adel' I' Copies R'eprc *._~ed _3

~

• ' Dislrib* ton toJL tl'I YJS

- ~ o~l l~vJd-..

l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13431/Page 2 January 30, 1990 171 fee obligation.

CYAPCO and NNECO have no additional comments on this aspect of the proposed revision.

The proposed revision would also require payment of bills that are in excess of $5,000 to be made by electronic fund transfer.

CYAPCO and NNECO routinely utilize this payment method for NRC billings and endorse this aspect of the proposed revision.

The proposed revision to the Part 170 fee schedule appears to have 1 ittle impact to the amounts paid by Part 50 licensees, and in fact, may be more equitable in its distribution of costs.

Additionally, the proposed fee ceiling on topical reports establishes an equitable balance between the need to encourage submittal of these reports and the need to assess fees for the costs of reviewing the reports.

The efficiency associated with topical reports for both the industry and the NRC is appropriately reflected in the establishment of this ceiling.

We trust these comments will be given appropriate consideration, and we remain available to discuss any aspect of these comments at your convenience.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY E. J. ~

cc:

W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3

fj~~~El NUMBER PR L.

.,Vi 0-,ED RULE --

-~

(S'--J FTZ '--f°l16!J)

~

rn GULF STATES UTILITIES COw.lPANY RIVER BEND STATION POST OFFIC~ BOX 220 ST FRANCISVILLE, LOUISIANA 70775

'90 JAN 31 A 8 : 1 7 AREA CODE 504 635-6094 346-8651 January 25, 1990 RBG-32185 OFFICE OF SECRETA Y DOCKETING & Sff<VICf BRANCJ-i File Code Nos. G9.23.1 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20655 Gentlemen:

Gulf States Utilities (GSU) is pleased to comment on the Commission's proposed rule regarding the revision of fee schedules (54FR4976 dated 12/1/89).

GSU concurs with the proposed rule with the exception of the amendment requesting that bills in excess of $5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer.

GSU feels that electronic transfers are not justified for sums less than $100,000.

We propose that this portion of the proposed rule be omitted or revised to specify bills in excess of $100,000.

GSU appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

Sincerely, f, P.&~

J. E. Booker Manager-River Bend Oversight River Bend Nuclear Group Aeknow

r I

,..,. r L

.Q.J.. NUCLEAR REGUIA TORY COMMI SSIOt-i DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION QH l,-c GF T: iE SECRET ARY c~ T!!: COMMISSION

('

• I 1 S I i CS i

I 11

DOCKET NUMBER PR ) 7 l'l PROPOSED RULE

- u

( SL-/ FR '-/ f 7 6 3)----

-§§- TRANSNUCLEAR, INC.

Janu Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Subject:

Gentlemen:

Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Revisions to 10CFR Part 170 (54FR 49763)

Transnuclear, Inc.

is a

small business involved in all activities associated with the transportation and storage of radioactive materials.

We

design, develop,

analyze, fabricate, test, operate and maintain packagings for all types of radioactive materials including spent nuclear fuel.

Transnuclear has a vital interest in the fees charged for reviews of applications submitted in accordance with 10CFR Parts 71 and 72.

Under Part 71, we hold Certificates of Compliance 9015 and 9016 for the TN-8, TN-81, and TN-9 spent fuel casks.

These Certificates have been revised numerous times to allow additional types of material to be shipped and to provide for modifications to the cask design.

We also hold Certificate of Compliance 9233 for a Type B waste cask -

the TN-RAM.

And the Topical Report for our TN-24 spent fuel storage cask has been approved under 10CFR72.

We have previously commented on proposed revisions to Parts 170 and 171 (letter dated July 22, 1988) in favor of retaining a ceiling on the fee for teviewing a topical report.

Unfortunately, the revised rule which went into effect January 30, 1989, removed the ceiling fee for topical reports.

As a result the actual cost for review of the TN-24 cask design will be much greater than the

$20,000 budgeted when the Topical Report was submitted.

Therefore, we support completely the re-establishment of a ceiling fee for review of a topical report.

It is gratifying to note that the rationale for a ceiling (page 49765) is the same as I discussed in my July 1988 letter.

To assure equity for all organizations which have submitted or will be submitting topical reports, we propose that the new ceiling Aeknowledged brfad._-.;;:'j;;5;;.-:t990-.-

TWO SKYLINE DRIVE* HAWTHORNE, NEW YORK 10532-2120 TELEPHONE: 914-347-2345

• FAX: 914-347-2346

• TELEX: 681-8082

..,_ ~- NUCltAf.: Kt:(,LJi..A I 1_;.;, "(

.VIT.**, ::;~;"'"'

DOCKET ING &

SER'ICE SECTION OfflCE OF THE SECRETARY ru. n;* COMJ\\.\\lSS.lOt.

3',>ecial Dis: ribulion

/ -/ i) It~

Secretary, USNRC January 29, 1990 Page Two be retroactive to January 30, 1989.

This would be especially fair to those who had submitted topical reports prior to that date with the expectations that they would know the exact cost of the NRC review, but were then required to pay full costs.

As discussed on page 49765, the number of topical reports submitted for review has significantly decreased.

The ref ore, the cost to the NRC of a retroactive ceiling should be minimal.

We will be pleased to discuss our comments with the NRC staff at any time.

Please contact us if clarification of any of our comments is required.

BRT:nb 1941N Very truly yours,

~~~

Bill R. Teer Senior Vice President

1776 Eye Street. N.W

• Suite 300

• Washington.DC 20006-2496 Joe F. Colvln Executive Vice President &

Chief Operating Officer Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

[2021 812-1280

'90 JAN 30 P 3 :25 January 30,0 ~ 9P Of SEC~EiAkY DJ Kt Tl G & St.t vier rlR<\\NC~i ATTENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch Re:

Revisions to Fee Schedules: Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports (54 Fed.Reg. 49763)

Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted by t he Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. ("NUMARC") in response to the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") for comments on the proposed rule "Revision of Fee Schedules: Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports" (54 Fed.Reg. 49763

- December 1, 1989).

NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry.

Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC.

In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect-engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

We fully support the NRC' s proposed revisions.

We believe that the public interest, and the interests of the NRC and the industry, are better served by encouraging the submittal of topical reports. The NRC's proposal to reimpose a fee ceiling for review of topical reports removes the uncertainty and potentially unlimited cost associated with the review of these reports.

This action should achieve the goal of encouraging the submittal of future topical reports.

We also support the adoption of the method that the NRC intends to use to calculate the cost of professional staff-hours.

We note, however, that the rate to be used for 1990 is 10.5 percent greater than that used for 1989.

Since this increase is more than twice the rate of inflation, we believe the Commission should reconsider this increase and provide the basis for the 5 1990

V ::.~10,.'

DOCKETING & s~;<'/IG SECT ION OFFICE m 1 :r. ~,G::T /\\'J..Y OF Tl-:: ((_;,./*f.',i~S!Ot--1

'Postmark D3!c frl-.o!- &-e,/Lf!..£r~t Cop,c, r -~,. l /

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk January 30, 1990 Page 2 change.

Publication of the annual revisions to this rate, if any, prior to the beginning of each fiscal year would be appreciated. This will enable licensees to use this information to budget for licensing support and other regulatory activities involving NRC staff time.

On a related matter, we have been advised that NRC is aware of the inconsistency between 10 C.F.R. Section 52.55, "Duration of Certification,"

which provides a 15 vear validity of design certifications, and Section 170.12 "Payment of Fees," Paragraph (2)(ii)(c), which mandates a 10 vear period over which review costs are recovered for designs not referenced in utility applications.

We have been further advised that the staff intends to change Section 170.12 so that design review costs will be recovered over the duration of the unreferenced design.

In view of the proposed revision to 10 C.F.R. Part 170, we request that Section 170.12, Paragraph (2)(ii)(c) be amended to correct this inconsistency.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Commission ' s proposed revisions to its fee schedule.

We believe this is a reasonable and appropriate exercise of sound regulatory policy - to evaluate the effect of regulations adopted and make appropriate technically justified modificati ons to ensure that the desired effect is achieved.

Sincerely, rl~ +-~l

\\;Je F. Colvin JFC/RNW:plg

nocKEr NUMBffi PR * *o--~~

'iSED RULE t )

CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

. L) '-/ F fl 1-f q 16 3./

220 Stoneridge Drive

• Columbia, South Carolina 29210 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch Ref:

RI N 3150-AD23, Revision of Fee Schedules:

Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports

Dear Mr. Secretary:

January 30, 1990 RA-0083-90 -----

3 Chem-Nuclear provides comments to the referenced proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 170.

Our comments are provided with respect to topical report review fees.

Chem-Nuclear provides services to the nuclear industry including waste processing. Since we are a commercial service firm, Chem-Nuclear must carefully consider the costs associated with demonstrating regulatory compliance as part of our pricing.

The topical report approach is intended to be a cost effective approach rather than requiring each licensee to demonstrate to the Commission that vendor processing produces products meeting waste form stability requirements.

The topical reports to which licensees can refer avoids multipl e reviews by the Commission.

The review of individual licensee waste processing programs could also end up with much less consistent regulatory oversight and control by the Commission.

To gain the collective base of information and experience from waste processing vendors and service companies, it would be prudent for the Commission to eliminate review fees on these types of topical reports, thereby encouraging their submittal.

In lieu of your acceptance of the above, or the elimination of the waste form topical process altogether, we agree that a cost ceiling for topical report reviews is necessary and must be reestablished.

However, $50,000 per topical report is too much and certainly $50,000 for amendments, revisions, and supplements thereto is exorbitant when the NRC staff has not specified what constitutes a topical report, an amendment, a revision, etc. The ceiling should be re-established at $20,000 per topical report with Commission wide requirements on what is acceptable as one topical report.

The fee should include all revisions, amendments, and submittals prompted by the review process for the subject matter discussed in the original topical report.

The footnotes for 10 CFR 170.21 should be changed to state that review fees will be determined based on the fee schedule at the time the topical report is submitted.

We should not be financially burdened because of long review times and schedules, NRC staff preferences for topical report scope and subdivision, or changing requirements during the revi ew process.

The Waste Form Topical Report process has been an involved one.

Chem-Nuclear submitted its first Topical Report in 1983 when the NRC encouraged topical reports, and no fees were assessed. Chem-Nuclear submitted revised Topical Reports in 1988, at the request of the NRC.

Our report submitted in March MAR 5 1990

~ROWfld&iad bJ... :;; I C: C Q

(803) 256-0450

• Telex: 216947

NOISSIWWOJ,f;l :JO A<.IV 1311)3$ 3H! ~:) DI ~~O NOID:lS Dl,\\~"S '!I 0NlJ3>iJOO

~OISSIWWO:> A~Ol\\flrt9:HJ l!'v:iDntJ -~ '/'\\

• I

Secretary, US NRC page 2 of 2 January 30, 1990 RA-0083-90 1988 was reorganized as directed by the NRC because it contained 26 certified waste forms and the NRC decided.Afill the submittal they wanted fewer waste forms per topical report.

He subsequently divided these formulations into three topical reports in accordance with our cement binder systems and resubmitted in June 1988.

He were willing to do this to expedite the review and understood that the maximum fee per topical was $20,000.

These positive actions by CNSI were made even though there were not, and still are not, final waste form criteria.

Another area of concern is review fees for cask topical reports. Our GNSI Castor I Spent Fuel Storage Cask Topical Safety Analysis Report was submitted in June, 1988 prior to the change to full cost recovery.

CNSI was invoiced for review costs through December 31, 1988 of approximately $20,000.

Then NRC issued comments from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory CLLNL) review of the topical in July, 1989. A meeting was held at LLNL in November to discuss comment resolution, and we will submit our responses which will be reviewed by LLNL.

Based upon our estimates only, the remaining NRC review costs could be $80,000 such that total review cost for the topical will be

$100,000. It is our position that the review fees should be capped at $20,000 per topical report, which was our understanding at the time of submittal.

He have written to the Commission on October 9, 1989 addressing these issues specifically and have not received any response as of this date. This lack of response is part of the problem.

In conclusion, we request that the fees NRC charges Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.

for the review of CNSI Cement Haste Form Certification Program Topical Reports and its GNSI Castor Cask Topical Safety Analysis Report be limited to the fee schedule values under which they were submitted.

He appreciate the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes.

He request written response to these comments at your earliest convenience.

MTR/HBH/rhs 2060Q Sincerely, CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

~

r~~H.P.

Executive Director Regulatory Affairs

CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

220 Stoneridge Drive

• Columbia, South Carolina 29210 Mr. James Holloway. Jr.* Chief License Fee Management Branch Division of Accounting & Finance Office of the Controller US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555

Dear Mr. Holloway:

October 9, 1989 RA-0533-9 This letter is intended to register a complaint and to request relief regarding the changes in Nuclear Regulatory Commission's charges for review of Topical Reports for Cement Solidification Waste Forms and Cask Licensing Topicals. It is our position that the change to make these reviews full cost recoverable is an excessive and undue burden on Chem-Nuclear Systems. Inc.

and subsequently on our customers.

The Waste Form Topical Report process has been an involved one.

Chem-Nuclear submitted its first Topical Report in 1983 when t he NRC encouraged topical reports. and no fees were assessed.

Chem-Nu cl ear submitted revised Topi ca 1 Reports in 1988. at the request of the NRC.

Our report submitted in March 1988 was rejected by the NRC because it contained 26 certified waste forms and the NRC decided after the submittal they wanted fewer.

We subsequently divided these formulations into three topical reports in accordance with our cement binder sys terns and resubmitted i n June 1988.

We were wi 11 i ng to do this to expedite the review and understood that the maximum fee per topical was $20,000.

During the entire period of the topi ca 1 review process the requirements for cementitious waste forms have been in draft, making it difficult to establish testing protocols and reporting methods which will meet changing requirements.

Chem-Nuclear has actively participated in topical review process at its own expense i n hope of formalizing the requirements.

Bi 11 i ng by the NRC i s not current.

CNS! has been billed through December 1988 for more than $51,000.00.

NRC has not been able to provide current billing beyond December.

1988 or esti mates of potential future charges associated with waste form topical report reviews.

The NRC must formalize the technical requirements for waste form stabi lity so that the industry can prepare topical reports against well defined criteria that are not subject to major revision during the review period.

Review fees can then be established for reports prepared to meet these technical requirements.

CNS! finds it very difficult to continue submitti ng reports against draft criteria and being charged for these reviews without a cost limit.

The intent of the topical report process, as we understand it, is to minimize duplicative and repetitive reviews by regulatory agencies.

Unlimited review fees may discourage the completion of waste form topical report reviews.

With a documented and finalized set of waste form requirements, the NRC should be able to evaluate a vendor's waste form certification program to see that the methods are appropriate and that the acceptance criteria are met.

(803) 256--0450

• Telex: 216947

~

a Mr. James Holloway, Jr. October 9, 1989 RA-0533-9 Thereafter, the review of the improvement and retesting of an existing formulation or the development of a new one should be straightforward. This would be a start toward predictable costs for topical report reviews.

Another area of concern is review fees for cask licensing.

Our GNSI Castor X Spent Fuel Storage Cask Topical Safety Analysis Report was submitted in June, 1988 prior to the change to full cost recovery.

GNSI was invoiced for review costs through December 31, 1988 of approximately $20,000.

The NRC issued comments from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) review of the topical in July, 1989.

A meeting is scheduled to be held at LLNL in mid-October to discuss comment resolution, and we will submit our responses which will be reviewed by LLNL.

Based upon our estimates only, the remaining NRC review cost could be $80,000 such that total review cost for the topical will be $100,000.

This is exorbitant, and it is our position that the review fees should be capped at $20,000 per topical

report, which was our understanding at the t ime of submittal.

The NRC staff wil 1 not give any estimates of cost to complete this project and will not even provide the cost associated with the work they have done so far this year or allow these discussions with LLNL.

In speaking with the NRC staff on review costs for TSAR's under 10 CFR 72, the NRC is now in the mode of full reimbursement at $85 per hour.

The staff felt that a typical "brand new" application could incur up to $200,000 in costs, but they had no actual data in hand.

Typically, we do not get billed for cask licensing costs until six to twelve months after the fact; no one is billed on a progress basis.

Hence, we do not know the actual costs until well after the fact, and we have no means of controlling costs at the NRC.

In conclusion, we request that the fees NRC charges Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. for the review of CNSI Cement Waste Form Certi fi cation Program Topic a 1 Reports and its GNSI Castor Cask Topical Safety Analysis Report be limited to the fee schedule values under which they were submitted.

MTR/WBH/nhs c:

H. L. Thompson, Jr., Director NMSS D. W. Moeller, Ph.D., ACNH Sincerely, CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

Ml~~'f ?tt.P.

Executive Director Regulatory Affairs

OOCKIT NUMBER PR J.1_~

I

~*' JSED RULE lJOU'iETEO ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION

{ s 'i F fl t..f 9 7 6 J)

USNRC 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD, PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch Secretary of the Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

January 17, 1990 CWM:90:015 RE<;J,!k,4 TORY COMPLIANCE

~ JAN 30 All :31 REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES:

RADIOISOTOPE LICENSES AND TOPICAL REPORTS Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) has reviewed the proposed rule on revision of fee schedules and related topics which was published in the Federal Register in Vol. 54, No. 230, December 1, 1989 (p. 49763).

Our comments are given below.

ANF is a fabricator and supplier of low-enriched uranium reactor fuels and related services.

ANF is concerned with those sections of 10 CFR Part 170 which cover fees for license renewal, routine inspections, and for the reviews of topical reports needed to support the operation of reactors containing ANF designed fuel.

The proposed rule contains a modification in fee schedule which is of interest to ANF.

This is the reimposition of a fee ceiling for reviews of topical reports.

The proposed rule also includes a request that bills in excess of

$5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer.

ANF endorses the reimposition of a fee ceiling and the use of electronic fund t ransfers for payment of fees.

We are a particularly strong supporter of the reimposition of a ceiling on topical report reviews.

As noted in the Supplementary Information (Column 1, paragraph 3 of p. 49765), there has been a significant reduction in the number of topical reports submitted for NRC review since the previous ceiling was removed (53 FR, 52632, December 29, 1988).

We believe that the open -ended fee for NRC reviews can discourage the submittal of topical reports for NRC review and thereby inhibit the development of U.S. fuel and reactor technology.

The development of better technology provides increased understanding of fuel and reactor design and performance.

Better understanding enables the industry and the NRC to better identify and focus resources on the issues that are potential safety concerns.

A Siemens Company IAR 5 1990 Ac<<nowled&ad bJ Glllf *...;.;;;;_;;, ;;1 ;;s1.;;i***

a S 5J a:

Docketing and Service Branch January 17, 1990 Page 2 CWM:90:015 The reimposition of the ceiling should also encourage more generic reviews of topical items by the NRC which will allow a more efficient use of NRC resources.

A generic review can allow the NRC to evaluate the plant-by-plant implementations with less resources, thereby providing a net reduction in the total NRC resources required.

We also agree that the amount of the proposed ceiling of $50,000 per topical report review is appropriate.

To summarize, ANF believes the use of electronic fund transfers for payment of fees is beneficial.

We particularly endorse the reimposition of a fee ceiling for NRC reviews of topical reports.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment.

jrs Very truly yours,

~/JI~

C. W. Malody, Manager Regulatory Commission

January 24, 1990 LIC-90-0053 Secretary DOCKET NUMBER PR / 1

.. ~O?OSED RULE

- i-_*

~

Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 402/536-4000 l~ L/ Ffl '-/1163)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555

References:

1.

Docket No. 50-285 "90 JAN 29 P2 :45 on IC£ OF SECRETAKY i)QCK[T ING & SE11vIcr BRANCli

2.

Letter from NRC (R. M. Scroggins) dated December 1, 1989 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

Comments to Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 170 on License Fees Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) submits the following comment to the NRC's proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 concerning license fees (Reference 2).

Of the major changes proposed to Part 170, OPPD has concerns only on the revision of 10 CFR 170.12(h) which requests that bills in excess of $5000 be paid by electronic fund transfer.

OPPD's comment is that each invoice in the amount of

$5000 or more should be accompanied by specific payment instructions indicating payment by electronic fund transfer. This will allow for the proper disbursement of OPPD's license fees and assure that OPPD will be in compliance with the code.

If you should have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely, Division Manager Nuclear Operations KJM/pjc c:

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV A. Bournia, NRC Project Manager P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector 45*5124 Employment with Equal Opportunity Male/Female

0. S. Nt/Cl'.£AR" R'EGULATORY COMMit>'l i.lD1l"A DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT IOl'f OFFICE OF THE SF.CRETARY Of THE COMMISSJOM,

• • 11 DOCKET NUMBER PR ~) 7_ 0. *:'

PROPOSED RULE

( 5 ~; f fL ~ q 7 6 3 Nuclear Fuel & Components Manufactunng General Electric Company PO. Box 780, Wilmington, NC 28402 GE Nuclear Energy Do * *rm USNRC 919 675-5000 "90 JAN 29 p 2 :42 January 22, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention:

Docketing Service Branch OFF!Cf: OF SECRETARY DOCK[ i ING & su1v1cr BRANCl-i

Reference:

Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 230, 12/1/89

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule

Dear Sir:

GE's Nuclear Fuel and Components Manufacturing (NF&CM) has reviewed the referenced proposed rule and submits the following comments for your consideration:

1.

Section 170.31, The Schedule of Materials Fees, requires in many categories that an initial $150 fee must accompany each application.

This amount is then applied to actual cost when the billing is submitted to the licensee.

The initial fee does not appear to serve any useful purpose and adds an unnecessary administrative cost for initiating, processing, and tracking to both the NRC and the licensee.

Licensees are required to pay invoices within a specified time frame with specifically stated penalties for those who do not comply.

Also, unnecessary refunding costs may be created for the NRC when the actual cost is less than the minimum application fee or a fee was not required.

The initial fee serves no useful purpose and, in today's economy, the $150 is an insignificant amount even when multiplied by the numerous applications.

We request that application fees in the less than $500 range be eliminated since this fee does not serve a useful purpose and adds unnecessary cost to both the NRC and licensees.

MAR 5 1990

Iii S. NUCLEAR REGULA 10RY COMMI SSIOtt DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docurner.t Statistics Postmcrk Date j fJ..:_'3/ /_CJ _ __ _

.Copies r{ece, ved I

Add' I Copi*~s Rcpro~..,~ed ~

iSpecial D1s1 ribution..f___m4-1Z:£(}.[,,

H a /ll)i#T --- ---

Docketing Service Branch January 22, 1990 Page 2

2.

In Section 170.31, 1.A, the fourth and fifth line read "... 350 grams or (m)ore of contained U235 in unsealed form... " It is suggested the word "contained" be deleted because it is confusing to state that the material is "contained" in an "unsealed form".

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the development process of NRC rules and regulations and hope that our comments are constructive and useful.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me on (919) 675-5461.

Sincerely, GE NUCLEAR ENERGY

~~

T. Preston Winslow, Manager Licensing & Nuclear Materials Management

/sbm cc:

TPW-90-009

PHILIP H. DERSE COLLI N H. SCHROEDER 0OCKEr NUMBER

_ )1 01~ ~:-,\\~. @

2 f', ~ ~le~gJt@~ C

.~

\\

l 5 F fl 4 of1&])

DERSE & SCHROEDER ASSOCIATES, fu1~l--(J DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE

[; U~NtRI{

1 1202 ANN STREET January 22, 1990 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn : Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 MADISON, WISCONSIN 537 13 (608) 25 1-3005

'90 JAN 25 P 4 :36 OH!CE OF SECRETARY OOCKE11NG & SEiNICL BRANCH Re : Comment on Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 170 on License Fees

Dear Sir :

The proposed amendment fee increase of 333% for category

3. (M) seems quite high.

I don' t know the number of hours required by examiners to act upon an amendment and I ' d guess that consideration of an incinerator amendment requires much more professional time than that required for c hanging the possession limit by a few millicuries.

However, to charge $52 0 to s imply add or subtract the name of a supervisory person to a 1 icense appears to be exorbitant.

? ~W~

Richard Lechnir, RPO IAR 5 1990

-=tcnoW'8dgld bf--~=*' J._,,.. sa

• , - ).

.J tJ, S. NUCLEAR REGULA lORY COMMI SSIOtt OOCKCTING & SERVICE SE(TION

<:lfFl(.i Of THF. SECRET ARY 6r mr COMM rss roN Doc11rnent S1ati.;tics p> C'11flfcifk Oa te j_/..:L"J, / Cf 0 Copim R~cci*,d

/

Add' I Copies Reprodu~cd

.i~I Di tribulion (!_jj_g_

J2:L_o..s_~

---1a 1 '"° -L-,,--

r------- '1--

OCKET NU BE

/ ?O PO O UL

{5t/Ff l/q?t3)

SOUTH ~~

M) HOSPITAL SYSTEM USNRC IRVING AVENUE BRIDGETON, NEW JERSEY 08302

~ JAN 23 p 4 :03 (609) 451-6600 January 18, 1990 Of F!C£ OF SE.Cf£f)~&i:

Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

DOCK£1 IHG

.:,.t 0Ri\\NC'1 The purpose of this letter is to comment on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 on license fees, which were published in 54 FR 49763.

I am commenting on behalf of South J ersey Hospital System, which includes two community hospital licensees of NRC.

We find the proposed increases in the schedule of fees for small radioisotope programs licensed for human use of byproduct materials to be unjustified.

While we believe that consumers of governmental services should pay for these services, the magnitudes of the proposed fee increases appear to be excessive.

For the classification into which our two licenses fall (category 7C), the proposed increases are the following:

Service Existing Fee Proposed Fee

% Increase New license application

$580

$590 2%

License renewal

$580

$860 48%

License amendment

$120

$350 192%

Routine inspection

$480

$860 79%

Non-routine inspection

$690

$1200 74%

In view of the stated new cost per professional staff-hour of $95, the proposed fes for new license applications, routine inspections, and non-routine inspec-tions apear to reflect reasonable amounts of staff effort for the stated tasks, even though the proposed percentage increases for inspection fees are quite high.

The proposed fees for license renewals and license amendments appear excessive compared to staff effort likely to be required in the review of most license renewal and amendment applications.

We have difficulty comprehending that 46%

more effort is needed to review a license renewal application than for a new license application.

As your fee structure would imply, it would seem to be more reasonable for the license renewal fee to be less than or comparable to the new license application fee, as is the case for all other subcategories except one in the proposed schedule of materials fees.

In the case of license amend-ments, our experience has been that amendment requests typically involve relatively minor program changes that do not require lengthy review, and certainly do not require 59% of the effort required to review a new license application.

In view of the limited budgets at most medical institutions, we are concerned that the proposed 192% increase in license amendment fees may discourage licensees from making program changes to improve safety.

BRIDGETON DIVISION: IRVING & MANHEIM AVENUES

• BRIDGETON, NEW JERSEY 08302 * (609) 451-6600 MILLVILLE DIVISION: HIGH STREET & HARRISON AVENUE* MILLVILLE, NEW JERSEY 08332 * (609) 825-3500 Vl+I\\. Member of Voluntary Hospitals o1 America, Inc. ~knowledszed bv ea....... W 5 1990

('. q 9. UCLtAQ R,ULA o~v COMMISSI DOCKET! 1G & SERVICE SECTION OH:CF j

T ff S~(' ET b.RY or: n ; r*

, s ION 1o,rm r!:

op, s "*

January 18, 1990 Page Two As you know, hospitals are constantly criticized for expense inflation far in excess of the consumer price index.

However, we have little control over this, especially when improvements in technology and medical practice warrant greater costs.

Only in "overhead" items, such as administrative costs, do we have a better chance of "holding the line".

Please help us in doing so by reconsider-ing the unreasonably high fee structure you propose to implement.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170.

cc:

S. Gabriel, Ph.D.

~

DEPARTMENT OF HEARnflD 4815 WEST MARKHAM STREET

• LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 BILL CLINTON GOVERNOR OOCKET NUMBER PR C)

PROPOSED RULE -

(~VF~ qqlJ63)

January 16, 1990 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.c. 20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch TELEPHONE AC 501 661-2000 M. JOYCELYN ELDERS, M.D.

DIRECTOR

• 'SO JAN 23 P3 :26 Of FtCE OF SECRETARY DOCKfTING & SEiNICf.

BRANCH Re:

Proposed Rule "Revision of Fee Schedules:

Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports"

Dear Sirs:

The referenced proposed rule has been reviewed and we submit the following general statements.

As an Agreement State, we have long maintained an interest in NRC fee structures because, like most Agreement States, we are dependent in part on fee collection to support program activities.

Past considerations by the NRC to reduce or eliminate fees for radioisotope licensees created significant concern because of the potential damage this action could cause to Agreement State fee structures.

Therefore, we are supportive of the proposed revision in that it appears to strengthen the fee schedule for a large number of licensees and for the categories of licensees regulated by the states.

It is appropriate that all users of radioactive materials share the costs of ensuring that those materials are used correctly and that the public health and safety and the environment are protected.

If is understood that exemptions to fees are necessary and those suggested in this proposal appear to be appropriate.

We do caution that any proposed exemption continue to be carefully considered.

In this vain, there is concurrence that the exemptions proposed in Paragraph (a)(4) be limited to non-profit educational institutions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

w.o.~

~

. cerely, G etaV. Dicus, Director Division of Radiat ion Control & Emergency Management cc:

Carlton Kammerer "k&pud ~

~,.

MAR 5 199.0 Aeknowledged by card.* ***---... ***-----

1t.

• NIJUt,\\t, 1:* ',I Jl.'\\ i URY COMMISSION i.'vCKtl t***i_;,*, ::~".VICE SECTION (Yr 1," :'. T:*~ S0('5fffAR'f

..,-.~ t.

,. ~~ "",' *~-~,Of>t

i ~

f-,,, ~ ;(

fJit:

/-)1~u-.

'"":.~

~.. -

)1

_op.._

,ir.d:!' (... r~

~

i i,

[w -*.

PP f 1 P...1 [)f _.__,,,

---

--~r.

} 1, lhr:6:.)~

. 't'">>-

~ _, **..1.-:::

1111111D STATE"OF I.-----..-....

TERRYE. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR January 11, 1990 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DE~A~ENT OF PUBLIC HEAL TH MARY L. ELLIS, DIRECTOR "90 JAN 17 All :Jo OF!C£ Of SECRETARY DOCKETING & srnv1cr

!3HANCH Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Secretary:

In addition to the comments in our January 9, 1990, letter concerning the proposed change to 10 CFR 170, we have the following comment:

We feel very strongly that the exemption rule as it pertains to licensing and inspection fees is inappropriate.

It takes our license reviewers and inspectors just as much time and effort to perform these services for one licensee as it does for another.

Whether or not a licensee is a nonprofit organization or governmental entity should not enter into the rationale for assessment of fees.

The bottom line is that they possess materials and should not be treated any differently than a private facility regarding assessment of fees.

We have determined that 25 percent of our potential fees is lost due to the exemption policy.

We request that NRC strongly consider eliminating the fee exemption policy and that all possessors of any radioactive material are treated equally.

This is not only fair to licensees, but to regulatory agencies who are making every effort to remain adequate and compatible on limited budgets.

We hope that NRC will seriously consider the above comments and take immediate action.

Sincerely,

&4'uttlU Bruce W. Hakel, Supervisor Radioactive Materials Program Bureau of Radiological Health C""ll.r.rrence :

orf:;:;ff~Zf!t/:; chief Bureau of Radiological Health

_. 5 1990 1>.ctmo.v1edged by card..**.,. _,..........,....,......,.

LUCAS STATE OFFICE BUILDING/ DES MOINES, IOWA 50319-0075 / 515-281-5787 FAX# (515) 281-4958 /TDD# (515) 262-6156

0.,. NUCLEM RFr.ULATo:tY COMMISS DOCKFTl"'G & SERVICE SECT ION Orii*.-:~ re r* *~ SECRETARY r-lc r *~ ': * * ~'.!SS ION Postmark D*,,

Copies R, Add' I C**.

i',

Special D,,111~:;,;;1 tir:s

/- J?.-,-<JfJ _

) - -

) ___ -

Di>'}-_ l})J-5 _

-Ji,_{)~11-~b.,, -

~~-t or Nlfc<,t.~

~~Jl~~

'"i>'\\,.

' J

?;

L

--~~

l'I QiCKU NUMBER PR /.?. Q 1\\

\\.,.:,,..,,/

~ROPOSED RULE

--~

( £ 3/ t t Lj q f) 63)

STATE OF ILLIN0IS TERRY R. LASH DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704 (217) 785-9900 January 10, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch 0J DOCKETED USNRC

• so JAN 17 Pf 2 :20 gFFtC_;_OF SECRETARY uOCKt !ING l. S[iiVJCr BRANCH Re:

Proposed Rule, "Revision of Fee Schedules: Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports"; 54 Federal Register 49763-49771 (December 1, 1989}.

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IONS} hereby submits its comments on the above identified proposed rule. Illinois is an Agreement State and IONS is the agency in Illinois with responsibility for protecting workers and the public from the potentially harmful effects of ionizing radiation.

As a part of its regulatory program, IONS imposes a variety of fees on the users of radioactive materials. The revenues from these fees are essential to maintaining an effective regulatory program in Illinois.

We encourage and support the NRC's proposal to increase the revenues collected from its licensees that use radioactive materials. This proposal is long overdue since the fees applicable to materials licenses have not been revised since 1984 and then with costs based on 1981 data.

The proposed fee increases, however, do not go nearly far enough because the new fee structure does not appear to recover 45% of the NRC's costs as required by law. Moreover, IONS believes that NRC should adopt a fee structure and propose regular increases that will assure full cost recovery within a few years. It cannot be determined from the proposal how much additional revenue will be collected nor precisely what fraction of the NRC's costs attributed to this sector of the NRC program will be recovered.

The only statement which alludes to this in the notice is the following sentence:

"The proposed action is intended to more completely recover costs incurred by the Commission in providing services to identifiable recipients and to encourage the continued submittal of topical reports." In the Commission's Statements of Consideration accompanying the final rule, "Revision of Fee Schedules" published on December 29, 1988, at 53 Fed. Reg. 52632 it was stated that, in connection with Section 170.31, "Inspection fee ceilings for selected services are also removed and the remaining fixed fees are retained since the 2 3 *1

., j,

.5. NUCUM RfCULATORY COIM IS'.;I~

oocKcr1NG & SE~v1rE s~~TiO Postmar'( r,,

Copies !:

Add'! c

~pecial D,,:

I,.

1 - Io *,rt( /_~!, I, l,JJ,{ r /.tt I-Jo,~~

I f lrz flf15 -

, 1.~ Q_Owt>,/

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 January 10, 1990 ratio of NRC costs to fees collected is approximately equivalent to the percentage of the budget to be collected by the General Treasury."

We do not believe that this statement is correct, however.

NRC was directed by Congress to recover not less than 45% of its budget for FY 1989 (and now required for FY 1990) from fees. Although the overall 45% figure was reportedly met by NRC, our analysis indicates that the NRC recovered only about 18% for the bulk of those materials licenses that are similar to those regulated by Illinois as an Agreement State.

We believe this demonstrates an inconsistency in the previously quoted statement when compared with the actual portion of costs recovered from these licensees.

We have not been able to find any published rationale for this wide disparity. All licensees should be treated similarly and the large disparities should be eliminated.

NRC's proposed fees might result in about a 64% increase in revenues based on the increase in professional hourly charges from $58 to $95.

We understand these charges are used in assessing fees where full cost recovery is in effect and were also used in calculating the basis for the flat fees.

Assuming the proposed rule becomes effective in 1990, the 64% increase is an average annual increase of 6.4% (1981 - 1990), barely keeping pace with inflation. Further, assuming that our determination that NRC currently recovers only about 18% of its costs for regulating materials licensees is correct, increasing fees by 64% will result in recovery of only about 30% of costs. This is still well below the 45% recovery rate specified by Congress.

Section VI of the December 1, 1989, notice states, "This proposed rule revision will not have significant impact on state and local governments and geographical regions; ***

11 We submit that the proposed rule does have a significant impact on the State of Illinois. NRC's current policies and procedures for establishing license fees set undesirable precedents. The failure to recover even the Congressionally mandated amount on an equitable basis makes it more difficult for states like Illinois to attempt to recover larger portions of its costs from licensees.

Interestingly, earlier in Section VI, the Commission notes that its fee guidelines were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 24, 1979, and that 11 (1) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had the aut hority to recover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries; *** " In addition, to the extent that NRC shifts it's fees to reactor licensees, Illinois citizens bear a disproportionate share of these costs because of the relatively large number of reactor licenses in the state.

We have commented previously, by letters dated July 12, 1986, and August 11, 1986, that the NRC proposals do not conform to the provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 {COBRA).

Congress directed that the charges assessed pursuant to Section 760l{b}{I)(B) of COBRA are to be "reasonably related to the regulatory services provided by the Commission and shall fairly reflect the cost to the Commission of providing such services."

We do not believe the current proposal meets that test.

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 January 10, 1990 When Illinois became an Agreement State on June 1, 1987, it implemented a fee schedule beginning January 1, 1988, that was based largely on that of the NRC.

Illinois, like many other Agreement States, is under increasing pressure to recover more of the costs of the regulatory program through fees and to reduce its reliance on general revenue funds.

To accomplish this, IONS has revised its fee schedules on an annual basis with substantial increases.

As stated above, NRC appears to recover only about 18% of its costs from most materials licensees.

In comparison, Illinois recovered about 29% of its costs for similar licensees in the period July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1989.

Further, our analysis indicates NRC recovered an average of $218 per paying license for the period October 1, 1987, to September 30, 1988, whereas Illinois recovered an average of $439 per paying license for the period July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1989.

As indicated previously, this disparity makes it more difficult for states like Illinois to recover increasing portions of their costs from fees.

NRC's general statement of policy "Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" published on June 4, 1987, at 52 Fed. Reg. 21132-21139, establishes a criterion for funding of Agreement State programs. It states in part that "Principal operating funds should be from sources which provide continuity and reliability, i.e., general tax, license fees, etc."

Obviously, a sound licensee fee system is important in meeting that criterion and actions by NRC which impede this objective are undesirable.

We urge the Commission to reconsider its proposed rule with the aim of substantially increasing the materials license fees in order to obtain the Congressionally mandated 45% of costs in the short term and then revising them annually until full cost recovery is achieved within a few years.

erely,.t Lash TRL:bas

TERRYE. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR January 9, 1990 Secretary DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE

( S 1/ f R U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Secretary:

DEPlUiffffflENT OF PUBLIC HEAL TH MARY L. ELLIS, DIRECTOR

'st)

JAN 16 P4:06 urF!CE: OF SECRETARY DOCK[ I ING SlilYfCf BRANCH We have reviewed the proposed rule change to 10 CFR 170 and have the following comments :

Notwithstanding the NRC's professional staff rate of $95/hr, we feel the inspection fee for portable gauges is too high.

We feel the current fee is too high to say nothing of the proposed fee.

These inspections take no more than (and usually less than) one hour to perform; then, we send a bill for $530 or, as proposed,

$950!

For a small operator this is totally unreasonable.

Since our rules currently tie us directly to Part 170 for our fees, we wish NRC would consider establishing a separate fee category for portable gauges and actually lower the inspection fee to perhaps

$200.

We are reluctant to do this on our own, since we would be opening the door for controversy from other licensees, but if NRC assessed fees based on time-spent-on-inspection, we feel it would be justifiable.

Also, another license category that may deserve this consideration is gas chromatographs, since the inspection time is also very short in comparison to other types of licenses.

We have no problem with the rest of the proposed revision, but feel very strongly that NRC should consider the above comments and act on them prior to promulgating the new rule.

Please inform us of your decision as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Bruce w. Hokel, supervisor Radioactive Materials Program 515/ 281-7007 BWH/mrh cc:

B. J. Holt State Agreements Officer Region III U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Concurrence:

Donald A. Flater, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health 515/281-3478 t_;.--* - -*

____ :--J_AN 2 3 1990....,;..

"e111nowfea,.,ed b*- * *-* ~ *-

y caru. **------*...-.-....,.*

-v.,Wol,i;.,

Commission LUCAS STATE OFFICE BUILDING / DES MOINES, IOWA 50319-0075 / 515-281-5787 FAX# (515) 281-4958 / TDD# (515) 262-6156

11. s. t--! 1_1t:Lt.P.:l ~:.:r****.\\-;~ ~-., cc,,~Nds:ic\\~,

D00:~T:~.;G [; ::::, *,:~ ~~*:TICM or 1* 'E Postmcrk c, le Cop1.as.. ~~c. :i AdJ' I C.:;.:.s R Specl I C,str '.ut.on

,:s

,.,,;*'ti DOCKET NUMBER PR 71)_

PROPOSED RULE 7 £ 3- -~

WILLIAM F. KIRK

~

... ~

~-u.~OA/

C ~9 ((<. '-11 129 CHERRY HILL ROAD ORANGE. CONN. 06411 "90 JAN 16 P 4 :25 January 9, 1990 secretary OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SEHVIC[

8RAN0i u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:

Docketing and service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Revision of Fee Schedule 10CFR170 RIH 3150-AD23, 54FR230 49763-771 comments are as follows:

1.

1710.12(h) Electronic Funds Transfer. It is ludicrous to require bill payment in excess of $5000 by wire transfer when the NRC cannot even promptly bill the required fees.

All invoices I have seen are 6 months to 18 months after the NRC action was performed.

In fact, the largest bill for about $55,000 was received 18 months after the inspection.

The wire transfer is probably designed to prevent the added government inefficiency of being unable to handle the payment and cash the check in less than several weeks or months.

Since for many companies, wire transfer is not the practice and requires special actions and expenditure of personnel hours, licensees should be able to bill the NRC for this Special Service, should it be r equested.

2.

110.20 Professional staff Hour Cost.

A yearly salary+ benefits payment of $121,400 per average individual is excessive (i.e.

$196,400,000 divided by 1618), particularly when only 1,744 productive hours are obtained from 2080 hours0.0241 days <br />0.578 hours <br />0.00344 weeks <br />7.9144e-4 months <br /> available ( 52 weeks x 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />).

I hope that government employees work a 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> week, not including lunch, like most other American workers.

~?~

W. F. KIRK

r

0. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE l"'F THf ~r*i'ETARY PojlmJrk :"

Ccp Ad.fl Sp ci I ;:

OF Tl

CtM' I';. 1'.)N rs

DOCKET NUMB_ER p /; 0 PR0?03c~~ ~R 1/ '1163)

~QC,KETED USNHC 29 December 1989 RR/13 Box 498 Middle Road Swanton, VT 05488 Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 "9Q JAN -9 P 1 :54 ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch OFFICE OF 5E.CRt TAKY OOCK[T ING & SEt<V !Cf.

BRANCH

Dear Sirs,

I am addressing the proposed revisions to 10CFR Part 170 on License fees of the Federal Register dated 12/1/89.

Specifically, I am addressing "the new exemption provision in 170.11 (a)(ll) to provide that Indi an tribes and Indian organizations that are federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be exempt from payment of fees."

As a citizen of the United States, and as part of my heritage is also Indian, I do not support this new exemption provision.

This provision will, in effect, shift greater cost on those institutions/organizations that are not exempt.

I personally believe that we as U. S. citizens should accept our own burdens.

Too many special interest groups in this day are expecting to be exempted from those burdens that the "supposed majority" see as increased burdens because of this cost shifting.

More and more costs are being paid by fewer and fewer people or organizations.

Enough is enough!

If services are being provided by the NRC to any organization, than that organization* should be responsible for reimbursement of those services. I do not believe it ethical to provide similar services to two organizations, one of which pays for nothing and the other is expected to pay for both; this is essentially what is being said by the proposed revision.

I believe the proposed revision that I have discussed above shoula be discontinued.

faer/i:/f/

Bradley Collette, RTNM

'1. 5. NUCLEAR RfGUI.ATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFF'CF Cf THE SECRET.A.RV OF r t,..,,.,,,:*.*155!0N r.:

• Poom.,,k t*. 1° Copb, ft**

• AdJ' I C,~ "'

1*

boclil D1*, r,~,, 1.m

' (S

DOCKET NUMBER PR / '}_ 0.

p O?OSED P.IJLE

- --~**

( 5 ~ (R_ 4 ILER Kirkham Ave.

'90 JAN '8 '4 :11 INSTRUMENT & MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

OFFJCE: _OF SECRETARY St. Louis, MMQ~~h\\fa_~U§-'.d.Cf: *

(314) 968-2282 January 2, 1990 FAX 314-968-2637 TWX 910-760-1 658

• 1-800-654-6894 Se.:ruing (Ou'l. Cu1-fomt:u Sinc.E 1945 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing Service Branch Ref:

Proposed Rule 10CFR170 on Licensing Fee

Dear Mr. Hiller,

As a small business concern, mainly involved with competitive bidding of fixed price Department of Defense contracts, your proposed increases would drastically affect our bids.

The amount of your increases for a category 3B license are:

239% for establishing a license 413% for renewing the license 179% for routine inspection These figures are alarming!

Secondly, consider that it will cost us an additional $800.00 to renew a license under your proposal vs establishing a new license.

This does seem odd, could this be a misprint?

If your increases are placed into effect, our competitive pricing to the Department of Defense would have to be adjusted to absorb this cost.

Unfortunately, until all contractors of the Defense Department had to renew their licenses, a period that could be in effect for five years, the competitiveness of individual bids would be adversely effective.

We believe that all of this should at least be brought to your attention and consideration.

Sincerely, SEILER INSTRUMENT & MFG. CO., INC.

Radiation Safety Officer SALES AND SERVICE OF OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS

• ~-

-iUC!Jt*.~ ~~GtJlATOll'( COMMISSI OOCKHING & SERVICE SCCT ION OIJl(f. Of 11-1: ~[CRETARY Copii,s "

AJJ' I :

O:-

..,.. H?: CC,,1,..! :.;~ 1 :

~ ~

},- J -Cf iJ 1

f->>Yl R. J US JrJ)lrrvoy _

t

copy to secy-Original sent to the omce of the feoeral RegtS~

1or pub\\icauon cKlf NVM /3 fR rR 1 r; D -~

PHOP05E. RULE q?(; dw..

.j Lf {'fl/

3 '" 'K*-* -n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI USN~tt~

[7590-01]

10 CFR Part 170 RIN: 3150 AD23

'90 JAN -3 P 2 :57 Revision of Fee Schedules:

Radioisotope Lir2f_e".~G~~NFa~~ ffin~ic~al Reports uuCITTTt1 u &.)tt1VI T BRANCl-i AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule:

Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY

On December 1, 1989 (54 FR 49763), the NRC published for public comment a proposed rule to amend the fee schedule in 10 CFR 170 of the Commission's regulations.

The proposed rule indicated that public meetings would be held in Region I on January 8, 1990 and in Region III on January 11, 1990 to discuss the proposed changes. This document announces a third public meeting to be held in Region IV.

DATE:

The meeting will be held on January 17, 1990.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m., Arlington Hilton Hotel, 2401 East Lamar Boulevard, Arlington, Texas.

PoHslcl f.,._ f~c feJ-t,,. J x... j;d-o-

~"' I J-- l Y S-q b" f"Jt 5l/lle 6'"33l8'

/v J)

I 3

' f-f.JJ ~ R. I JlJ

}lv//prv/

2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lee Hiller, Deputy Controller, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, telephone (301) 492-7351.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this~day of December, 1989.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

0 ctor for Operations.

U n iversity of W iscons i n NUCLEAR REACTOR LABORATORY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PHONE 202-3392, AREA CODE eoa oocKET NUMBER PR / r;o,~f:

PROPOSED RULE AO DRESS:

130 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BUILDIN G MADISON, w1,s@(9/,\\,tf1rfta 1os USNRC

'90 JAN -2 P 2 :48

( r;y f !. l/9?63)

December 19, 1989 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATT : Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 0FF!C_;_OF SECiiETARY OOCKL I ING & SfflVfCf BRANCH SUBJECT :

Proposed Changes to lOCRF Part 170, RIN 3150-AD23

Dear Sir :

The proposed working of revised 170.11 (a)(4) is difficult to comprehend.

I believe part III ( Section-by-Section Analysis) of the Federal Register publication contains much clearer wording.

A possible interpreta tion of the proposed change is that sponsored research at a university research reactor would result in a loss of exemption from licens ing fees.

Further, it also appears possible to interpret that any radiation treatment fees at a research

.~eactor would result in loss of exemption.

RJC : cke Very truly yours,

$~

Reactor Director JI\\~ 2 3 1990 J;c1mowledged by*c~;d~TT-* * -;;*.;.;--:...

iWllw

. -~

.. ~::J,:,) ),P.P;i.

~-'II s;;!-dQ_?.

r, *~ 'i-'eW.fO.d

.J t )I:, I/' *: "J -".1- ~?

..~v l

,*:: *: *!~I. K) DI.HO Mt*t.!.:'i' 'P 'l, 10 ~NI l')DOO

-~

,..,t a,..

t

,.J... ** L*,,.

~

~.l./*"f

~

State of Kansas Mike Hayden, Governor Department of Health and Environment Division of Health DOCKEiEC USNRC Stanley C. Grant, Ph.D., Secretary Landon State Office Bldg., Topeka, KS 66612-1290 December 26, 1989 Secretary poci~ET NUMBcH R / ?O PROPOSED Rn\\, ff l/ 1? b3)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, O.C.

20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

189 DEC 29 ffl I -22 or: c1c~ Of St.CRfTARY OUCKETiNG lx SEi1VIC[

BRANCH (913) 296-1343 FAX (913) 296-6231 This is in reply to the request for comments on the December 1, 1989, proposal to amend 10CFR Part 170, 54 FR 49763 regarding fees.

We would concur with the regulatory review attached to the proposal that the proposal will not likely have a direct impact on this state program.

We have a fee system which is based on a different sort of calculation of effort than that used by NRC.

The proposal may however, have an indirect impact in the following way.

One of the new facets is the decommissioning fee.

The application fee being proposed is $150.00 and that may indeed by adequate for the NRC fee system.

In Kansas, however, it is necessary to justify every new fee with a series of arguments including a comparison with the costs under other jurisdictions. It is easy to compare the NRC system which involves both license and inspection fees to the state which lumps both together and makes a single charge based on the average cost of providing both if actual dollar values are used by NRC.

If the cost of "Approval, Renewal, Amendment, Routine and Nonroutine Inspections" are all charged as "full fee" it becomes difficult to make a fair comparison.

Many states, this one included, would be hard pressed to calculate a reasonable cost per hour of professional time and none would likely have a cost of exactly

$95.00/hour if they did such calculate a cost.

Most would probably be lower while some may be higher. In any case, without the specific items and mechanisms NRC uses for calculating the costs it seems unlikely the states would mean the same thing.

This means that a rational comparison is not possible.

The other option, NRC charging a fixed quantity for those activities in the case of decommissioning is likely to be impossible since the cases are too rare and variable to be reduced to a meaningful average cost.

It seems that a more useful regulatory approach might be to indicate that the following items would be used to determine the costs.

a) b)

c) d)

e)

Salary plus fringes of the staff working on the project.

Hours spent on the project.

Cost of materials and services acquired for the project.

Overhead 10%

First quarter cost not to be less than $150.00

',.,..,,~,f,.;

Charles Konigsberg, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.,

Director of Health James Power, P.E.,

Director of Environment Lorne Phillips, Ph.D.,

Director of Information Systems (913) 296-1343 (913) 296-1535 (913) 296-1415 Roger Carlson, Ph.D.,

Director of the Kansas Health and Environmental Laboratory (913) 296-1619

U.5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOB DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE CO:Y.MISSION f)

Remaining costs to be paid within 30 days of receipt of the bill from the agency.

This would provide some assurance that the costs were actually incurred by the agency in beha 1f of the app 1 i cant and the agency could be assured of enough income to defer the costs of original efforts to acquire resources as needed without limiting the income to the point that resources, not the needed work, drives the review and approval of this process.

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

,,c:;._). &_

a 1 W. A 11 en

(_,,.

~ublic Health Physicist Bureau of Environmental Health Services Radiation Control Program GWA/psw

Lehigh Valley Hospital Center Post Office Box 689 1200 S Cedar Crest Blvd.

Allentown PA 18105 (215J 776-8000

'89 DEC 26 P12 :18

+.JI*

[jLL, I The Allentown Hospital-Lehigh Valley Hospital Center December 18, 1989 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Secretary:

I am writing in response to the proposed revision of fee schedules:

Radioisotopes Licenses and Topical Reports of the Nuclear Regulatory C011111ission 10 CFR Part 170 published in Volume 54, Number 230 of the Federal Register.

We object to some of the fee changes.

I do not object to increases, recognizing inflatiothl\\it~ everyone, but our organization must now pay the penalty through dramatic rises.

The licenses issued pursuant to human use of bi-product aaterial ;*-source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices are an example.

I understand that the renewal has jumped from $350 to $660 and amendments have more than doubled from $120 to $350.

Further, I do not think that non-routine inspections under the same section warrant such a large differential between routine inspections.

Non-routine are listed at $1,500 and routine are listed at $950.

With respect to other licenses issued pursuant to the same parts (30, 35, 40, and 70), renewal is listed at a higher amount than the application for a new license.

The renewal is listed at $860, and the application at $590.

Were these numbers accidentally reversed? Further, the amendment is listed at

$350.

I am not sure how you can justify such a high price.

Non-routine inspections in this section are extraordinarily high at $1,200, compared to routine inspections at $860.

What is there about a non-routine inspection that justifies such a differential? The NRC has successfully made the process so complex that both trying to set fees and understand fees that are set are both difficult tasks.

I strongly recoDDDend reconsideration of these high fees.

Particularly in the non-profit section where services are provided for the good of the public, I am not sure why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission feels it is so important to cost shift the licensee.

f.

Copie5 r:

• Add' I C.-j:

l*

. 11,f,.*,. '

,pec1a',.,.,_*.-.. -..,,

l )--Jtt-i1

' 3) 7 f.P, JD5 l_i *~lb~""'-13/...__... 7

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules.

KMB: lab

1 A\\ Ml-

~ :,,.(])

-:-:-, N-:-::-s-=-=

PE=c=T1-:::-:0N:-:--& =TE=-

c.,...,.H,....,...,N,-=--cA~L~s~E R~v-,c-E-s.-, N___;_c.

1 "A SOUND PATH TO QUALIT~"

OEC 20 p 3 :34 P.O. Box 80570

• Canton, Ohio 4Woa December 15, 1989 (216) 453-1313 FAX: (216) 45~-15.09

• J t" r CKi:. 11 J""

l i, A l;1 Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Attention: Ibcketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Proposed Rule Changes 10CFR-170 Gentlemen:

As a U.S. N. R. C. licensee using by-product materials covered 1.D1der Schedule 170.31 (3) (0) witl1 additional requirements of Schedule 170.31 (l0B),

SAM-SON lliSPECTION & 'IECHNIC.AL SER.VICES, INC. herewith protests the proposed increases in fees as released in your proposed rules covered under Volume 54 #230 dated Friday, Decanber 1, 1989 of the Federal Registar.

Our reasons are very basic, in that these increases far surpass any indices, Federal, local or othe..."'"Wl..se that we are aware of.

As a by-product material user, you are proposing increases in license applications i.rt *excess of *300%,

renewals in excess of 100%, and arrrnendments approxima.te1y *9(J%.

It is imposs-ible in private industry to escalate prices for goods and/or services on a percentage basis as intended in l:his proposed rate change.

In the private sector, we do not feel that the U.S.N.R.C. has the right to pass on to us the burden for accOimDdating personnel, etc. that has been declared surplus by the reduction in Nuclear Power Plant construction.

Further, I am sure that these increases are not consistent with the Grarm1;;;.'.

Rudman policies that the Defense Department, as well as other branches of Goverrment are compelled to oork within said guidelines. Finally, we feel such increases are '\\mfair to small business entities" and herewith request that these proposed revisions will be recinded.

Respectfully suh:nitted,

~/A£:

TEOOOCAL SilllVICTS,

~ 'Mf Hopk~, P.E.

Corporate Radiation Safety Officer U.S.N.R.C. License No. 34-25898-01 rnc.

cc:

Ralph Regula, Congressman - 16th District SMH:jh DEC S 11 1'!"'l+n*,.J,.,f *.,.,_.. 1.. _,*.*,-;_, ::~ -. * * -

• ~- NUCLE " Rr,..Ut t TO Y,. M I SIOR Kt-llNG & SfRVICf SECTION omc OF T.E SECRET ARY Or T!-iE COMMISSION D c* -:,

t I *,

Postmark D J'C Copies R ~

Add'I Cc~*

Speci I Dulr,bution *

)J-- / S~f J_

'))

p.J) (l loll~ '----

DOCKET NUMBER PR ' ? D

[7590-0~}-

PROPOSED RULE --

( 5 4 f ~ 4q'){~) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• ag NOV 28 P 3 : l 9 uP DOC. l 10 CFR Part 170

' * *1 RIN: 3150-AD23 Revision of Fee Schedules: Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Coillnission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations governing licensing fees for all topical reports _and licensing and inspection fees for radioisotope licenses (small programs covered by Parts 30, 40 and 70).

The proposed amendments would (1) establish a ceiling of $50,000 for topical report reviews, (2) update the schedule of fees for small radioisotope programs, including the addition of a fee for byproduct material applications for decommissioning, (3) change the cost per professional staff hour for all full-cost fees from

$86 to $95 per hour based on the FY 1990 budget, (4) delete certain exemption provisions and clarify others for ease of administration, (5) add a new exemption provision to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations will be exempt from payment of fees ~hd (6) request that bills in excess of $5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer in accord-ance with U.S. Department of the Treasury cash management initiatives.

ThP. proposed action is intended to more completely recover costs incurred 1

pµj,},siti 'f'"f~e F() J c-r'4 I i. Q :JI$ f e r o "

I 'J-,~q-

. £, S[f...' CC o=i=*c~ 0r ~ ~

SE CRETARY o : r*ic co :.-. ::s:oN Postmark D, *c

/t!J}

Cop:cs Rt -<

I

}

Add' 1 c -,.=,i r _ _ :L

.J J 6pecial Dis1 r:'m* o*,

/J..v,P. £ (JlJ

-w,~1

,..c._ __

by the Connnission in providing services to identifiable recipients and to encourage the continued submittal of topical reports.

DATES:

The comment period expires January 30, 1990.

Co11111ents recei'ved after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the C01T111ission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES:

Submit written comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch.

Hand deliver co11111ents to:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm (Telephone 301-492-1966).

Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.

The NRC will hold a public meeting on January 8, 1990 in Region I at 1:00 pm, Sheraton-Radisson Hotel, Erie Room, 1200 First Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and a public meeting on January 11, 1990 in Region Ill'at 1:00 pm, Holiday Inn, 5440 North River Road, Rosemont, Illinois, to discuss the proposed changes and answer any questions.

The agency workpapers which support these proposed changes to 10 CFR 170 are available in the Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.

4i~,-

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lee Hiller! Deputy Controller, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301-492-7351.

2

f SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.

Background

I I. Proposed Action III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV.

Environmental Impact:

Categorical Exclusion

v.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement VI.

Regulatory Analysis VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification VIII.Backfit Analysis IX.

List of Subjects

1.

Background

On December 29, 1988, the CoD111ission published its final amended regulations which revised the fee schedules contained in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 (53 FR 52632).

In the response to connnents received on the pub-lished proposed rule, the Corrmission indicated that a portion of the 10 CFR Part 170 fee schedule for certain small materials licenses is out-dated and in need of revision (53 FR 52633).

The Conunission further stated that a rulemaking on this issue would be initiated in 1989.

Part 170 implements Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 {31 U.S.C. 9701).

The fees assessed under Part 170 recover the costs to the NRC of providing individually identifiable services to applicants for and holders of NRC licenses and approvals.

The fees for radioisotope licenses issued under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 and for inspections of these licenses were last revised on May 21, 1984 (49 FR 21293).

The 1984 revision was based on cost and professional staff 3

hour data for fiscal year (FY) 1981.

In the final rule published on December 29, 1988, the previous policy of charging inspection fees based on the routine inspection frequency for small materials programs was changed to provide for the assessment of fees for each inspection under 10 CFR 170.31.

II. Proposed Action The Commission proposes to amend 10 CFR Part 170 to update the licensing fees for materials licenses to more fully recover costs for application reviews and other services based on FY 1987 and FY 1988 licensing data. For inspection fees, the professional staff hours used in the 1984 rule to conduct an inspection have been maintained while the Corrnnission explores ways to unify the fee categories with the Regulatory Information Tracking System (RITS) inspection categories and licensing program codes. Therefore the routine and nonroutine inspection fees have increased due to the change in*the hourly rate only. It is pro-posed that the professional hourly rate of $86 for FY 1989 shown in 10 CFR 170.20 will be revised to $95 per hour based on the FY 1990 budget.

(Note that the December 1988 rule revision did not apply the

$86 per hour charge to the materials fee schedule, but retained the 1981 rate of $58 per hour.)

In addition, it is proposed that a fee ceiling be reestablished for all topical reports.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis The following section-by-section analysis of those sections affected provides additional explanatory information. All references are to Title 4

10, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations.

Part 170 Section 170.3 Definitions This section is revised to remove the paragraph designations for the definitions, arrange the definitions in alphabetical order, and add definitions of "Indian organization" and "Indian tribe."

"Indian organjzation 11 means any corrmercial group, association, partnership, or corporation wholly owned or controlled by an Indian tribe. "Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or conmrunity of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided to Indians by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians.

Section 170.11 Exemptions Paragraph (a)(3) is being removed in its entirety. Fees for any byproduct, s~urce or special nuclear materials licenses issued under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, or 71 that are considered to be incidental to operation of a nuclear reactor will be charged under the respective materials fee category rather than under the 10 CFR Part 50 reactor fee category as has been past practice. Therefore, for a special nuclear materials license or any other licenses which are required prior to operation of the reactor, e.g., startup sources, reactor fuel, or cali-bration or monitoring equipment, fees will be assessed under 10 CFR Part 170.31 rather than§ 170.21. If an applicant possesses 5

byproduct, source or special nuclear material for decontamination, inspection, repair, modification or testing of their reactor components, for which a license is required under the Co11111ission's applicable materials regulations, fees will be assessed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.31.

Paragraph (a)(4) is changed to broaden the exemption for non-profit educational institutions to include certain activities (e.g., research) not covered by the current exemption. It would not include power reactor licenses and materials licenses which authorize human use, com-mercial distribution, or remunerated service to other persons or activi-ties performed under a government contract. If a non-profit educational institution provides services to other persons without charge, the exemption would apply.

The Co11111ission has received several fee exemption requests from colleges and universities for licensed activities not covered by the current exemption. Additionally, this change is in keeping with the concern of Congress regarding the impact of the current schedule on some entities and their limited ability to pass through the costs of these charges to the ultimate consumer. Although the legisla-tive history for annual fees contained in Part 171 of this chapter dis-cusses the option of considering modifications to these fee schedules for hospitals, research and medical institutions and uranium producers, the Commission is continuing to limit this particular exemption to non-profit educational institutions.

Paragraph (a)(S) is changed, for clarification, to include certifi-cates of compliance and other approvals.

Paragraph (a)(ll) is added to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations will be exempt from license fees.

Indian tribes are recognized as separate political,entities similar to State governments.

6

The Con111ission intends to exempt Indian tribes and wholly owned tribal colllllercial organizations conducting licensed activities on tribal lands from license fees in the same manner as it does States and governmental agencies.

Section 170.12 Payment of fees Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are revised to more clearly distin-guish the fee payment requirements for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost from the requirements for other licensed activi-ties that are subject to full cost.

Paragraph (h) is being revised to indicate that (1) payments may also be*made by electronic fund transfer (EFT) and (2) that where specific instructions regarding payment are provided on th~ bills, payment should be made accordingly. It is the intent of the Con111ission to request pay-ment by electronic fund transfer of those bills which are in excess of

$5,000. This change is being made to encourage timely receipts and deposits in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations relating to cash management initiatives.

Section 170.20 Average cost per professional staff-hour This section is modified to reflect an agency-wide professional staff-hour rate based on FY 1990 costs to the Agency. Accordingly, *the proposed professional staff rate for the NRC for FY 1990 for all fee categ~ries that are based on full cost is $95 per hour, or $166.8 thousand per FTE (professional staff year). For FY 1990, the budgeted obligations by direct program are:

{l) Salaries and Benefit~, _$196.4 7

million; (2) Administrative Support, $87.95 million; (3) Travel, $12.31 million, and (4) Program Support, $178.34 million.

In FY 1990, 1,618 FTEs are considered to be in direct support of NRC programs applicable to' fees (see Table 1). Of the total 3,180 FTEs, 1,562 FTEs will be considered overhead (supervisory and support) or exempted (due to their program function).

Of these 1,562 FTEs, a total of 286 FTEs and the resulting $26.8 million in support are exempted from the fee base due to the nature of their functions (i.e., enforcement activities and other NRC functions currently exempted by Commission policy).

Table I Allocation of Direct FTEs by Office Office Number of Direct FTEs1 NRR/SP 982.2 RESEARCH 155.0 tf.1SS 307.5 AEOD 93.1 ASLAP/ASLBP 22.2 ACRS 25.0 OGC 33.0 Total Direct FTE 1,618.0 1 Regional employees are counted in the office of the program each supports.

In determining the cost for each direct labor FTE (an FTE whose position/function is such that it can be identified to a specific licensee.

or class of licensees) whose function, in the NRC's judgment, is necessary to the regulatory process, the following rationale is used:

1.

All direct FTEs are identified by-office.

8

2.

NRC plans, budgets, and controls on the following four major categories (see Table II):

(a) Salaries and Benefits.

(b) Administrative Support.

(c) Travel.

(d)

Program Support.

3. Program Support, the use of contract or other services for which the NRC pays for support from outside the Commission, is charged to various e

cate-gories as used.

4. All other costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel, and Adrnini strative Support) represent II in-house 11 costs and are to be co llec-ted by allocating them uniformly over the total number of direct FTEs.

Using this method which was described in the December 29, 1988

• final rule (53 FR 52639) and the FY 1990 budget, and excluding budgeted Program Support obligations, the remaining $269.9 million allocated uni-formly to the direct FTEs (1,618) results in a calculation of $166.8 thousand per FTE for FY 1990 (an hourly rate of $95).

Table II FY 1990 Budget b~ Major Category

($ in Millions)

Salaries and benefits Administrative support Travel Total nonprogram support obligations Program support Total budget 9

$196.40 87.95 12.31

$296.66 178.34

$475.o

The Direct FTE Productive Hourly Rate ($95/hour rounded to the nearest whole dollar) is calculated by dividing the annual nonprogram support costs ($296.66 million) less the amount*applicable to exempted functions ($26.8 million) by the product of the direct FTE (1,618 FTE) and the number of productive hours in one year (1,744 hours0.00861 days <br />0.207 hours <br />0.00123 weeks <br />2.83092e-4 months <br />) as indicated in 0MB Circular A-76, 11 Performance of Corranercial Activities."

For subsequent fiscal years the professional staff-hour rate will be revised, as needed, using the same methodology to arrive at a new hourly rate as described above.

Any changes in-the staff-hour rate for future fiscal years will be published in the Federal Register prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which they will become effective.

Section 170.21 Schedule of fees for production and utilization facil-ities, review of standard reference design approvals, special projects and inspections.

Since the Corrmission decision (53 FR 52633; December 29, 1988) to remove the fee ceiling for topical reports reviews, the number of topical reports submitted for review has significantly decreased. It appears that the principal reason for the reduction in topical reports being submitted is the uncertain and potentially unlimited fee for NRC review of these reports. This is counterproductive to the agency because, in many cases, the regulatory effort gains significant benefit in terms of

1) the resolution of safety significant problems, and 2) the staff time saved by conducting a generic review of a topical item thereby saving extensive plant-by-plant review in the same or similar areas. Examples of beneficial topical initiatives are numerous.

The recent B&W Owners 10

Group decision to undertake a complete reassessment of all B&W reactor designs, thus eliminating a costly NRC review, saved time and produced a more complete technical review than could have been accomplished by NRC alone. Another example is the CE Owner's Group development of EP Guidelines for all of its units. This generic effort saves NRC costly review time assessing plant-by-plant guidelines. These are just two of many examples where the public interest is served by an industry under-taking to resolve an issue. The surfacing of safety significant items ste1TDTiing from the review of topical reports and the subsequent resource savings to the NRC, as well as the overall high level of technical compe-tence available from industry, justifies NRC encouragement of industry submittal of these reports.*

In conclusion, a balance must be maintained between the need to encourage industry submittal of these reports and the need to assess fees for the costs of reviewing the reports~

The current system of charging a fee with no ceiling for NRC review of these reports appears to have had an inhibiting effect on the industry.

As a result, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 170.21, Category J, Special Projects, to pro-vide that the maximum fee for review of a to~ical report shall not exceed $50,000 and any amendments, revisions, or supplements to topical reports shall not exceed $50,000. This figure represents an adjustment of a previous ceiling of $20,000 to reflect the effects of inflation and is an amount which approximates the median of topical report fees charged over $20,000 thus far in 1989.

The professional hourly rate assessed for the services provided under the schedule is revised as shown in §170.20. Footnote 2 of

§170.21 is revised to provide that the professional hours expended up 11

to the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989 rules, as appropriate.

Any professional hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the FY 1990 rates shown in this proposed rule.

Section 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services.

The licensing and inspection fees in this section are modified to reflect the FY 1990 budgeted costs and to more completely recover costs incurred by the Corrmission in providing licensing and inspection services to identifiable recipients. It includes the addition of a category for deconmissioning appli~ations for byprodu~t material. After the effective date of this final rule, the fees shown in this proposed rule will apply to those decommissioning applications that are currently pending NRC review and subsequently filed applications.

Fee Category 3N is revised to include licenses which authorize leak test services, with a provision added that licenses which authorize leak test services and/or calibration services only will be subject to fee Category 3P. This revision is in response to Health Physics Associates' July 22, 1988 comment on the June 27, 1988 proposed revision to 10 CFR 170, other conments received from applicants and licensees since the inception of the June 1984 revision, and to supporting information provided by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

By letter dated July 19, 1988, Lixi, Inc. cormnented on the June 27, 1988 proposed rule that 10 CFR 170 should be revised to create a new 12

category for diagnostic devices. Lixi believes doctors should be charged the same for medical use of the Lixi Imaging Scope as industrial users.

At this time, it is not practical to make a separate category for each manufactured item.

The fee Categories in 10 CFR 170.31 are based on the use of the material rather than specific types of products or equipment.

In addition, in using the average-cost instead of the full-cost method for materials license fees, variations will exist between licenses grouped within a single category. However, in developing the current fee categories, every effort was made to group licenses in the most logical and equitable manner.

Many licenses which authorize human use of diagnostic devices also authorize other medical uses of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material. These licenses are currently subject to fee* Category 7C.

If a separate category existed for diagnostic devices only, these licenses could be subject.to the fees in the new category in addition to the fees in Category 7C.

For these reasons, applications for human use of the Lixi Imaging S.cope and other diagnostic devices will continue to be subject to fee Category 7C and industrial uses of the Lixi Imaging Scope will continue to be subject to fee Category 3P.

Fee Category 10B is changed from full-cost to flat fees. This change is based on an analysis of the actual staff-hours expended for the review and approval of the Part 71 quality assurance programs.

Fee Category 12, Special Projects, is revised to provide that the maximum fee for review of a topical report and any amendments, revisions or supplements to topical reports shall not exceed $50,000.

13

IV.

Environmental Impact:

Categorical Exclusion

, The NRC has determined that this proposed rule revision is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(l). There-fore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental impact assessment has been prepared for this proposed revision.

V.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

VI.

Regulatory Analysis The proposed revision was developed pursuant to Title V of the Inde-dependent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) and the Co1TUT1ission 1s fee guidelines. These guidelines took into account gui-dance provided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4, 1974, in its decision of National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S.

336 (1974) and Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Company, 415 U.S. 345 (1974).

In these decisions, the Court held that the IOAA authorizes an agency to charge fees for special benefits rendered to iden-tifiable persons measured by the "value to the recipient" of the agency service. The meaning of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 was further clarified on December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

National Cable Television 14

Association v. Federal Communications Co1TV11ission. 554 F.2d 1094 (1976);

National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Comnission, 554 F.2d 1118 (1976); Electronic Industries Association v. F.ederal Communi-cations Con111ission, 554 F.2d 1109 (1976); and Capital Cities ColTlllUnication, Inc. v. Federal Comnunications Comnission, 554 F.2d 1135 (1976). These decisions of the Courts enabled the Conmis-sion to develop fee guidelines that are still used for cost recovery and fee development purposes

• The Comnission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Mississippi Power and Light Co. v. u.s.*Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, 601 F.2d 223 (1979),

cert. denied 44 U.S. 1102 (1980), that (1) the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion had the authority to recover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries; (2) the NRC could properly assess a fee for the costs of providing routine inspections necessary to ensure a licensee's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and with applicable regulations; (3) the NRC could charge for costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews required by NEPA; (4) the HRC properly included in the fee schedule the costs of uncontested hearings and of administrative and technical support services; (5) the NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license to operate a low-level radioactive waste burial site; and (6) the NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.

This proposed rule revision will not have significant impact on state and local governments and geographical regions; on health, safety, and the environment; or create substantial costs to li~ensees, the NRC, or other federal agencies.

The foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.

15

VII.

Regulatory Flexibility Certifi.cation As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Co111I1ission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule affects about 9,000 specific licenses under 10 CFR Parts 30-35, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71 and 72. Approximately 8,000 of these licensees could be considered small entities, particularly in the area of materials licensing under Parts 30-35. There is no annual recordkeeping burden imposed by the proposed rule.

The NRC does not believe that the increase in fees that would result from the adoption of this proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on most materials licensees. The increase in the annual cost that would be imposed on these licensees would not be significant in tenns of their gross annual receipts.

Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that, because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse eco-nomic impact should notify the Commission of this in a co111I1ent that indi-cates the following:

(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared to the economic burden on a larger licensee.

(b)

How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities.

(c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the licensee.

16

(d)

How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as oppos~d to providing special advantages to any individual or group.

VIII. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109J does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for it because these amendments do not require the modi-fication of or addition to systems, structures, components or design of a facility or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility.

IX.

List of Subjects - Part 170 Byproduct material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Source material, Special nuclear material.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 170.

17

PART 170 FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

1. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (41 u.s.c. 5841).

2. In§ 170.3, remove the paragraph designations for the defini-tions, arrange the definitions in alphabetical order, and add defini-tions of 11 Indian organization" and "Indian tribe" to read as follows:

§ 170.3 Definitions.

11 Indian organization" means any commercial group, association, partnership, or corporation who11Y owned or controlled by an Indian tribe.

11 Indian tribe" means_ any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or corrmunity of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians.

3. In§ 170.11, paragraph (a)(3) is removed; paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) are revised and paragraph (a)(ll) is added to read as follows:

§ 170.11 Exemptions.

( a)

• 18

{3)

[Reserved]

(4)

A construction permit or license applied for by, or issued to, a non-profit edu~ational institution for a production or utilization facility, other than a power reactor, or for the possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material except for licenses which authorize 1) human use; 2) remunerated services to other persons; 3) distribution of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material; and 4) activities per-formed under a Government agency contract.

(5) A construction permit, license, certificate of compliance, or other approval applied for by, or issued to, a Government agency, except for a utilization facility designed to produce electrical or heat energy pursuant to Section 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

(11) A license for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material or other_approval applied for by or issued to an Indian tribe or an Indian organization conducting licensed activities on tribal lands.

4.

In §170.12, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (h) are revised to read as follows:

§ 170.12 Payment of fees.

(a) Application fees.

Each application for which a fee is prescribed shall be accompanied by a remittance in the full amount of the fee.

Applications for which no remittance is received will not be processed 19

and may be returned to the applicant. All application fees will be charged irrespective of the Coll'lllission's disposition of the application or a withdrawal of the application.

(b) License fees.

(1) Fees for applications for materials licenses not subject to full cost reviews llllst accompany the applicatiQn when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications f~r pennits and licenses that are subject to fees based on the full cost of the reviews are payable upon notifica-tion by the Corrmission. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant has on file for review by the Co1T111ission until the review is completed.

Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each *

(3) For early site reviews issued under 10 CFR 52, there is no application fee.

Fees for the review of an application for an early site permit are deferred as follows:

The permit holder shall pay the applicable fees for the permit at the time an application for a con-struction permit or combined license referencing the early site permit is filed. If, at the end of the initial period of the permit, no facility application referencing the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit.

Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.

(c) Amendment fees and other required approvals.

(1) Amendment fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for license amendments, other required approvals and requests for dismantling, deco1111lissioning and termination of licensed activities that are subject to full cost recovery are payable 20

upon notification by the ColTITiission.

Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed, except for amendment and other approvals for early site permits which will be billed in a deferred manner consistent with that addressed in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Each bill will identify the appli-cations and costs related to each.

(d) Renewal fees.

(1) Renewal fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.

(2) Fees for applications for renewals that are subject to the full cost of the review are payable upon notification by the Commission.

Except as noted in items (3) and (4) below, each applicant will be billed I

at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application that the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed.

Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.

(3) Fees for review of an application for renewal of a standard de-sign certification shall be deferred as follows:

The full cost of review for a renewed standard design certification must be paid by the appli-cant for renewal or other entity supplying the design to an applicant for a construction permit, combined license issued under Part 52, or operat-ing license, as appropriate, in five (5) equal installments.

An install-ment is payable each of the first five times the renewed certification is referenced in an application for a construction permit, combined license, or operating license. The applicant for renewal shall pay the install-ment, unless another entity is supplying the design to the applicant for the constructicin permit, combined license, or operating license, in which 21

case the entity shall pay the installment. If the design is not ref-erenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within ten years after the date of renewal of the certification, the applicant for renewal shall pay the costs for the review of the application for* renewal, or remainder of those costs, at that time.

(4) Fees for the review of an application for renewal of an early site permit shall b~ deferred as follows:

The holder of the renewed permit shall pay the applicable fees for the renewed permit at the time an application for a construction permit or combined license referencing the permit is filed. If, at the end of the renewal period of the permit, no facility application referencing the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit.

(h) Method of Payment.

Fee payments shall be made by check, draft, money order or electronic fund transfer made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission.

Where specific payment instructions are provided on the bills to applicants or licensees, payment should be made accord-ingly, e.g., bills of $5,000 or ~ore will normally indicate payment by electronic fund transfer.

5. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:

§ 170.20 Average cost per professional staff-hour.

Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, Part 55 requalification and replacement examinations and tests, other required approvals and inspections under§§ 170.21 and 170.31 will be cal-culated based upon the full costs for the review using a professional staff rate per hour equivalent to the sum of the average cost to the agency for a 22

professional staff member, including salary and benefits, administrative support and travel. The professional staff rate for the NRC for FY 1990 is $95 per hour. Subsequent changes to this rate will be published in the Federal Register prior to the fiscal year for which a new profes-sional staff-hour rate is effective.

6.

In Section 170.21, Category J, Special Projects and Footnote 2 to the schedule is revised to read as follows:

§ 170.21 Schedule of fees for production and utilization facilities, review of standard reference design approvals, special projects, and inspections.

J.

Special projects Approvals:

1.

Topical reports ************************* $50,000

2.

Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports ********** $50,000

3.

All other approvals, special projects and reports except those specified in 1 and 2 above ************** Full Cost 2Full cost fees will be determined based on-the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.

For those appli-cations currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the 23

full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989 rul~ revisions, as appropriate. For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached the applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings since January 29, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable rate established by§ 170.20.

In no event will the total review costs be Jess than $150.

I

7. Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:

§ 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services including inspections.

Applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services and holders of materials licenses shall pay fees for the following categories of services. This schedule includes fees for health and safety, and safeguards inspections, where applicable.

24

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES (See footnotes at end of table)

Category of materials licenses and type of fees1

1.

Special nuclear material:

A.

Licenses for possession and use of 200 grams or more of plutonium in unsealed form or 350 grams or more of contained U-235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more of U-233 in unsealed form*.

This includes applications to terminate licenses as well as licenses authorizing possession only:

Fee2*3 Application...................................

$ 150 License, Renewa 1, Amendment *********** _........ Fu 11 Cost Inspections:

Routine ********************************** Full Cost Nonroutine ******************************* Full Cost B.

Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI):

25 L

Application ***********************************

. $ 150 License, Renewal, Amendment ******************* Full Cost Inspections:

Routine.................................. Full Cost Nonroutine ******************************* Full Cost C.

Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers:4 Application - New license *********************

I Renewal..*.****....*******.*..******.*.*******

Ame nclm.e n t.....................................

Inspections:

Routine............

~.....................

Nonroutine ************.*****.*********.**

D.

All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical quanti-ty, as defined in§ 150.11 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees. as those for Category lA:4 26

$ 420

$ 420

$ 310

$ 380

$1,100

Application - New license ********************* $ 570 Renewal *************************************** $ 570 Amend.Jnent * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * *. * * * * $ 190 Inspections:

Routine.................................. $ 570 Nonrout1ne ***.**********.**************** $ 670

2.

Source material:

A.

Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, ore buying stations, ion exchange facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other.than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode:

27

Application ***********************************

License, Renewal, Amendment *******************

Inspections:

Routine **********************************

Nonroutine...............................

B.

Licenses for possession and use of source material for shielding, except as_provided for in§ 170.ll(a)(B):

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ***************************************

AmendJne, n t............................ *.........

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

C.

All other source material licenses:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Aolendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

28

$ 150 Full Cost Full Cost Full Cost

$ 100

$ 100

$ 100

$ 240

$ 290

$ 660

$ 630

$ 370

$ 670

$1,200

3. Byproduct material:

A.

Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution.

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amendment *..*****, *.*...***.****..******...****

Inspections: 5 Routine **********************************

Nonroutine **** ~ **************************

B.

Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for conmercial distribution.

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 *** * ************************************

Alnendment ***********************************.*

Inspections:5 Routine **********************************

Nonroutine ******************..*******..**

29

$1,900

$1,100

$ 190

$1,709

$1,800

$1,100,

$1,900

$ 460

$ 860

$1,600

c.

Licenses issued pursuant to§§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radio-pharmaceuticals, generators, reagent ki~s and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Alnendrnent ************.,. **************.***.*****

Inspections:

Routine ** ~ *******************************

Monroutine ******************************.

D.

Licenses and approvals issued pursuant to

§§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources or devices not involving processing of byproduct material:

30

$2,800

$1,200

$ 380

$1,100

$1,500

Application - New license.....................

$ 930 Renewal *********************.*****************

$ 410 Amendment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

$ 260 Inspections:

Routine..................................

$ 670 Nonroutine.*.*.*.**..**..*****.*******.**

$ 950 E.

Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units):

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ********************.******************

Amendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

F.

Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials 1n which the source 1s exposed for irradiation purposes:

31

$ 410

$ 390

$ 210

$ 380

$ 570

Application - New license *********************

Renewal***************************************

Amendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************.***********

G.

Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes:

Application' - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amend01ent ***.****.*****.***********.*****..***

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

H.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require.

device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing 32

$ 950

$ 330

$ '290

$ 480

$1,000

$3,800

$1,500

$ 380

$ 860

$1,100

redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amendtnent *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

I.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt 'from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistributio~ of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:

33

$1,800

$ 870

$ 210

$ 570 570

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ***************************************

Amendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine **********************************

\\

Nonroutine *******************************

J.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32.of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been autho-rized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amenchnent *************************************

Inspections:

Routine **********************************

Nonroutine ~ ******************************

34

$2,200

$ 990

$ 290

$ 380

$ 570

$2,100

$ 480

$ 320

$ 570

$ 570

K.

Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistri-bution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:

Application - New license *********************

. Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine Nonroutine *******************************

L.

Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to

-Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize corrmercial distribution:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amendment.*********.******..******..**********

35

$1,500

$ 770

$ 240

$ 570

$ 570

$1,900

$1,600

$ 420

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine ********************.***.******

M.

Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ***************************************

Amendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine **********************************

Nonroutine *********************.*********

N.

Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except (1) licenses that authorize calibration and/or leak testing services only are subject to the fees specified in fee Category 3P, and (2) licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee Categories 4A, 4B, and.4C:

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ***************************************

36

$ 760

$ 950

$ 930

$ 930

$ 520

$ 670

$ 760

$1,100

$ 670

ARll!ndnlent *************.************.*********.

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

0.

Licenses for possession and use*of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations:

Application - New license *********************

Renewal.******.****.****..*******..****.**....

Aulendment *******.*..**********.***************

lnspections: 5 Routine **********************************

Non routine.......*........*.............*

P.

All other specific byproduct material. licenses, except those in Categories 4A through 90:

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ******************** ~ ****************.*

Amendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

37

$ 330

$ 570

$ 570

$2,500

$1,500

$ 400

$ 950

$2,100

$ 420

$ 420

$ 310 S 950

$ 950

4.

Waste disposal:

A.

Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of commercial disposal by land burial by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for treatment or disposal by incineration, packaging of residues resulting from incineration and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material:

Application ***********************************

$ 150 License, renewal, amendment...................

Full Cost Inspections:

Routine..................................

Full Cost Nonroutine *******************************

Full Cost B.

Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material frosn other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the 111aterial. The licensee will dispose of the 38

material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or ~ispose of the material:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Alllendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine ****************************.**

C.

Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons.

The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the_ material:

Application - New license.....................

I Renewa 1 ***************************************

Anlendment **********************.**************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

39

$2,300

$1,500

$ 160

$1,800

$1,300

$1,500

$ 760

$ 190

$1,300

$1,700

5.

Well logging:

A.

Licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amendment **** : ********************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

B.

Licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies:

Application...................................

$2,800

$1,700

$ 450

$ 670

$ 670

$ 150 License, renewal, amendment ******************* Full Cost Inspections:

Routine..................................

$ 570 Nonroutine *******************************

$ 860 40

6. Nuclear laundries:

A.

Licenses for coTI111ercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source.material, or special nuclear material:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Am-endment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

7.

Human use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material:

A.

Licenses issued pursuant.to Parts* 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear I

material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amendment *, ************************************

41

$1,100

$1,100

$ 290

$ 950

$1,500

$2,700

$ 660

$ 350

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine **.********.*********.*.****..*

B.

Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians pursuant to Parts 30, 33, 35, 40 and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, 1nclud1ng hu~n use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ***************************************

Amendment *.*********.*..**********.*****.*****

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

C.

Other licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or spectal nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, 42

$ 950

$1,500

$1,900

$1,600

$ 300

$1,300

$1,400

source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:

Application - New license *********************

Renewa 1 ***************************************

Amendment *************************************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine ***********.*.**********.**.***

8.

Civil defense:

A.

Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities:

Application - New license *********************

Renewal ***************************************

Amendment *** ~ ***************.*****************

Inspections:

Routine..................................

Nonroutine *******************************

9.

Device, product or sealed source safety evaluation:

A.

Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, 43

$ 590

$ 860

$ 350

$ 860

$1,200

$ 480

$ 330

$ 260

$ 570

$ 570

• e B.

or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for corrmercial distribution:

Application Amendment -

Inspections

- each device ****.*********.******

each device ***********************

Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices:

Application - each device *********************

Amendment - each device ***********************

Inspections ***********************************

C.

Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for conunercial distribution.

Application - each source *********************

Amendment - each source ***********************

Inspections ******..*********************.**** ~

44

$2,700

$ 950 None

$1,300

$ 480 None

$ 570

$ 190 None

D.

Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for*use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel:

Application - each source *********************

Amendment - each source ***********************

Inspections ***********************************

10. Transportation of radioactive material:

A.

Evaluation of casks, pac~ages, and shipping containers:

$ 290

$ 100 None Application...................................

$ 150 Approval, Renewal, Amendment ****************** Full Cost Inspections...................................

None B.

Evaluation of Part 71 quality assurance programs:

Application - Approval........................

$ 190 Renewal *******************************.*******

190 Amendment.....................................

190 Inspections...................................

None

11. Review of standardized spent fuel facilities:

45

Application...................................

$ 150 Approval, Renewal, Amendment ****************** Full Cost Inspections...................................

None

12. Special projects:

Application Approval:

1. Topical reports ***************************

2. Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports ***********************

3.

All other approvals, special reports and reports except those specified in 1 and 2 above Inspections

13.

A.

Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:

Application...................................

$ 150

$50,000

$50,000 Full Cost None

$ 150 Approvals ************************************* Full Cost Amendments, revisions and supplements ********* Full Cost Reapproval ************************************ Full Cost B.

Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:

Routine *************************************** Full Cost Nonroutine ************************************ Full Cost 46

J C.

Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under§ 72.210 of Part 72 of this chapter:

Routine *************************************** Full Cost Nonroutine....................................

14. Byproduct, source or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decoITlllissioning, decontamination, reclamation or site restoration activities pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70 and 72:

Application *******.***************************

Approval, Renewal, Amendment Inspection:

Routine..................................

Full Cost

$ 150 Full Cost Fu 11 Cost Nonroutine ******************************* Full Cost 1 Types of fees - Separate charges as shown in the schedule will be assessed for applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new licenses and approvals, amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals, and inspections. The following guidelines apply to these charges:

(a) Application fees - Applications for new materi~ls licenses and approvals or those applications filed in support of expired licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category, except that applications for licenses covering more than one 47

I* f fee category of special nuclear material or source material must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category.

(b) License/approval fees - For new licenses and approvals issued 1n fee Categories lA, 18, 2A, 4A, 58, lOA, 11, 12, 13A and 14, the recipient shall pay the license or approval fee as determined by the Conrnission in accordance with§ 170.12(b), {e), and (f).

(c) Renewal/reapproval fees - Applications for renewal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except that applications for renewal of licenses and approvals in fee Categories lA, 18, 2A, 4A, 5B, lOA, 11, 12, 13A and 14 must be accompanied by an application fee of $150, with the balance due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with the procedures specified in§ 170.12(d).

(d)

Amendment fees - Applications for amendments must be accom-panied by the prescribed amendment fee for each license affected.

An application for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more I

than one category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply, except that applications for amendment of licenses in fee Categories lA, 1B, 2A, 4A, 58, lOA, 11, 12, 13A and 14 must be accompanied by an application fee of $150 with the balance due upon notification by the CoDITlission in accordance with

§ 170.12(c).

48

An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that would place the license or approval in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new category.

An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a licensee's program to a lower fee category must be accomp*anied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.

Applications to terminate licenses authorizing small materials pro-grams~ when no dismantling or decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fee.

(e) Inspection fees - Separate charges will be assessed for each routine and nonroutine inspection performed, except that inspections resulting from investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and nonroutine inspections that result from third-party allegations will not be subject to fees. If a licensee holds more than one materials license at a single location, a fee equal to the highest fee category

_covered by the licenses will be assessed if the inspections are conducted at the same time, except in cases when the inspection fees are based on the full cost to conduct the inspection. The fees assessed at full cost will be determined based on the professional staff time required to con-duct the inspection multiplied by ~he rate established under§ 170.20 of this part, to which any applicable contractual support service costs incurred will be added. Licenses covering more than one category will be charged a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the 49

license. Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(9). See Footnote 5 for other inspection notes.

2 Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission pur-suant to§ 2.204 of Part 2 nor for amendments resulting specifically from such Commission orders. However, fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific exemption provision of the Corrmission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g.,

§§ 30.11 1 40.14 1 70.14, 73.5 1 and any other such sections now or hereafter in effect) regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form.

In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in Categories 9A through 9D.

3 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.

For those applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the fulJ cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1~84 and January 30, 1989 rules, as appropriate. For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after the ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989 will not be billed to the 50

applicant. Any professional staff-hours expended since January 29, 1989 and/or on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the applicable rate established by§ 170.20 of this part. In no event will the total review costs be less than the application fee.

4 Licensees paying fees under c.ate~ories lA and 1B are not subject to fees under Categories lC and 1D for sealed sources authorized in the same license except in those instances in which an application deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license. Applicants for new licenses or renewal of existing licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed sources for use in gaug-ing devices will pay the appropriate application or renewal fee for fee Category lC only.

5 For a license authorizing shielded radiographic installations or manufacturing installations at more than one address, a separate fee will be assessed for inspection of each location, except that if the multiple installations are inspected during a single visit, a single inspection fee will be assessed.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ).....7 th day of ~,!a::z..-.,. 1989.

egulatory Co1T111ission.

~-..

Secretary of the Commission.

51