Text

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)
	v • d • e

ADAMS Tern.plate: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 12/01/1989

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

RADIOISOTOPES LICENSES AND TOPICAL REPORTS

'.J CASE

REFERENCE:

.PR-178 54FR49763 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS I' '

, 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 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 31 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 01/30/90 EXTENSION DATE: I I 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 PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:

FINAL RULE 11/09/89 DATE PROPOSED RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

DATE FINAL RULE 11/27/89 SECY PAPER: 90-141 SRM DATE: 04/19/90 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 05/17/90 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT1: LEE HILLER MAIL STOP: MNBB6103 PHONE: 492-7351 CONTACT2:

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, I

VICE PRESIDENT) ( 2) 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 NRC ANNOUCMENT SENT TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCING A THIRD PUBLIC MEETING IN ADDITIONAL TO THE TWO INDICATED IN THE PROPOSED RULE 01/08/90 01/02/90 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 (B. HOKEL,SUPERVISOR &D. FLAT,CHIEF) ( 8) 01/17/90 _01/10/90 COMMENT OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFm I

(TERRY LASH, DIRECTOR) ( 9) 01/17/90 01/11/90 B. HOKEL AND D. FLATER OF THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT TO THEIR PREVIOUS LETTER (COMMENT #8) 01/23/90 01/16/90 COMMENT OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (GRETA DICUS, DIRECTOR) ( 10) 01/23/90 01/18/90 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 (K. J. MORRIS) ( 14) 01/30/90 01/17/90 COMMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION (C. W. \MALODY) ( 15) 01/30/90 01/30/90 COMMENT OF CHEM-NUCLEAR (MICHAEL T. RYAN PH.D.) ( 16) 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) 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.

(JEFF D. MEEKINS) ( 21}

02/01/90 01/26/90 COMMENT OF C-E OWNERS GROUP (EDWARD C. STERLING) ( 22}

02/01/90 01/26/90 COMMENT OF THE BWR OWNERS' GROUP (STEPHEN D. FLOYD) { 23}

I 02/02/90 01/29/90 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 COMMENT OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (DAVID W. COCKFIELD, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 29) 02/26/90 02/21/90 COMMENT OF H &G INSPECTION COMPANY, INC.

(HARRY W. GIBSON) ( 30}

04/09/90 04/02/90 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[()

US NRC

90 NAY 21 P1 :56

[7590-01]

0F IC~ OF SLCRETM "*'

Nuclear Regulatory Co111T1iss1i ~\mG tc~i:.i 'l fT 10 CFR Part 170 RIN: 3150-AD23 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 sub ject 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

l Act Statement 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 which provides a 15 year validity of design certificates 11 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 1 s 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. 11 Indian 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-zations that are Federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the e

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 Number of direct FTEs 1 NRR . ....**....*..*....... 1,007.5 RESEARCH ................ . 146.0 NMSS ........ ~ .... : .... - ** 317.3 AEOD .............. ; .....,. 85.0 ASLAP/ASLBP ......... ', ... . 22.2 ACRS ***************..**** 25.0 OGC ...*.......... *... -. * * *

33.0 Total Direct FTE ...... . 1,636.0 1 Regional employees are counted in the office of the program each supports 13

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 ************** $203.16 A~m~nistrative support ************* 74.64 Travel ***************************** 12.27 Total nonprogram support obliga-tions . ........................ . 290.07 Program support ******************* 148.70 Total budget ******************* $438. 77 I 14

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 0.207 hours 0.00123 weeks 2.83092e-4 months ) 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-cover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries*; (2) the e

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 materials licensees. The increase in the annual cost that would be imposed on e

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 11 tier 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. - e 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.

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 I

for the review of the application for renewal, or remainder*

of those 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 reports 5 *************************************** $50,000

2. Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports 5 * ************.********************************* $50,000

3. All other approvals, special projects, reports and amendments except those specified in 1 and 2 above ..*.* Full Cost 2 Full 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 exceed $50,000. Costs which exceed $50,000 for each topical report, amendment, e

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.

4 Collection "'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.

5 The 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* 1i censes and type of fees 1 -Fee2 , 3

1. Special nuclear material:

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

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 ..*...*.**..**..... Full 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):

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 .................... . $ 400 Re new a1 *..*...*..*..**.*****..**..**.*.****.*. $ 400 Amendment ........**.......*....*....*.......... $ 300 Inspections:

Routine ................................. . $ 370 Nonroutine .....................~ ................ . $1,100 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

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 ................................. . $ 550 Nonrout_i ne $ 640

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 Full Cost Inspections:

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

29

Application - New license . . . * . . . . . * * . . . . . . . * . . $ 90 Renewa 1 . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . * . . . . . * . . * . . . . * $ 90 Amendment .....*........._. * . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 90 Inspections:

Routine . . * . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . * . . . . . . . * . . . * * * $ 230 Non routine . * * * . . . . * . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . . . . * . * . $ 280 C. All other source material licenses:

Application - New license ...................... . $ 630 Renewa 1 ...................................... . $ 600 Amendment ...*....*.........................*... $ 360 Inspections:

Routine ...................... *...... c * * * * * * $ 640 Nonroutine $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 manu-facturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution.

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

Inspections:

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

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

$ 370

$1,100

$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.....................

Renewal ****.************.*********************

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

Inspections:

$ 920

$ 320

$ 280

Routine.................................. $ 460 G.

Nonroutine ***** ;.........................

Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources

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

32

$1,100

- 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 .................... . $1,700

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

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

Inspections:

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

$ 850 200 550 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 .................... . $2,000 Renewa 1 ..**....*...*.*......*....*..*..**....* $ 460 Amendment ...............- ...................*.. $ 310 Inspections:

Routine ................................. . $ 550 Non routine .............................. . $ 550 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 authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:

e 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 .................... . $1,800 Renewal ...................................... . $1,600 Amendment .................................... . $ 400 Inspections:

Routine ...............*.................. $ 740 Non routine .............................. . $ 920 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 $ 900 Renewal ...................................... . $ 900 Amendment .................................... . $ 500 Inspections:.

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 .......................... ~ ...... . $ 550

Nonrout'i ne 35

$ 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 1i 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 .................... . $ 400 Renewa 1 ...................*................... $ 400 Amendment .................................... . $ 300 Inspections:

Routine ................................. . $ 920 Non routine .............................. . $ 920 ,-,'

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

License, renewal , amendment .................. . Full Cost Inspections:

Routine Full Cost Nonroutine .............................. . Full Cost

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:

Application - New license..................... $2,200 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500

Amendment ................ ~ ................ : . . . $ 160 Inspections:

Routine ................................. . $1,700 Nonroutine .............................. . $1,300 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 $1,500 Renewal ...................................... . $ 740 Amendment .................................... . $ 180

_Inspections:

-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:

B.

Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 640 Non routine . . . * . . . . . . * * * * . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . \. $ 640 Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies:

License, renewal, amendment................... Full Cost Inspections:

Routine .......................*.......... $ 550 Nonroutine $ 830

6. Nuclear laundries:

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

App 1icat 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:

App 1i cat ion - New 1i cense ... .-................ . $2,700 Renewal ...................................... . $ 630 Amendment .................................... . $ 340 Inspections:

, Routine .......................... _....... . $ 920 Nonroutine ***************************** i * $1,500 B. 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 ... -................. -. $1,800 Renewal .... _... '. .............................. . $1,600 Amendment .. -.................................. . $ 290 Inspections:

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:

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

App 1i cation - New license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 460 Renewa 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 320 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . $ 250 Inspections:

Routine ................................. . $ 550*

Nonroutine $ 550

9. 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:

Application - each device .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . $2,600 Amendment - each device ... .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . $ 920 Inspections None B. Safety evaluation of devices or products con-taining byproduct material, source material, 40

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 .................... . $1,300 Amendment - each device ...................... . $ 460 Inspections None C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for 1 commercial distribution.

Application - each source .................... . $ 550 Amendment - each source ...................... . $ 180 I nsp,ect ions I

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 .................... . $ 280 Amendment - each source ...... : ......... ; ..... . $ 90 Inspections None

10. Transportation of radioactive mater-ial:

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

Approval, Renewal, Amendment .................. Full Cost Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None 41

B. Evaluation of Part 71 quality assurance programs:

App 1i 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 reports 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50,000

2. Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports 6 ********************** $50,000

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

13. A.

Inspections .................................. .

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 1 s 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 .

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 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 a

each topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to 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.

4 Licensees 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.

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.

6 The 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 .

46 e Commission.

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

JI ARKH o ~R~~ 81E AVELcoMPANv DIVISION OF APAC-ARKANSAS, INC.

arkhola CO C.:l\[iEO 523 GARRISON AVENUE

501/785-4271 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 RE: Comments towards proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170 concerning increasing license fees Gentlemen:

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.

Sincerely, Ii~

Al Campbel l Project Engineer rp

DOCKET NUMBfR I~O PROPOSED RULE cs F '7 :f) 4 H & G INSPECTION COMPANY, INC.

P. 0. BOX 721856

713-498-6517 oicttfRirn HOUSTON, TEXAS 77272

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

February 21, 1990 BRANCH secretary US Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D c 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Fee Changes

e

Dear Sir:

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

. NUCLEAR REGlAATOlY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SRVIQ SKTION OFFICE OF TH£ SECUTAlV Of THE COMMIISION Document Stettstks tmark Date ~/;;. ~19 ()

pies lle<:eived

/

i

-- - .3 d' I Copies Reproduced __;,;.,.

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

H & G INSPECTION COMPANY, INC.

P. 0. BOX 721856

713-498-6517 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77272 Secretary NRC February 21, 1990 Page Two 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 Jay, Florida Evanston, Wyoming 205-433-9653 904-675-4029 307-789-0804

-~~OPOS£1J t<ULt d / 70 ,

{f1- Pf L./9 76~ ~7K[;Lo Portland General Electric ~ n y usNRc David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear '90 FEB 20 P4 :15 uH!CE OF S£CRl:.1ARY February 15DO ~g- ,NG & Sf itVICf

' RANCJi Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50- 344 License NPF- 1 Secretary of the Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555

Dear Sir:

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.

Sincerely, 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 IMR s 1990 AeknOWledged by card ** _ , ._____

121 S.W Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204

,.., I * , I ll '

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 DOCKETED USNRC DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR /7 o

90 FEB -6 A9 :38 (c;~-; Ff( '-/17£3) l / t,R{!~F Sf CRfTA.RY

... * **** * ~ .., i~ __.,,- "<'l '!:r Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Revision 0£ Fee Schedules, 10 CFR Part 170 While i t 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.

6C~

A.A. Hale Vice President, Engineering cc: J.E. Martin C.H. Eads B.W. Nethercutt

~ 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 tha t 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.

Sincerely",

rt i/,Jt..

Enclosure:

Federal Reg ister Notice f Ronald M. Scroggins Office of the Controller

49763 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 54. No. 230 Friday. December 1, 1989 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ADDRESSES: Submit written comments of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701). The fees contains *notices to the public of the to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory assessed under part 170 recover the proposed issuance of rules and Commission, Washington, DC 20555, costs lo the NCR of providing regulations. The purpose of these notices ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch. individually identifiable services to is to give interested persons an Hand deliver comments to: 11555 applicants for and holders of NRC opportunity to participate in the rule Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland licenses and approvals. The fees for making prior to the adoption of the final rules. 20852 between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm radioisotope licenses issued under 10 (Telephone 301-492-1966). CFR parts 30, 40 and 70 and for Copies of comments received may be inspections of these licenses were last NUCLEAR REGULATORY examined at the NRC Public Document revised on May 21, 1984 (49 FR 21293).

COMMISSION Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, The 1984 revision was based on cost DC 20555, in the lower level of the and professional staff hour data for 10 CFR Part 170 Gelman Building. fiscal year (FY) 1981. In the final rule The NRC will hold a public meeting published on December 29, 1988, the RIN 3150-AD23 on January 8, 1990 in Region I at 1:00 pm, previous policy of charging inspection Revision of Fee Schedules:

Sheraton-Radisson Hotel, Erie Room, fees based on the routine inspection Radioisotope Licenses and Topical 1200 First Avenue, King of Prussia, frequency for small materials programs Reports Pennsylvania, and a public meeting on was changed to provide for the January 11, 1990 in Region III at 1:00 pm, assessment of fees for each inspection AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Holiday Inn, 5440 North River Road, under 10 CFR 170.31.

Commission. Rosemont, Illinois, to discuss the II. Proposed Action ACTION: Proposed rule. proposed changes and answer any questions. The Commission proposes to amend

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory The agency workpapers which 10 CFR part 170 to update the licensing Commission is proposing to amend its support these proposed changes to 10 fees for materials licenses to more fully regulations governing licensing fees for CFR 170 are available in the Public recover costs for application reviews all topical reports and licensing and Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., and other services based on FY 1987 and inspection fees for radioisotope licenses Washington, DC, in the lower level of FY 1988 licensing data. For inspection (small programs covered by parts 30, 40 the Gelman Building. fees, the professional staff hours used in and 70). The proposed amendments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the 1984 rule to conduct an inspection would (1) establish a ceiling of $50,000 Lee Hiller, Deputy Controller, U.S. have been maintained while the for topical report reviews, (2) update the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Commission explores ways to unify the schedule of fees for small radioisotope Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301- fee categories with the Regulatory programs, including the addition of a fee 492-7351. Information Tracking System (RITS) for byproduct material applications for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: inspection categories and licensing decommissioning, (3) change the cost I. Background program codes. Therefore the routine per professional staff hour for all full- II. Proposed Action and nonroutine inspection fees have cost fees from $86 to $95 per hour based III. Section-by-Section Analysis increased due to the change in the on the FY 1990 budget, (4) delete certain IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical hourly rate only. It is proposed that the exemption provisions and clarify others Exclusion professional hourly rate of $86 for FY for ease of administration, (5) add a new V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 1989 shown in 10 CFR 170.20 will be exemption provision to provide that VI. Regulatory Analysis revised to $95 per hour based on the FY VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Indian tribes and Indian organizations VIII. Backfit Analysis 1990 budget. (Note that the December will be exempt from payment of fees IX. Subject terms 1988 rule revision did not apply the $86 and (6) request that bills in excess of per hour charge to the materials fee

$5,000 be paid by electronic fund I. Background schedule, but retained the 1981 rate of transfer in accordance with U.S. On December 29, 1988, the $58 per hour.) In addition, it is proposed Department of the Treasury cash Commission published its final amended that a fee ceiling be reestablished for all management initiatives. The proposed regulations which revised the fee topical reports.

action is intended to more completely schedules contained in 10 CFR parts 170 recover costs incurred by the III. Section-by-Section Analysis and 171 (53 FR 52632). In the response to Commission in providing services to comments received on the published The following section-by-section identifiable recipients and to encourage proposed rule, the Commission analysis of those sections affected the continued submittal of topical indicated that a portion of the 10 CFR provides additional explanatory reports. part 170 fee schedule for certain small information. All references are to title DATES: The comment period expires materials licenses is outdated and in 10, chapter I, part 170, Code of Federal January 30, 1990. Comments received need of revision (53 FR 52633). The Regulations.

after this date will be considered if it is Commission further stated that a Section 170.3 Definitions practical to do so, but the Commission is rulemaking on this issue would be able to assure consideration only for initiated in 1989. This section is revised to remove the comments received on or before this Part 170 implements title V of the paragraph designations for the date. Independent Offices Appropriation Act definitions, arrange the definitions in

49764 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday. December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules alphabetical order. and add definitions hospitals, research and medical exempted from the fee base due to the of "Indian organization" and "Indian institutions and uranium producers, the nature of their functions (i.e..

tribe." Commission is continuing to limit this enforcement activities and other NRC "Indian organization" means any particular exemption to non-profit functions currently exempted by commercial group, association, educational institutions. Commission policy).

partnership, or corporation wholly Paragraph (a)(5) is changed, for owned or controlled by an Indian tribe. clarification, to include certificates of T ABLE 1.-ALLOCATION OF DIRECT FTES "Indian ~ribe" means any Indian tribe, compliance and other approvals. BY OFFICE band, nation, or other organized group Paragraph (a)(11) is added to provide or community of Indians recognized as that Indian tribes and Indian Office Number of direct FTEs 1 eligible for the services provided to organizations will be exempt from Indians by the Secretary of the Interior license fees. Indian tribes are recognized NRR/SP ..........................., 982.2 because of their status as Indians. as separate political entities similar to RESEARCH ..................... 155.0 State governments. The Commission NMSS ............................... 307.5 Section 170.11 Exemptions intends to exempt Indian tribes and AEOD. .............................. 93.1 ASLAP/ ASLBP................ 22.2 wholly owned tribal commercial Paragraph (a)(3) is being removed in its entirety. Fees for any byproduct, organizations conducting licensed ~~~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I...------ --~~:g activities on tribal lands from license 1,618. 0 source or special nuclear materials Total Direct FTE ..... .

fees in the same manner as it does licenses issued under 10 CFR part 30, 40, States and governmental agencies. 1 Regional employees are counted 1n the office of 70, or 71 that are considered to be the program each supports.

incidental to operation of a nuclear Section 170.12 Payment of Fees reactor will be charged under respective Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are In determining the cost for each direct materials fee category rather than under revised to more clearly distinguish the labor FTE (an FTE whose position/

the 10 CFR part 50 reactor fee category fee payment requirements for materials function is such that it can be identified as has been past practice. Therefore, for licenses and approvals not subject to to a specific licensee or class of a special nuclear materials license or full cost from the requirements for other licensees) whose function, in the NRC's any other licenses which are required licensed activities that are subject to full judgment, is necessary to the regulatory prior to operation of the reactor, e.g., cost. process, the following *rationale is used:

startup sources, reactor fuel, or Paragraph (h) is being revised to 1. All direct FTEs are identified by calibration or monitoring equipment, indicate that (1) payments may also be office.

fees will be assessed under 10 CFR made by electronic fund transfer (EFf) 2. NRC plans, budgets, and controls 170.31 rather than § 170.21. If an and (2) that were specific instructions on the following four major categories applicant possesses byproduct, source regarding payment are provided on the (see Table II):

or special nuclear material for bills, payment should be made (a) Salaries and Benefits.

decontamination, inspection, repair, accordingly. It is the intent of the modification or testing of their reactor (b) Administrative Support.

Commission to request payment by (c) Travel.

components, for which a license is electronic fund transfer of those bills required under the Commission's (d) Program Support.

which are in excess of $5.000. This 3. Program Support, the use of applicable materials regulations, fees change is being made to encourage will be assessed in accordance with 10 contract or other services for which the timely receipts and deposits in NRC pays for support from outside the CFR 170.31. accordance with U.S. Department of the

Paragraph (a)(4) is changed to Commission, is charged to various Treasury regulations relating to cash categories as used.

broaden the exemption for non-profit management initiatives.

educational institutions to include 4. All other costs (i.e .. Salaries and certain activities (e.g .. research) not Section 170.20Average Cost Per Benefits, Travel, and Administrative covered by the current exemption. It Professional Staff-Hour Support) represent "in-house" costs and would not include power reactor are to be collected by allocating them licenses and materials licenses which This section is modified to reflect an uniformly over the total number of direct authorize human use, commercial agency-wide professional staff-hour rate FTEs.

distribution, or remunerated service to based on FY 1990 costs to the Agency. Using this method was described in other persons or activities performed Accordingly, the proposed professional the December 29, 1988 final rule (53 FR under a government contract. If a non- staff rate for the NRC for FY 1990 for all 52639] and the FY 1990 budget, and profit educational institutions provides fee categories that are based on full cost excluding budgeted Program Support services to other persons without is $95 per hour, or $166.8 thousand per obligations, the remaining S269.9 million charge, the exemption would apply. The FTE (professional staff year). For FY alloca led uniformly to the direct FTEs Commission has received several fee 1990, the budgeted obligations by direct (1,618] results in a calculation of $166.8 exemption requests from colleges and program are: (1) Salaries and Benefits, thousand per FTE for FY 1990 (an hourly universities for licensed activities not $196.4 million: (2) Administrative rate of $95).

covered by the current exemption. Support, $87.95 million; (3) Travel, $12.31 Additionally, this change is in keeping million, and (4) Program Support, $178.34 TABLE 11.-FY 1990 BUDGET BY MAJOR with the concern of Congress regarding million. In FY 1990, 1,618 FTEs are CATEGORY the impact of the current schedule on considered to be in direct support of some entities and their limited ability to NRC programs applicable to fees (see [$ in Millions]

pass through the costs of these charges Table I). Of the total 3,180 FTEs, 1,562 to the ultimate consumer. Although the FTEs will be considered overhead Sslaries and benefits ............................ .. $196.40 legislative history for annual fees contained in part 171 of this chapter (supervisory and support) or exempted (due to their program function). Of these Administrative support ............................ .

Travel ......................................................... ,_ ____ 87.95 12.31 discusses the option of considering 1,562 FTEs, a total of 286 FTEs and the Total nonprogram support obliga*

modifications to these fee schedules for resulting $26.8 million in support are lions ................................................ 296.66

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules 49765 TABLE 11.-FY 1990 BUDGET BY MAJOR plant guidelines. These are just two of Fee Category 3N is revised to include CATEGORY-Continued many examples where the public licenses which authorize leak test CS in Millions]

interest is served by an industry services, with a provision added that undertaking to resolve an issue. The licenses which authorize leak test Program support ....................................... ; 178.34 surfacing of safety significant items services and/or calibration services Total budget ........ _ _ _ ...........! 475.0 stemming from the review of topical only will be subject to fee Category 3P.

reports and the subsequent resource This revision is in response to Health savings to the NRC, as well as the Physics Associates' July 22, 1988 The Direct ITE Productive Hourly overall high level of technical comment on the June 27, 1988 proposed Rate ($95/hour rounded to the nearest competence available from industry, revision to 10 CFR 170, other comments whole dollar) is calculated by dividing justifies NRC encouragement of industry received from applicants and licensees the annual nonprogram support costs submittal of these reports. since the inception of the June 1984

($296.66 million) less the amount In conclusion, a balance must be revision, and to supporting information applicable to exempted functions ($26.8 maintained between the need to provided by the Office of Nuclear million) by the product of the direct ITE encourage industry submittal of these Material Safety and Safeguards.

(1,618 ITE) and the number of reports and the need to assess fees for By letter dated July 19, 1988, Lixi, Inc.

productive hours in one year (1,744 the costs of reviewing the reports. The current system of charging a fee with no commented on the June 27, 1988 hours0.023 days 0.552 hours 0.00329 weeks 7.56434e-4 months ) as indicated in 0MB Circular A- proposed rule that 10 CFR 170 should be 76, "Performance of Commercial ceiling for NRC review of these reports Activities." appears to have had an inhibiting effect revised to create a new category for on the industry. As a result, the diagnostic devices. Lixi believes doctors For subsequent fiscal years the professional staff-hour rate will be Commission is proposing to amend 10 should be charged the same for medical revised, as needed, using the same CFR 170.21, Category J, Special Projects, use of the Lixi Imaging Scope as methodology to arrive at a new hourly to provide that the maximum fee for industrial users. At this time. it is not rate as described above. Any changes in review of a topical report shall not practical to make a separate ca tegory the staff-hour rate for future fiscal years exceed S50.000 and any amendments, for each manufactured item. The fee will be published in the Federal Register revisions. or supplements to topical Categories in 10 CFR 170.31 are based prior to the beginning of the fiscal year reports shall not exceed $50,000. This on the use of the material rather than for which they will become effective. figure represents an adjustment of a specific types of products or equipment.

previous ceiling of $20,000 to reflect the In addition, in using the average-cost Section 170.21 Schedule of Fees for effects of inflation and is an amount instead of the full-cost method for Production and Utilization Facilities, which approximates the median of materials license fees, variations will Review of Standard Reference Design topical report fees charged over $20,000 exist between licenses grouped within a Approvals, Special Projects and thus far in 1989. single category. However, in developing Inspections The professional hourly rate assessed the current fee categories, every effort for the services provided under the was made to group licenses in the most Since the Commission decision (53 FR schedule is revised as shown in § 170.20. logical and equitable manner.

52633; December 29, 1988) to remove the Footnote 2 of § 170.21 is revised to Many licenses which authorize human fee ceiling for topical reports reviews, provide that the professional hours use of diagnostic devices also authorize the number of topical reports submitted expended up to the effective date of this other medical uses of byproduct, source, for review has significantly decreased. It rule will be assessed at the professional appears that the principal reason for the or special nuclear material. These rates established for the June 20, 1984 reduction in topical reports being and January 30, 1989 rules, as licenses are currently subject to fee submitted is the uncertain and appropriate. Any professional hours Category 7C. If a separate category potentially unlimited fee for NRC review expended on or after the effective date existed for diagnostic devices only, of these reports. This is of this rule will be assessed at the FY these licenses could be subject to the counterproductive to the agency 1990 rates shown in this proposed rule. fees in the new category in addition to because, in many cases, the regulatory the fees in Category 7C.

effort gains significant benefit in terms Section 170.31 Schedule of Fees for For these reasons, applications for of (1) the resolution of safety significant Materials licenses and Other human use of the Lixi Imaging Scope problems, and (2) the staff time saved by Regulatory Services and other diagnostic devices will conducting a generic review of a topical continue to be subject to fee Category item thereby saving extensive plant-by- The licensing and inspection fees in 7C and industrial uses of the Lixi plant review in the same or similar this section are modified to reflect the Imaging Scope will continue to be areas. Examples of beneficial topical FY 1990 budgeted costs and to more subject to fee Category 3P.

initiatives are numerous. The recent completely recover costs incurred by the Fee Category 10B is changed from full-B&W Owners Group decision to Commission in providing licensing._and cost to flat fees. This change is based on undertake a complete reassessment of inspection services to identifiable *

an analysis of the actual staff-hours all B&W reactor designs, thus recipients. It includes the addition of a expended for the review and approval of eliminating a costly NRC review, saved category for decommissioning the part 71 quality assurance programs.

lime and produced a more complete applications for byproduct material.

technical review than could have been After the effective date of this final rule, Fee Category 12, Special Projects, is accomplished by NRC alone. Another the fees shown in this proposed rule will revised to provide that the maximum fee example is the CE Owner's Group apply to those decommissioning for review of a topical report and any development of EP Guidelines for all of applications that are currently pending amendments, revisions or supplements its units. This generic effort saves NRC NRC review and subsequently filed to topical reports shall not exceed costly review time assessing plant-by- applications. $50,000.

49766 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical beneficiaries; (2) the NRC could properly the proposed regulations were modified Exclusion assess a fee for the costs of providing as suggested by the licensee.

The NRC has determined that this routine inspections necessary to ensur~ [d) How the proposed regulation. as proposed rule revision is the type of a licensee's compliance with the Atomic modified, would more closely equalize action described in categorical Energy Act and with applicable the impact of NRC regulations or create exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, regulations; (3) the NRC could charge for more equal access to the benefits of neither an environmental impact costs incurred in conducting Federal programs as opposed to statement nor an environmental impact environmental reviews required by providing special advantages to any assessment has been prepared for this NEPA; (4) the NRC properly included in individual or group.

proposed revision. the fee schedule the costs of uncontested hearings and of VIII. Backfit Analysis V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement administrative and technical support The NRC has determined that the This proposed rule contains no services; (5) the NRC could assess a fee backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not information collection requirements and, for renewing a license to operate a low- apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, is not subject to the level radioactive waste burial site; and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not requirements of the Paperwork (6) the NRC's fees were not arbitrary or required for it because these Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et capricious. amendments do not require the seq.) This proposed rule revision will not modification of or addition to systems, have significant impact on state and structures, components or design of a VI. Regulatory Analysis local governments and geographical facility or the design approval~~

The proposed revision was developed regions; on health, safety, and t~e manufacturing license for a fac1hty or A pursuant to Title V of the Independent environment; or create substantial costs the procedures or organization requ!r~d

Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 to licensees, the NRC, or other Federal to design, construct or operate a fac1hty.

(IOAA) (32 U.S.C. 9701) and the agencies. The foregoing discussi~n constitutes the regulatory analysis for List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 170 Commission's fee guidelines. These guidelines took into account guidance this proposed rule. Byproduct material, Nuclear provided by the U.S. Supreme Court_ on VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification materials, Nuclear power plants and March 4, 1974, in its decision of National reactors, Penalty, Source material.

As required by the Regulatory Special nuclear material.

Cable Television Association, Inc. v. Flexibility Act of 1980; 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974) and the Commission certifies that this rule, if For the reasons set out in the Federal Power Commission v. New adopted, will not have a significai:it preamble and under the authority of the England Power Company, 415 U.S. 345 economic impact upon a substantial Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

(1974). In these decisions, the Court held number of small entities. The proposed the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, that the IOAA authorizes an agency to rule affects about 9,000 specific licenses as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 533, the NRC charge fees for special benefits rendered under 10 CFR part 30-35, 40, 50, 60, 61, is proposing to adopt the following to identifiable persons measured by the 70, 71, and 72. Approximately 8,000 of amendments to 10 CFR part 170.

"value to the recipient" of the agency these licensees could be considered service. The meaning of the Independent PART 170-FEES FOR FACILITIES small entities, particularly in the area of AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 was materials licensing under parts 30-35.

further clarified on December 16, 1976, OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES There is no annual recordkeeping by four decisions of the Court of UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF burden imposed by the proposed rule.

Appeals for the District of Columbia. 1954, AS AMENDED The NRC does not believe that the

.A National Cable Television Association increase in fees that would result from 1. The authority citation for part 170 W v. Federal Communications the adoption of this proposed rule would continues to read as follows:

Commission, 554 F.2d 1094 (1976); result in a significant economic impact National Associations of Broadcasters Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051: sec.

on most materials licensees. The 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C.

v. Federal Communications increase in the annual cost that would 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended Commission, 554 F.2d 1118 (1976); be imposed on these licensees w_ould (42 u.s.c. 5841).

Electronic Industries Association v. not be significant in terms of their gross Federal Communications Commission, annual receipts. 2. In § 170.3, remove the paragraph 554 F.2d 1109 (1976); and Capital Cities Any small entity subject to this designations for the defini~ions, arrange Communication, Inc. v. Federal regulation which determines that, the definitions in alphabetical order, and Communications Commission, 554 F. 2d because of its size, it is likely to bear a add definitions of "Indian organization" 1135 (1976) These decisions of the disproportionate adverse economic and "Indian tribe" to read as follows:

Courts enabled the Commission to impact should notify the Commission of § 170.3 Definitions.

develop fee guidelines that are still used this in a comment that indicates the * * *

for cost recovery and fee development following:

purposes. (a) The licensee's size and how the "Indian organization" means any The Commission's fee guidelines were proposed regulation would result in a commercial group, association.

upheld on August 24, 1979, when the significant economic burden upon th_e partnership, or corporation wholly U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth licensee as compared to the economic owned or controlled by an Indian tribe.

Circuit held in Mississippi Power and burden on a larger licensee. "Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, light Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (b) How the proposed regulations band, nation, or other organized group Commission, 801 F.2d 223 (1979), cert. could be modified to take into account or community of Indians recognized as denied 44 U.S. 1102 (1980), that (1) the the licensee's differing needs or eligible for the services provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had the capabilities. Secretary of the Interior because of their authority to recover the full cost of (c) The benefits that would accrue, or status as Indians.

providing services to identifiable the detriments that would be avoided, if l

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

3. In § 170.11, paragraph (a)(3) is paragraph (b )(3) of this section. each for renewal of a standard design removed and reserved: paragraphs (a)(4) applicant will be billed at six-month certification shall be deferred as and (a)(5) are revised and paragraph intervals for all accumulated costs for follows: The full cost of review for a (a)(11) is added to read as follows: each application the applicant has on renewed standard design certification file for review by the Commission until must be paid by the applicant for

§ 170.11 Exemptions.

the review is completed. Each bill will renewal or other entity supplying the

[a) * *

identify the applications and costs design to an applicant for a construction (3 ) [Reserved] related to each. permit, combined license issued under (4) A construction permit or license (3) For early site reviews issued under applied for by, or issued to, a non-profit part 52, or operating license, as 10 CFR part 52, there is no application appropriate, in five (5) equal educational institution for a production fee. Fees for the review of an application or utilization facility, other than a power installments. An installment is payable for an early site permit are deferred as each of the first five times the renewed reactor, or for the possession and use of follows: The permit holder shall pay the byproduct material, source material, or certification is referenced in an applicable fees for the permit at the time application for a construction permit, special nuclear material except for an application for a construction permit licenses which authorize (i) human use: combined license, or operating license.

or combined license referencing the The applicant for renewal shall pay the (ii) remunerated services to other early site permit is filed. If, at the end of persons: (iii) distribution of byproduct installment, unless another entity is the initial period of the permit, no supplying the design to the a pplicant for material, source material, or special facility application referencing the early nuclear material or products containing the construction permit. combined site permit has been docketed, the license, or operating license, in which byproduct material, source material, or permit holder shall pay any outstanding special nuclear material; and (iv) case the entity shall pay the installment.

fees for the permit. Each bill will If the design is not referenced, or if all activities performed under a identify the applications and costs Government agency contract. costs are not recovered, within ten years related to each. after the date of renewal of the (5) A construction permit, license, (c) Amendment fees and other certificate of compliance, or other certification, the applicant for renewal required approvals. (1) Amendment fees shall pay the costs for the review of the approval applied for by, or issued to. a for materials licenses and approvals not Government agency, except for a application for renewal, or remainder of subject to full cost reviews must those costs, at that time.

utilization facility designed to produce accompany the application when it is electrical or heat energy pursuant to (4) Fees for the review of an filed .

section 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy (2) Fees for applications for license application for renewal of an early site Act of 1954, as amended. amendments, other required approvals permit shall be deferred as follows: The and requests for dismantling, holder of the renewed permit shall pay (11) A license for possession and use decommissioning and termination of the applicable fees for the renewed of byproduct material, source material. licensed activities that are subject to full permit at the time an application for a or special nuclear material or other cost recovery are payable upon construction permit or combined license approval applied for by or issued to an notification by the Commission. Each referencing the permit is filed. If, at the Indian tribe or an Indian organization applicant will be billed at six-month end of the renewal period of the permit.

conducting licensed activities on tribal intervals for all accumulated costs for no facility application referencing the lands. each application the applicant has on early site permit has been docketed, the

file for review by the Commission until permit holder shall pay any outstanding

4. In § 170.12, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), the review is completed, except for fees for the permit.

(d) and (h) are revised to read as amendment and other approvals for follows: early site permits which will be billed in (h) Method of payment. Fee payments a deferred manner consistent with that shall be made by check, draft, money

§ 170.12 Payment of fees. order or electronic fund transfer made addressed in paragraph (d)(4) of this (a) Application fees. Each application section. Each bill will identify the payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory for which a fee is prescribed shall be applications and costs related to each. Commission. Where specific payment accompanied by a remittance in the full (d) Renewal fees. (1) Renewal fees for instructions are provided on the bills to amount of the fee. Applications for materials licenses and approvals not applicants or licenses, payment should which no remittance is received will not subject to full cost reviews must be made accordingly, e.g., bills of $5.000 be processed and may be returned to the accompany the application when it is or more will normally indicate payment applicant. All application fees will be filed. by electronic fund transfer.

charged irrespective of the (2) Fees fo r applications for renewals * * *

Commission's disposition of the that are subject to the full cost of the 5. Section 170.20 is revised to read as application or a withdrawal of the review are payable upon notification by follows:

application. the Commission. Except as noted in (b) License fees. (1) Fees for paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this § 170.20 Average cost per professional applications for materials licenses not section, each applicant will be billed at staff-hour.

subject to full cost reviews must six-month intervals for all accumulated Fees for permits, licenses, accompany the application when it is costs for each application that the amendments, renewals, special projects.

filed. applicant has on file for review by the part 55 requalification and replacement (2) Fees for applications for permits Commission until the review is examinations and tests, other required and licenses that are subject to fees completed. Each bill will identify the approvals and inspections under based on the full cost of the reviews are applications and the costs related to § § 170.21 and 170.31 will be calculated payable upon notification by the each. based upon the full costs for the review Commission. Except as provided in (3) Fees for review of an application 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 SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES Category of matenals hcenses and Fee

3 cost to the agency for a professional (See footnotes at end of table) type of fees '

staff member. including salary and Category of materials license* and benefits, administrative support and type of fees* Fee** Inspections:

Routine ....................................... Full Cost.

travel. The professional staff rate for the Nonrout1ne .................................. . Full Cost.

NRC for FY 1990 is $95 per hour. 1. Special nuclear material: B. Licenses for possession and Subsequent changes to this rate will be A. Licenses for possession and use of source matenal for published in the Federal Register prior use of 200 grams or more of shielding, except as provided for plutonium in unsealed form or in § 170.1 1(8)(8) to the fiscal year for which a new 350 grams or ore of contained Application-New hcense .............. . $100.

professional staff-hour rate is effective. U-235 in unsealed form or 200 Renewal ........................................... . $100.

6. In § 170.21, Category J, Special grams or more of U-233 in un- Amendment ...................................... $100.

sealed form. This includes applt-Projects and Footnote 2 to the schedule Inspections:

cations to terminate licenses as Routine ......................................... $240.

are revised to read as follows: well as licenses authorizing pos-Nonroutrne .................................... $290.

session only:

Application........................................ S 150. C. All other source matenal li-

§ 170.21 Schedule of fees for production License, Renewal. Amendment.. ... Full Cost. censes:

and utilization facilities, review of standard Application-New l.Jcense ........... .. $660.

Inspections:

Renewal ............................................ $630.

reference design approvals, special Routine ......................................... Full Cost.

Amendment ................................... .. $370.

projects, and Inspections. Nonroutine .................................... Full Cost.

Inspections:

B. Licenses for receipt and stor-age of spent fuel at an inde- Routine ......................................... $670.

J. Special projects pendent spent fuel storage in- Nonroutine .................................... $1,200.

Approvals: stallation (ISFSI): 3. Byproduct material:

1. Topical reports ..................................... $50,000 Application ........................................ $150. A. Licenses of broad scope for

2. Amendments. revisions and sup- License, Renewal. Amendment..... F,ull Cost. possession and use of byprod-plements to topical reports ................ $50,000 Inspections: uct material issued pursuant to

3. All other approvals, special parts 30 and 33 of thrs chapter Routine ......................................... Full Cost.

projects and reports except those for processing or manufacturing j Nonroutine .................................... Full Cost.

specified in 1 and 2 above ................. Full Cost of items containrng byproduct I C. Licenses for possession and material for commencal drstnbu- 1 use of special nuclear material lion.

2 in sealed sources contained in Application-New license .............. $1,900.

Full cost fees will be de termined based on devices used in industrial meas-the professional staff time and appropriate Renewal... ......................................... $1,100.

uring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers:

Amendment ...................................... $190.

contractual support services expended. For Application-New license............... $420. Inspections:

those applies lions currently on file and for Routine ......................................... $1,700.

Renewal............................................ $420.

which fees are determined based on the full Nonroutrne .................................... $1,800.

Amendment ...................................... $310.

cost expended for the review, the Inspections: B. Other licenses for possession profeHional staff hours expended for the Routine ......................................... $380. and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to part 30 of review of the application up to the effective Nonroutine .................................... $1,100.

this chapter for processing or date of this rule will be determined at the D. All other special nuclear materi- manufacturing of items conta,n.

professional rates established for the June 20, al licenses, except licenses au- ing byproduct material tor com-thorizing special nuclear material merical distribution.

1984 and Janaury 30, 1989 rule revisions, as in unsealed form in combination Application-New license............... $1,100.

appropriate. For those applications currently that would constitute a critical Renewal ............................................ $1,900.

on file for which review costs have reached quantity, as defined in § 150.11 Amendment ...................................... $460.

the applicable fee ceiling established by the of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees Inspections:

June 20. 1984 rule. but are still pending Routine ......................................... $860.

as those for Category 1A:

completion of the review, the cost incurred Application-New license............... $570. Nonrout1ne .................................... $1,600.

after any applicable ceiling was reached Renewal............................................ $570. C. Licenses issued pursuant to through January 29. 1989, will not be billed to Amendment ...................................... $190. §§32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Inspections: part 32 of this chapter authonz-the applicant. Any profeHional staff-hours ing the processing or manufac-expended above those ceilings since January Routine ......................................... $570.

turing and distribution or redistri-Nonroutine .................................... $670.

29, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable bution of radiopharmaceuticals,

2. Source material: generators, reagent luts and/or rate established by § 170.20. In no event will A. Licenses for possession and sources and devices containing the total review costs be less than $150. use of source material in recov- byproduct material:

ery operations such as milling, Application-New license............... $2,800.

in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, Renewal... ......................................... $1,200.

7. Section 170.31 is revised to read as refining uranium mill concen-Amendment.. .................................... $380.

follows: trates to uranium hexafluoride, Inspections:

ore buying stations, ion ex-change facilities and in process- Routine ......................................... $1,100.

§ 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials ing of ores containing source Nonroutine .................................... $1,500.

material for extraction of metals 0. Licenses and approvals issued licenses and other regulatory services pursuant to §§ 32. 72, 32.73, Including Inspections. other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing and/ or 32. 74 of Part 32 of this Applicants for materials licenses and the possession of byproduct chapter authorizing distribution waste material (tailings) from or redistribution of radiopharma-other regulatory services and holders of source material recovery oper- ceuticals, generators. reagent materials licenses shall pay fees for the ations, as well as licenses au- kits and/ or sources or devices following categories of services. This thorizing the possession and not invoMng processing of by-maintenance of a facility in a product material:

schedule includes fees for health and Application-New license............... $930.

standby mode:

safety, and safeguards inspections, Application ........................................ $150. Renewal............................................ $410.

where applicable. License, Renewal, Amendment..... Full Cost. Amendment...................................... $260.

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules 49769 Category of materials licenses and category of materials licenses and category of materials licenses and type of tees 1 Fee ** Fee 2

type of fees 1 Fee 2

type of fees

Inspections: Amendment. .................. . $330.

Routine ......................................... $670. Inspections:

NOIYoutine.................................... $950. lnE:~:::: :::: ::::::::::::: ::::::::::::I ::: Routine ................................ ........ .

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

$570.

E. Licenses tor possession and J. Licenses issued pursuant to use of byproduct material in subpart B of part 32 of this 0. Licenses for possession and sealed sources tor irradiation of chapter to distribute items con- use of byproduct material issued materials in which the source is taining byproduct material that pursuant to part 34 of this chap-not removed from its shield (sett-shielded units):

require sealed source and/ or device review lo persons gener-ter for industrial radiography op-erations:

£;c.J1e~t Application-New license............... $41 O. ally licensed under part 31 of Application-New license ............... $2,500. 70~

Renewal............................................ $390. this chapter, except specific li- Renewal ....................... $1 ,500. '10 0 Amendment ...................................... $210. censes authorizing redistribution Amendment ..................... . $400. 2. '.l 0 Inspections: of items that have been author- Inspections:

Routine ......................................... $380. ized tor distribution lo persons Routine ........... ..... .. .. .. . $950.

N01Youtine .................................... $570. generally licensed under part 31 Nonroutine ............... .. ................... $2,100.

F. Licenses for possession and of this chapter: P. All other specific byproduct ma-use of less than 10,000 curies of Application-New license ............... $2,100. terial licenses, except those in byproduct material in sealed Renewal ............................................ $480. categories 4A through 90:

sources for irradiation of materi- Amendment ...................................... $320. Application-New license............... $420.

als in which the source is ex- Inspections: Renewal ............................................ $420.

posed for irradiation purposes: Routine ......................................... $570. Amendment ...................................... $310.

Application-New license ............... $950. Nonroutine .................................... $570. Inspections:

Renewal............................................ $330. K. Licenses issued pursuant to Routine ......................................... $950.

Amendment.. .................................... $290. subpart 8 of part 32 of this Nonroutine .................................... $950.

chapter to distribute items con-Inspections: 4. Waste disposal:

taining byproduct material or Routine ......................................... $480. A. Licenses specifically authorizing quantities by byproduct material Nonroutine .................................... $1,000. the receipt of waste byproduct that do not require sealed G. Licenses for possession and material. source material or spe-source and/ or device review lo use of 10,000 curies or more of cial nuclear material from other persons generally licensed byproduct material in sealed persons for the purpose of com-under part 31 of this chapter, sources for irradiation of materi- mercial disposal by land burial except specific licenses author-als in which the source is ex- by the licensee: or licenses au-izing redistribution of items that posed for irradiation purposes: thorizing contingency storage of have been authorized for distri-Application-New license ............... $3,800. low level radioactive waste at bution to persons generally li-Renewal ............................................ $1,500. the site of nuclear power reac-censed under part 31 of this Amendment. ..................................... $380. tors; or licenses tor treatment or chapter:

Inspections: disposal by incineration, packag-Application-New license ............... $1,500.

Routine ............. ............................ $860. ing of residues resulting from in-Renewal............................................ $770.

Norvoutine .................................... $1,100. cineration and transfer of pack-Amendment...................................... $240.

H. Licenses issued pursuant to ages to another person author-Inspections:

subpart A of part 32 of this ized to receive or dispose of Routine ......................................... $570.

chapter to distribute items con- waste material:

Nonroutine .................................... $570.

taining byproduct material that Application ....................................... $150.

L Licenses of broad scope for require device review to persons License, renewal, amendment....... Full Cost.

possession and use by byprod-exempt from the licensing re- Inspections:

uct material issued pursuant to quirements of part 30 of this parts 30 and 33 of this chapter Routine ......................................... Full Cost.

chapter, except specific licenses for research and development Nonrouline ................................... . Full Cost.

authorizing redistribution of that do not authorize commer- B. Licenses specifically authorizing items lhal have been authorized cial distribution: the receipt of waste byproduct for distribution lo persons Application-New license ............... $1,900. material, source material, or spe-exempt from the licensing re- Renewal ............................................ $1,600. cial nuclear material from other quirements of part 30 of this Amendment ...................................... $420. persons tor the purpose of pack-chapter. Inspections: aging or repackaging the materi-Application-New license ............... $1,800. Routine ......................................... $760. al. The licensee will dispose of Renewal............................................ $870. Nonroutine .................................... $950. the material by transfer to an-Amendment. ..................................... $210. M. Other licenses for possession other person authorized to re-Inspections: and use of byproduct material ceive or dispose of the material:

Routine ......................................... $570. issued pursuant to part 30 of Application-New license ............... $2,300.

Nonroutine .. ...... ................... ......... $570. this chapter for research and Renewal.......................... .................. $1,500.

I. Licenses issued pursuant lo sub- development that do not author- Amendment ...................................... $160.

part A of part 32 of this chapter ize commercial distribution: Inspections:

to distribute items containing by- Application-New license ............... $930. Routine ......................................... $1,800.

product material or quantities of Renewal............................................ $930. Nonroutine ................................... . $1,300.

byproduct material lhal do not Amendment ..................................... $520. C. Licenses specifically authorizing require device evaluation lo per- Inspections: the receipt of prepackaged sons exempt from the licensing Routine ... ..................................... $670. waste byproduct material, requirements of part 30 of this Nonroutine... ................................. $760. source material, or special nu-chapter, except tor specific li- N. Licenses that authorize services clear material from other per-censes authorizing redistribution tor other licensees, except (1) sons. The licensee will dispose of items that have been author- licenses that authorize calibra- of the material by transfer to ized tor distribution to persons tion and/ or leak testing services another person authorized to re-exempt from the licensing re- only are subject to the tees ceive or dispose of the material:

quirements of part 30 of this specified in fee Category 3P, Application-New license ............... $1,500.

chapter. and (2) licenses that authorize Renewal ................................ ............ $760.

Application-New license ............... $2,200. waste disposal services are sub- Amendment ...................................... $190.

Renewal...... ...................................... $990. ject to the tees specified in fee Inspections:

Amendment ...................................... $290. Categones 4A, 48, and 4C: Routine ......................................... $1,300.

Application-New license ............... $1,100. Nonroutine .................................... $1,700.

Renewal............................................ $670.

49770 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules Category of materials licenses and Category of materials licenses and Category of materials licenses and Fee* 3 Fee* 3 Fee *'

type of fees 1 type of fees 1 type of fees 1

5. Well logging: Inspections: 3. All other approvals, special Full Cost A. licenses specifically authorizing Routine ............................ $860. reports and reports except use of byproduct material. Nonroutine .................................... $1,200. those specified in 1 and 2 source material, or special mate- 8. Civil defense: above.

rial, and/or special nuclear ma- A. licenses for possession and Inspections .......................................1 None.

terial for well logging, well sur- use of byproduct material, 13. I veys, and tracer studies other 1 source material, or special nu- A. Spent fuel storage cask Certifi- I than field flooding tracer studies: clear material for civil defense cate of Compliance:

Application-New license............... ; $2.800. activities: Application ........................................ [ $150.

Renewal ............................................: $1.700. Application-New license ............... $480. Approvals ......................................... Full Cost Amendment ......................................1 $450. Renewal ............................................ $330. Amendments, revisions and sup- Full Cost Inspections: Amendment...................................... $260. plements. '

Routine ......................................... 1 $670. Inspections: Reapproval ....................................... Full Cost B. i%:~:t:~~. ~~;;;~. *;~. II use of byproduct material for 5610 Routine .........................................

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

9. Device, product or sealed source

$570.

B. Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Com-pliance:

safety evaluation:

~~i1=~~. ~~~~. ~ .~~'.. . . . . .I $150. Routine ............................................. Full Cost A. Safety evaluation of devices or Nonroutine ........................................ Full Cost license, renewal, amendment... .... : Full Cost. products containing byproduct C. Inspections related to storage Inspections: material, source material, or spe- of spent fuel under § 72.210 of cial nuclear material, except re- part 72 of this chapter:

~~:ti;:;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i :~: actor fuel devices, for commer-

6. Nuclear laundries:

A. Licenses for commercial collec-I cial distribution:

Application-each device ............... $2,700.

Routine .. .... ..... ................ ....... ........... Full Cost Nonroutine ........................................ Full Cost

14. Byproduct, source or special nu-tion and laundry of items con- Amendment-each device ............. $950.

clear material licenses and other taminated With byproduct materi- Inspections ....................................... None.

approvals authorizing decommis-al, source material, or special I B. Safety evaluation of devices or sioning, decontamination, reclama-nuclear material: products containing byproduct tion or site restoration activities Application-New license ............... $1,100. ! material, source material, or spe-cial nuclear material manufac-pursuant to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, Renewal. ........................................... $1,100. 70and 72:

tured in accordance with the Amendment...................................... $290. Application ........................................... $150.

unique specifications of, and for Inspections: Approval, Renewal, Amendment....... Full Cost use by a single applicant, except Routine ......................................... S950. Inspection:

reactor fuel devices:

Nonroutine .................................... $1,500. Routine ............................................. Full Cost Application-each device ............... $1,300.

7. Human use of byproduct source, Amendment-each device ............. $480. Nonroutine ........................................ Full Cost or special nuclear material: Inspections ....................................... None.

A. Licenses issued pursuant to C. Safety evaluation of sealed

Types of fees-Separate charges as shown in parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this sources containing byproduct the schedul& will be assessed for applications for chapter for human use of by- new licenses and approvals, issuance of new li-material, source material, or spe- censes and approvals, amendments and renewals to product material, source materi- cial nuclear material, except re-al, or special nuclear material in existing licenses and approvals, and inspecbons.

actor fuel, for commercial distri- The following guidelines apply to these chargeS:

sealed sources contained in tel- bution. (a) Application fees-Applications for new materi-etherapy devices: als licenses and approvals or those applications filed Application-each source .............. S570.

Applicatio~New license............... S2,700 Amendment-each source ............. S190. in support of expired licenses and approvals must be Renewal............................................ $660 Inspections....................................... None. accompanied by the prescribed application fee for Amendment...................................... $350 each category, except that applications for licenses D. Safety evaluation of sealed covering more than one fee category of special Inspections: sources containing byproduct nuclear material or source material must be accom-Routine ......................................... S950. material, source material, or spe- panied by the prescribed application fee for the Nonroutine .................................... $1,500. cial nuclear material, manufac- highest fee category.

B. Licenses of broad scope issued tured in accordance with the (b) License/approval fees-For new licenses and to medical institutions or two or unique specifications of, and for approvals issued in fee Categories 1A. 1B. 2A. 4A.

more physicians pursuam to I use by a single applicant, except 5B. 10A, 11, 12, 13A and 14, the recipient shall pay parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of I reactor fuel: the license or approval fee as determined by the this chapter authorizing research I Commission in accordance with § 170.12(b), (e), and Application-each source .............. $290.

and development, human use of byproduct materi-including I Amendment-each source ............. $100.

(f).

(c) Renewal/reapproval fees- Applications for re-Inspections ....................................... None. newal of materials licenses and approvals must be al, except licenses for byproduct 10. Transportation of radioactive ma- accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each material, source material, or spe- terial: category, except that applications for renewal of cial nuclear material in sealed I A. Evaluation of casks, packages, licenses and approvals in fee Categories 1A, 1B. 2A, sources contained in teletherapy divices:

I and shipping containers:

4A, 5B, 10A, 11 , 12, 13A and 14 must be accompa-nied by an application fee of $150, with the balance Application ........................................ $150. due upon notification by the Commission in accord-Applicatio~New license............... : $1,900. Approval, Renewal, Amendment... Full Cost ance with the procedures specified in § 170.12(d).

1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 ~~* Inspections .......................................

B. Evaluation of part 71 quality assurance programs:

None. (d) Amendment fees-Applications for amend-ments must be accompanied by the prescnbed amendment fee for each license affected. An appli-Routine .........................................1 $1,300. Application-Approval ....................... $190. cation for an amendment to a license or approval Nonroutine ....................................: $1,400. Renewal ............................................ 190. classified in more than one category must be ac-companied by the prescribed amendment fee for the C. Other licenses issued pursuant I Amendment ...................................... 190.

to parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of I Inspections ....................................... None.

category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee catego-this chapter for human use of 11. Review of standardized spent ries in which case the amendment fee for the byproduct material, source mate- I fuel facilities: highest fee category would apply, except that appli-rial, and/or special nuclear ma- I Application ............................ .............. $150. cations for amendment of licenses in fee Categories terial, except licenses for by- ApprO',al, Renewal, Amf'nd1,1ent....... Full Cost 1A, 1B, 2A, 4A, 5B, 10A, 11, 12, 13A and 14 must product material, source materi- be accompanied by an application fee of $150 with lnspE;ctions ........................................... None. the balance due upon notification by the Commis-al, or special nuclear material in 12. Special projects: sion in accordance with§ 170.12(c).

sealed sources contained in tel- Application ........................................... $150. An application for amendment to a materials li-etherapy devices: Approval: cense or approval that would place the license or Applicatio~New license............... S590. 1. Topical reports ............................ $50,000. approval in a higher fee cate~ory or add a new fee Renewal.. .......................................... $860. 2. Amendments, revisions and $50,000. category must be accompanied by the prescnbed Amendment ...................................... $350. supplements to topical reports. application fee for the new category.

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 1989 / Proposed Rules 49771 An application for amendment to a license or DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION specified above will be considered approval that would reduce the scope of a licens-ee's program to a lower fee category must be before taking action on the proposed accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for Federal Aviation Administration rule. The proposals contained in this the lower fee category.

An application to terminate licenses authorizing notice may be changed in light of the small materials programs, when no dismantling or 14 CFR Part 39 comments received. Comments are decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fee. [Docket No. 89-CE-32-AD) specifically invited on the overall (e) Inspection fees-Separate charges will be as- regulatory, economic, environmental.

sessed for each routine and nonroutine InspectIon Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild and energy aspects of the proposed rule.

performed, except that InspectIons resulting rom invest,gat,ons conduc ted by the Office of lnvest1ga- Models SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226- All comments submitted will be tIons and nonrout,ne inspections that result from AT, SA226-TC, SA227-TT, SA227-AT, available, both before and after the third-party allegations will not be sub1ect to fees. If a licensee holds more than one matenals license at a and SA227-AC Airplanes closing date for comments, in the Rules single location, a fee equal to the highest fee cate- Docket for examination by interested gory covered by the licenses will be assessed if the AGENCY: Federal Aviation inspections are conducted at the same time. except persons. A report summarizing each in cases when the inspection fees are based on the Administration (FAA), DOT. FAA-public contact, concerned with the full cost to conduct the inspection. The fees as- ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking substance of this proposal. will be filed sessed at full cost will be determined based on the professional staff lime required to conduct the in-(NPRM). in the Rules Docket.

spection multiplied by the rate established under

§ 170.20 of this part, to which any applicable con-

SUMMARY

This Notice proposes to Availability of NPRMs tractual support service costs incurred will be added. adopt a new Airworthiness Directive Licenses covering more than one category will be Any person may obtain a copy of this charged a fee equal to the highest fee category (AD), applicable to certain Fairchild Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) covered by the license. Inspection fees are due SA226 and SA227 series airplanes, by submitting a request to the FAA, upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(9). See Footnote 5 for other inspection requiring inspection and rework as Central Region, Office of the Assistant le 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 necessary of the main landing gear door to nacelle skin to assure proper clearance. The proposed AD is prompted by several wheels-up landings Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 89-CE-32-AD, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

approvals issued pursuant to a specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under rrtte caused by the main landing gear doors Discussion 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., jamming against the nacelle which

§§30.11, 40. 14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other such The FAA has determined that a safety sections now or hereafter in effect) regardless of prevents extension of the main landing of flight condition exists on Fairchild whether the approval is in the form of a license gear. The proposed actions will correct SA226 and SA227 series airplanes.

amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. In addition to the fee shown, this unsafe condition. Several accidents have occurred in an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for DATES: Comments must be received on sealed source and device evaluations as shown in which the main landing gear would not Categories 9A through 9D. or before January 16, 1990. extend and the airplane was forced to

Full cost fees will be determined based on the ADDRESSES: Fairchild Service Bulletin land "wheel8 up". Five of the accidents professional staff lime and appropnate contractual support services expended. For those applications Nos. SA226-32--055 and SA227-32--027, were attributed to the landing gear currently on file and for which fees are determined both dated December 8, 1988, applicable doors becoming jammed against the based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of to this AD, may be obtained from the nacelle skin thus preventing extension the application up to the effective date of this rule Fairchild Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box of the landing gear.

will be determined at the professional rates estab-lished for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989 790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279--0490. Since the condition described is likely rules, as appropriate. For those applications current- This information also may be examined to exist or develop in other Fairchild ly on file for which review costs have reached an at the Rules Docket at the address applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, SA226 and SA227 series airplanes of the 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the below. Send comments on the proposal same design, the proposed AD would review, the cost incurred after the ceiling was in triplicate to the FAA, Central Region, reached through January 29, 1989 will not be billed require visual inspection and adjustment to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours ex- Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, of the landing gear door to nacelle skin pended since January 29, 1989 and/or on or after Attention: Rules Docket No. 89-CE gap in accordance with Fairchild Service the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the applicable rate established by § 170.20 of this part. AD, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Bulletins 226-32--055 and 227-32--027, as In no event will the total review costs be less than Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments applicable.

the application fee. may be inspected at this location

Licensees paying fees under Categories 1A and The FAA has determined there are 1B are not subject to fees under Categories 1C and between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday approximately 656 airplanes affected by 1D for sealed sources authorized in the same li- through Friday, holidays excepted.

cense except in those instances in which an applica- the proposed AD. The cost of the tion deals only with the sealed sources authorized FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: inspections and adjustments specified in by the license. Applicants for new licenses or renew- James R. Bannister, Airplane the proposed AD is estimated to be $300 al of existing licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed Certification Office, FAA Southwest per airplane. The total cost is estimated sources for use in gauging devices will pay the Region, Fort Worth, Texas 76193--0150; to be $196,800. The cost of compliance appropriate application or renewal fee for fee Cate-gory 1C only. Telephone (817) 624-5163. with the proposed AD is so small that

For a license authorizing shielded radiographic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the expense of compliance will not have installations or manufacturing installations at more than one address, a separate fee will be assessed a significant financial impact on any for inspection of each location, except that if the Comments Invited small entities operating these airplanes.

multiple installations are inspected during a single visit, a single inspection fee will be assessed.

Interested persons are invited to The regulations proposed herein participate in the making of the would not have substantial direct effects Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day proposed rule by submitting such on the States, on the relationship of November 1989. written data, views, or arguments as between the national government and For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

they may desire. Communications the States, or on the distribution of should identify the regulatory docket or power and responsibilities among the Samuel J. Chilk, notice number and be submitted in various levels of government. Therefore, Secretary of the Commission. triplicate to the address specified above. in accordance with Executive Order

[FR Doc. 89-28157 Filed 11-30-89; 8:45 am] All communications received on or 12612, it is determined that this proposal BIWNG CODE 7590-01-M before the closing date for comments would not have sufficient federalism

' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE ft FEES PAID USNRC PERMIT No. G-457 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 AMERICAN AIRLINES, 1NC.

ATTN: ~GR NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST. aD23 .

3800 N. HINGO P.O. BOX 582809 TULSA, OK 741582809 ATTN: BURL W. NETHERCUTT

OUtKIT NUMBER PR 1--1 /1\

PROPOSED RULE - - *:.u.t OOUU. irn (5k/ Ff2. '-/1163) USNHC COMBUSTION~ ENGINEERING January 25, 1990 LD-90-007 "SO FEB -5 P3 :32 uFF!C~ OF SE. CR 1AR'f DOCK[ TING & SEi< VICL BRANC!-i Mr. Samuel J. Chilk The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555

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.

Very truly yours, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

~A/

A. . Scherer Director Nuclear Licensing AES:jeb IAR S 199(1

~now~ b1 Clfd*...::.: sale a : a ~

Power Systems 1000 Prospect Hill Road (203) 688-1911 Combustion Engineering, Inc. Post Office Box 500 Telex: 99297 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500

- ... ..,, . .._ ,JI -'

V. FI~( ~) f- 1-~-1 ~ ~~(S: E'L~RY OF TH f CO~/ .. '-.m : ION Do..:, 7 - ~ l"" :..i:,.:.!; cs Postmrk Da:e / /'kf I°/ c}_ _

J Add' ! c,,

Spec1ill D1 *rib,1r i ;;r, Ha!J-t1-~

1tI1>3,;~iw;

State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama "W FEB -2 P Claude Earl Fox, M.D., M.P.H.

OF F!CE: OF SECRE:_'V_&f:HNG ADDRESS State Health Officer January 30, 1990 DOCKE11NG & Sr-ilo/l ~ontoe Street BRANCH M ontgomery, Alabama 36130-1701 Secretary 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 will be assessed for inspections of persons conducting operations pursuant to the authority granted in 10CFR31. 5, 10CFR40.25, or 10CFR150.20 if such persons are not subject to another inspection fee for the location being inspected."

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.

Sincerely,

~ A/4 //.

~br~; J. Godwin , re ctor Division of Radiation Control Bureau of Environmental & Health Service Standards AVG:psc IAR 5 1990

"<=knowfedged ~ ellld*.;;~;;;;:;:;

- r;i;;.i.r.;saiiQI*-

l

-~ .,, .

oc.***:,c~*- ) 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 H EA DQ UARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD . "S'() fEB -2 Pl2 :25 WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 OFFIC~ Of SECH!:. TARY (ZI !I) U0-6000 DOCKE f I G & Sf iiVICf 8RANCl-i J a nua r y 29, 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Branch Was hington , DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Comments Concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rul e 1 0 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 bycmf** ..._.....,.._ _

7990

.S. NUCLEAR REGULAIUKY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFIC E OF TH E SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Dc>c111ren l S*c , 1 1cs

DOCKET NUMBER p 1 ()' '1 @)

1<0POSED RULE - -- -

DUKEPOWERGOMPANY COLKET EC

-(_5Lj FYl 4 Cf76)

P.O. BOX 33189 OHARLOTl'E, N.O. 28242 U5NRC HAL B. TUGKER TELEPHONE VJCJ:E PRESIDENT (704) 373-4M1 Ktl'OLE.A.Jl PODUOTION

-W FEB -2 A11 :41 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 Ru l 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

.:J?OSED RULE PR *~~--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 do Carolina Power & light Companv

411 F

tta~teep ~ ~figh, NC 27602 BWROG-9007 QFf"IC[ OF s c~n J anuary 26, 1990 uOClff TING & s1il BRANCI-( VtC[

A~ Y Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION TO FEE SCHEDULE The BWR -Owner s' 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 i vities 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 ce il ing on the cost of the NRC

~evi ew 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

=

,\,

--, Fv* I Hlf ~ .. ,do::

- - ob/ k.::C/ J 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 Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 Calvert Cliffs I, 2 St. Lucie I, 2 Maine Yankee FtlJ8Ntte Arkansas Power & Light Co. 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 p4 :09 c/o Arizona Public Service/ 11226 N. 23rd Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85029/Station 7034 OOCK£T NUMBER PR 11. .U

1 OFF!~f: Of SECRETARY OOCKfTING & Sti(Vff:f'

wpoSED RULE - - . - i'1 January 26, 1990 BRANCH .

. ('i~/ Ffl ~CJ7t?y CEOG-90-071 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

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.

Very truly yours, d"W'- >?-e+ {,,<

Edward C. Sterling Chairman, C-E Owners Group ECS/cmd 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"n l Sta: is t ics

µ ~,

r""KET !JUMBER I ,tD RULE PR-- J+O-.;,r~""" \

r

) I

/1l!lfWl~r.liM CO CKE1EO t41WYJTitJa.t#;1fJ1U'f/JI/III USNHC

( c; j FR L-/ q7 t3)

90 FEB -1 P2 :lQ vFF!C~ OF SECRf,1ARV DOCKE TING ,~. SEt?V![ L BRANCl-i January 29, 1990 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 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.

1990 a

6671 Southwest Freeway, Suite 410 , Houston, Texas 77074 (713) 779-1971 , FAX (713) 778-0346

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 DJ~nc.l 1~u1vldbR PROPOSED RULE PR J7 {) @)

NORTHEAST UTILITIES General Offices* Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut

~OCKL1ED

(([!] prz ?-/.1163~

THE CONNECTIQJT LIGHT AHO POWER CDl,/IIPAHV WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY HOt.YOKE WATER POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY NORTHEAST NUClEAR ENERGY COMPANY (5° L-; P.O. BOX 270 USNHC HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 J ~ I\ 3 )

90 .J'.af "jf A9:37 January 30, 1990 OFF!C~ UF SECR[TARY GOCKE flNG ~ sn1v1cr BRANCl-i Docket No. 50-213 50-245 50 -336 50 -423 B13431 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

_MAR 5 1990 0S3422 REV. 4-88 ~*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 1ittle 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

. ,Vi 0-,ED RULE - -

PR L. -~

(S'--J FTZ '--f°l16!J) ~ rn GULF STATES UTILITIES COw.lPANY RIVER BEND STATION POST OFFIC~ BOX 220 ST FRANCISVILLE, LOUISIANA 7077 5 '90 JAN 31 A8 :17 AREA CODE 504 635-6094 346-8651 OFFICE OF SECRETA Y DOCKETING & Sff<VICf BRANCJ-i January 25, 1990 RBG- 32185 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 i

I 11

.Q.J.. NUCLE AR REGUIA TORY COMMI SSIOt-i DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION QH l,- c G F T: iE SECRET ARY c~ T!! : COMMISSION

(' _.

I :, 1 i S I CS

DOCKET NUMBER PR )7 l'l PROPOSED RULE -- - u

( SL-/ FR '-/ f 76 3)----

-§§- TRANSNUCLEAR, INC.

Jan u Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Revisions to 10CFR Part 170 (54FR 49763)

Gentlemen:

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 19 88 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.

Very truly yours,

~~~

Bill R. Teer Senior Vice President BRT:nb 1941N

1776 Eye Street. N.W

Suite 300

Washington.DC 20006-2496

[2021 812-1280 '90 JAN 30 P3 :25 Joe F. Colvln Executive Vice President &

Chief Operating Officer January 30 ,0 ~ 9P Of SEC~EiAkY DJ Kt Tl G & St. t vier rlR<\NC~i Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 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:

Th ese 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 SE CT ION O FFIC E 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

\;JeF. Colvin JFC/RNW:plg

nocKEr NUMBffi PR * *o--~~

'iSED RULE .. , .- t )

CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC. . L) '-/ F fl 1-f q 16 3./

220 Sto neridge Drive

Col umbia, So uth Carolina 29210 January 30, 1990 RA-0083-90 3

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:

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 financia ll y 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 January 30, 1990 page 2 of 2 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.

Sincerely, CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

~ r~~H.P.

Executive Director Regulatory Affairs MTR/HBH/rhs 2060Q

CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

220 Stoneridge Drive

Columbia, South Carolina 29210 October 9, 1989 RA-0533-9 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:

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 fir st 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 th e 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 th e NRC i s not current. CNS! has been billed through December 1988 for more than $51,000.00. NRC has not been able to provid e current billing beyond December. 1988 or esti mate s of potential future charges associated with waste form topical report reviews. The NRC must formalize the technical requirement s for waste form stabi l ity 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 repetitiv e reviews by regulatory agencies. Unlimited review fees may discourage the completion of waste form topical report reviews.

With a documented an d finalized set of waste form requirements, the NRC should be able to evaluate a vendor's wast e 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 a1 Reports and its GNSI Castor Cask Topical Safety Analysis Report be limited to the fee schedule values under which they were submitted.

Sincerely, CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

Ml~~'f Executive Director

?tt.P.

Regulatory Affairs MTR/WBH/nhs c: H. L. Thompson, Jr., Director NMSS D. W. Moeller, Ph.D., ACNH

OOCKIT NUMBER I " ~ *' JSED RULE PR J.1_~

lJOU'iETEO ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION { s 'i F fl t..f 9 7 6 J) USNRC RE<;J,!k,4 TORY COMPLIANCE 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD, PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878 ~ JAN 30 All :31 January 17, 1990 CWM:90:015 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Secretary of the Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES:

RADIOISOTOPE LICENSES AND TOPICAL REPORTS Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) has reviewed the proposed r ule 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 i ntere st 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 exces s of

$5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer. ANF endorses the reimposition of a fee ceiling and the use of electronic fund t r ansfers for payment of fe es .

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 numbe r 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 fe e 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 f uel 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.

IAR 5 1990 A Siemens Company Ac<<nowled&ad bJ Glllf*...;.;;;;_;;,

1;;s1.;;i***

a S 5J a:

Docketing and Service Branch CWM:90:015 January 17, 1990 Page 2 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.

Very truly yours,

~/JI~

C. W. Malody, Manager Regulatory Commission jrs

DOCKET NUMBER

..~O?OSED RULE PR / 1 - i-_ * ~

Omaha Public Power District "90 JAN 29 P2 :45 1623 Harn ey Omaha , Nebraska 68102 -2247 402/ 536-4000 on IC£ OF SECRETAKY l~ L/ Ffl '-/1163) i)QCK[T ING & SE11vIcr BRANCli January 24, 1990 LIC 0053 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555

References:

1. Docket No. 50 -285

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>'li.lD1l"A DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT IOl'f OFFICE OF THE SF.CRETARY Of THE COMMISSJOM,

- 11 DOCKET NUMBER PR ~)7_ 0. *:'

PROPOSED RULE GE Nuclear Energy

( 5 ~; f fL ~q 7 6 3 Do * *rm Nuclear Fuel & Components Manufactunng USNRC General Electric Company PO. Box 780, Wilmington, NC 28402 919 675-5000 "90 JAN 29 p2 :42 OFF!Cf: OF SECRETARY DOCK[ i ING & su1v1cr BRANCl-i .

January 22, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing Service Branch

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 Doc urn er.t Statistics Postmcrk Date j fJ..:_'3/ /_CJ _ ___

.Copies r{ec e , ved I

Add' I Copi*~s Rcpro~..,~ ed ~ ,,,--

iSpecial D1 s1ribution ..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

0OCKEr NUMBER f', ~ ~le~gJt@~ C .~

_ )1 0 1~ ~:-,\~.

\

@ 2 l 5 F fl 4 of1&])

DERSE & SCHROEDER ASSOCIATES, fu1~l--(J 1 PHILI P H. DERSE DEVELOPMENTA L SCIENCE [; U~NtRI{ 1202 ANN STR EET COLLI N H. SC HROE DER MADI SON, WISCONS IN 537 13 (608) 25 1-3005

'90 JAN 25 P4 :36 OH!CE OF SECRETARY OOCKE11NG & SEiNICL BRANCH January 22, 1990 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn : Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 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 po ss ession limit by a few millicurie s. 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_~ ---1 a 1 -L r-------

'"° - ,,--

'1-- -*

SOUTH ~~ M) HOSPITAL SYSTEM OCKET NU BE / ?O USNRC IRVING AVENUE BRIDGETON, NEW JERSEY 08302 PO O UL -- ~ JAN 23 p 4 :03 (609) 451-6600

{5t/Ff l/q?t3)

Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 18, 1990 Of F!C£ OF SE.Cf£f)~&i:

DOCK£1 IHG .:, .t 0Ri\NC'1 Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

- 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 License amendment Routine inspection Non-routine inspection

$580

$120

$480

$690

$860

$350

$860

$1200 In view of the stated new cost per professional staff-hour of $95, the proposed 48%

192%

79%

74%

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 TELEPHONE AC 501 661-2000

'SO JAN 23 P3 :26 M. JOYCELYN ELDERS, M.D.

BILL CLINTON DIRECTOR GOVERNOR Of FtCE OF SECRETARY OOCKET NUMBER PR C) DOCKfTING & SEiNICf.

BRANCH PROPOSED RULE - __

(~VF~ qqlJ63)

January 16, 1990 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.c. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service 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.

. cerel y, G

w.o.~

~ 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 -. '"":.~

~ .. -

_op.._

,ir.d:!' ( ... r~

)1 ~

i i , [w -* . PP f 1 P...1[)f _.__,,,

--~r. } 1, lhr:6:.)~

. 't'">>-

..,..,,., ~

_, **. .1.-:::

1111111D I .-----..-....

STATE"OF TERRYE. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR DE~A~ENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH MARY L. ELLIS, DIRECTOR "90 JAN 17 All :Jo January 11, 1990 OF!C£ Of SECRETARY DOCKETING & srnv1cr

!3HANCH Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 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, C""ll.r.rrence :

&4'uttlU Bruce W. Hakel, Supervisor orf:;:;ff~Zf!t/:; chief Radioactive Materials Program Bureau of Radiological Health 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 *~ ': **~'.!SSION i' , tir:s Postmark D*,, /- J?.-,-<JfJ _

) - -

Copies R, Add ' I C* * . ) ___ -

Special D,,111~:;, ;;1 Di>'}-_ l})J-5 _

-Ji ,_{)~11-~b.,, -

QiCKU NUMBER L

~~-t PR /.?. Q 1\ \.,.:,,..,,/

or Nlfc<,t.~

~ ~Jl~~

' J

--~~

'"i>'\,.

?;

l'I 0J DOCKETED

~ROPOSED RULE --~ USNRC

( £ 3/ t t Lj qf) 63) STATE OF ILLIN0IS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY *so JAN 17 Pf 2 :20 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704 gFFtC_;_OF SECRETARY (217) 785-9900 uOCKt !I NG l. S[iiVJCr BRANCH .

TERRY R. LASH DIRECTOR January 10, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service 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 23 *1 ., j,

.5. NUCUM RfCULATORY COIM IS'.;I~

oocKcr1NG & SE~v1rE s~~TiO I ,.

Postmar'( r,, 1- Io *,rt( /_~!, I , l,JJ ,{ r /.tt I-Jo,~~

Copies !: I Add '! c

~pecial D, ,: 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 au t 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

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE (S f R 1/

TERRYE. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR DEPlUiffffflENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH January 9, 1990 MARY L. ELLIS, DIRECTOR

'st) JAN 16 P4:06 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission urF!CE: OF SECRETARY Washington, D.C . 20555 DOCK[ I ING SlilYfCf BRA NCH Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Secretary:

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) on e 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 portabl e 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, Concurrence:

Bruce w. Hokel, supervisor Donald A. Flater, Chief Radioactive Materials Program Bureau of Radiological Health 515/ 281 - 7007 515/281-3478 BWH/mrh cc: B. J. Holt

t_;.--* - -* __ ____ :--J_AN 2 3 1990 .... ,;..

"e111nowfea,.,ed "'

*- *~ **------*...-.-...

b*-y caru. *- .,.*-v.,Wol,i;.,

State Agreements Officer Region III U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 LUCAS STATE OFFICE BUILDING / DES MOINES, IOWA 50319-0075 / 515-281-5787 FAX# (515) 281-4958 / TDD# (515) 262-6 156

11. s. t--! 1_1t:Lt.P.:l ~:.:r**** .\-;~ ~-., cc, ,~ Nds:ic\~,

D00:~T:~.;G [; ::::, *,:~ ~~*:TICM or 1* 'E

,:s Postmcrk c, le Cop1 .as .. ~~c . :i AdJ' I C.:;.:.s R Specl I C,str '.ut. on

,.,,;*'ti WILLIAM F. KIRK DOCKET NUMBER PR 71)_ '" ~...~ ~-u.~OA/

PROPOSED RULE £ - -~

'-11 7 3 1 29 CHERRY HILL ROAD C~9 ((<. ORANGE. CONN. 06411 "90 JAN 16 P4 :25 January 9, 1990 OFFICE OF SECRETARY secretary DOCKETING & SEH VIC[

u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8RAN0i Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and service Branch Subj ect: 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 b e 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 0.578 hours 0.00344 weeks 7.9144e-4 months available ( 52 weeks x 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months ). I hope that government employees work a 40 hour4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months 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 OF Tl CtM' I';. 1'.)N rs PojlmJrk :"

Ccp Ad.fl Sp ci I ;:

29 December 1989 DOCKET NUMB_ER p /; 0 RR/13 Box 498 Middle Road

~Q C,KETED Swanton, VT 05488 PR0?03c~~ ~ R 1/ '1163) USNHC Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 "9Q JAN -9 P1 :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 organiza tions 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.: * * ' (S Poom.,,k t*. 1° Copb, ft**

AdJ' I C ,~ "' 1*

boclil D1*, r,~ ,, 1.m

DOCKET NUMBER p O?OSED P.IJLE PR- -/-'}_ 0.

~**

( 5 ~ (R_ 4

'90 JAN '8 '4 :11 ILER INSTRUMENT & MANUFACTURING CO., INC .

OFFJCE: _OF SECRETARY Kirkh am Ave.

St. Louis, MMQ~~h \fa_~U§-'.d.Cf: * (314) 968-2282 FAX 314-968-2637

TWX 910-760-1 658

1-800-654-6894 Se.:ruing (Ou'l. Cu1-fomt:u Sinc.E 1945 January 2, 1990 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

t

~- -iUC!Jt*.~ ~~GtJlATOll'( COMMISSI OOCKHING & SERVICE SCCT ION OIJl(f. Of 11-1: ~[CRETARY O:- . ,. H?: CC, , ,..! :.;~ ~ ~

1 1

} ,- J -Cf iJ Copii,s "

AJJ' I : 1 f->>Yl R. JUS JrJ)lrrvoy _

copy to secy-Original sent to the . .

omce of the feoeral RegtS~ cKlf NVM /3 fR rR 1r; D -~

1or pub\icauon PHOP05E. RULE q?(; dw. . [7590-01]

.j Lf {'fl/ 3 '" 'K*-*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI USN~tt~ -n 10 CFR Part 170

'90 JAN -3 P2 :57 RIN: 3150 AD23 Revision of Fee Schedules: Radioisotope Lir2uuCITTTt1 f_e".~G~ ~NFa~~ ffin~ic~al Reports u & .)tt1VI T BRANCl-i AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY

On December 1, 1989 (54 FR 49 763), the NRC published for public comment a propos ed rule to amend the f ee schedule i n 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'

.... ' f-

/v J)

I 3

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 i scons i n NUCLEAR REACTOR LABORATORY AO DRESS:

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 130 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BUILDIN G PHONE 202-3392, AREA CODE eoa MADISON , w1,s@(9/,\,tf1rfta 1os USNRC oocKET NUMBER PR / r;o ,~f: '90 JAN -2 P2 :48 PROPOSED RULE --

( r;y f !. l/9?63) December 19, 19 89 0FF!C_;_OF SECiiETARY OOCKL I ING & SfflVfCf BRANCH .

Secretary U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATT : Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 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 interpret a tion of the proposed change is that sponsored research at a university research reactor would result in a loss of exemption from licen s ing fees . Further , it also appears possible to interpret that any radiation treatment fees at a research

.~eactor would result in loss of exemption .

Very truly yours ,

$~ Reactor Director RJC : cke JI\~ 2 3 1990 J;c1mowledged by*c~;d~TT-* *-;;*.;.;--:. . .iWllw

.-~

.. ~::J,:,) ) ,P.P;i.

~-'II s;;!-dQ_?.

'i-'eW.fO.d r , *~

-~

.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 DOCKEiEC Division of Health USNRC (913) 296-1343 Stanley C. Grant, Ph.D., Secretary Landon State Office Bldg., Topeka, KS 66612-1290 FAX (913) 296-6231 1

89 DEC 29 ffl I -22 December 26, 1989 poci~ET NUMBcH R /?O or: c1c~ Of St.CRfTARY OUCKETiNG lx SEi 1VIC[

PROPOSED Rn\, ff l/ ? b3) BRANCH Secretary 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, O.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

- Gentlemen:

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) Salary plus fringes of the staff working on the project.

b) Hours spent on the project.

c) Cost of materials and services acquired for the project.

d) Overhead 10%

e) First quarter cost not to be less than $150.00

' ,., .. ,,~,f ,.;

Charles Konigsberg, Jr. , M.D., M.P.H., James Power, P.E. , Lorne Phillips, Ph .D., Roger Carlson , Ph.D.,

Director of Health Director of Environment Director of Information Director of the Kansas Health (9 13) 296-1343 (913) 296-1535 Systems and Environmental Laboratory (913) 296-1415 (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. A11 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 The Allentown Hospital- +.JI* * '-

[jLL, Lehigh Valley I December 18, 1989 Hospital Center 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 .

l )--Jtt-i1 Copie5 r:

Add' I C.-j: ' 3) 7 l* . 11 ,f, .*, . '

,pec1a' ,.,.,_*.-.. - . ., , f.P , JD5

_,- _ _ _ _l_i*~lb~""'-13/...__. .7

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules.

KMB : lab

1

-:-:-,N-:-::-s-=-=

A\ M PE=c=T1-:::-:0N:-:--&=TE=-

l-c.,. .,.H,. . ,. .,N,-=--cA~L~s~ER

~ :,,... .(]) '

~ v- ,c-E-s.-,N___;_c.

1 "A SOUND PATH TO QUALIT~" OEC 20 p 3 :34 P.O. Box 80570

Canton, Ohio 4Woa (216) 453-1313 FAX: (216) 45~-15.09 December 15, 1989 *J t" r .

CKi:. 11 J""

l i, Al;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, rnc.

~ 'Mf Hopk ~ , P.E.

Corporate Radiation Safety Officer U.S. N.R.C. License No. 34-25898-01 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 DJ'C )J-- / S~f J_

Copies R ~

'))

Add'I Cc~*

Speci I Dulr,bution

p.J) (l loll~ '----

[7590-0~}-

DOCKET NUMBER PR ' ? D PROPOSED RULE - - --- *ag NOV 28 P3 :l 9

( 5 4 f ~ 4q'){~) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION uP 10 CFR Part 170 DOC. l

' * *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 pµj,},siti 'f'"f~e F() J c- r'4 I i. :JI$ f er o" Q

1 I 'J- ,~q-

.£, S[ f.. .' CC o=i=*c~ 0r ~ ~ : SE CR ETARY 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 *,

-w,~1

/J..v £ (JlJ

,P.

, . . 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 means any corrmercial group, association, 11 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 FTEs 1 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 $196.40 Administrative support 87.95 Travel 12.31 Total nonprogram support obligations $296.66 Program support 178.34 Total budget $475 .o 9

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 0.207 hours 0.00123 weeks 2.83092e-4 months ) 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 1 s 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 Indian organization" and "Indian tribe" to read as follows:

11

§ 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 fees 1 Fee 2*3

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:

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 ********************* $ 420 I

Renewal ..*.****....*******.*..******.*.******* $ 420 Ame nclm.e nt .................................... . $ 310 Inspections:

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

~ $ 380 Nonroutine ************.*****.*********.** $1,100 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

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 *********************************** $ 150 License, Renewal, Amendment ******************* Full Cost Inspections:

Routine ********************************** Full Cost Nonroutine ............................... Full Cost B. Licenses for possession and use of source material for shielding, except as_provided for in§ 170.ll(a)(B):

Application - New license ********************* $ 100 Renewal *************************************** $ 100 AmendJne, nt ............................*........ . $ 100 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 240 Nonroutine ******************************* $ 290 C. All other source material licenses:

Application - New license ********************* $ 660 Renewa 1 *************************************** $ 630 Aolendment ************************************* $ 370 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 670 Nonroutine ******************************* $1,200 28

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 ********************* $1,900 Renewa 1 *************************************** $1,100 Amendment *..*****,*.*...***.****..******...**** $ 190 Inspections: 5 Routine ********************************** $1,709 Nonroutine **** ~ ************************** $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 containing byproduct material for conmercial distribution.

Application - New license ********************* $1,100 ,

Renewa 1 **************************************** $1,900 Alnendment ***********************************.* $ 460 Inspections: 5 Routine ********************************** $ 860 Nonroutine ******************..*******..** $1,600 29

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 ********************* $2,800 Renewa 1 *************************************** $1,200 Alnendrnent ************ .,. **************.***.***** $ 380 Inspections:

Routine ** ~ ******************************* $1,100 Monroutine ******************************. $1,500 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

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 ********************* $ 410 Renewal ********************.****************** $ 390 Amendment ************************************* $ 210 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 380 Nonroutine ******************************* $ 570 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

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 materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes:

Application' - New license ********************* $3,800 Renewa 1 *************************************** $1,500 Amend01ent ***.****.*****.***********.*****..*** $ 380 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 860 Nonroutine ******************************* $1,100 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

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 ********************* $1,800 Renewa 1 *************************************** $ 870 Amendtnent ************************************* $ 210 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 570 Nonroutine ******************************* $ 570 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

Application - New license ********************* $2,200 Renewal *************************************** $ 990 Amendment ************************************* $ 290 Inspections:

Routine ********************************** $ 380

\

Nonroutine ******************************* $ 570 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 ********************* $2,100 Renewa 1 *************************************** $ 480 Amenchnent ************************************* $ 320 Inspections:

Routine ********************************** $ 570 Nonroutine ~ ****************************** $ 570 34

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 ********************* $1,500

. Renewa 1 *************************************** $ 770 Amendment ************************************* $ 240 Inspections:

Routine $ 570 Nonroutine ******************************* $ 570 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 ********************* $1,900 Renewa 1 *************************************** $1,600 Amendment .*********.******..******..********** $ 420 35

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 authorize commercial distribution:

Application - New license ********************* $ 930 Renewal *************************************** $ 930 Amendment ************************************* $ 520 Inspections:

Routine ********************************** $ 670 Nonroutine *********************.********* $ 760 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 ********************* $1,100 Renewal *************************************** $ 670 36

ARll!ndnlent *************.************.*********. $ 330 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 570 Nonroutine ******************************* $ 570

0. Licenses for possession and use*of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations:

Application - New license ********************* $2,500 Renewal .******.****.****..*******..****.**.... $1,500 Aulendment *******.*..**********.*************** $ 400 lnspections: 5 Routine ********************************** $ 950 Non routine .......*........*.............* $2,100 P. All other specific byproduct material. licenses, except those in Categories 4A through 90:

Application - New license ********************* $ 420 Renewal ******************** ~ ****************.* $ 420 Amendment ************************************* $ 310 Inspections:

Routine .................................. S 950 Nonroutine ******************************* $ 950 37

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 ********************* $2,300 Renewa 1 *************************************** $1,500 Alllendment ************************************* $ 160 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $1,800 Nonroutine ****************************.** $1,300 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 ..................... $1,500 I

Renewa 1 *************************************** $ 760 Anlendment **********************.************** $ 190 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $1,300 Nonroutine ******************************* $1,700 39

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 ********************* $2,800 Renewa 1 *************************************** $1,700 Amendment **** : ******************************** $ 450 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 670 Nonroutine ******************************* $ 670 B. Licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies:

Application ................................... $ 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 ********************* $1,100 Renewa 1 *************************************** $1,100 Am-endment ************************************* $ 290 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 950 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 byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear I

material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:

Application - New license ********************* $2,700 Renewa 1 *************************************** $ 660 Amendment *,************************************ $ 350 41

Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 950 Nonroutine **.********.*********.*.****..* $1,500 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 ********************* $1,900 Renewal *************************************** $1,600 Amendment *.*********.*..**********.*****.***** $ 300 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $1,300 Nonroutine ******************************* $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 spectal nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, 42

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

Application - New license ********************* $ 590 Renewa 1 *************************************** $ 860 Amendment ************************************* $ 350 Inspections:

Routine .................................. $ 860 Nonroutine ***********.*.**********.**.*** $1,200

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 ********************* $ 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, 43

or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for corrmercial distribution:

Application - each device ****.*********.****** $2,700 Amendment - each device *********************** $ 950 Inspections ................................... None B. Safety evaluation of devices or products

e 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 ********************* $1,300 Amendment - each device *********************** $ 480 Inspections *********************************** None C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for conunercial distribution.

Application - each source ********************* $ 570 Amendment - each source *********************** $ 190 Inspections ******..*********************.**** ~ None 44

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 ********************* $ 290 Amendment - each source *********************** $ 100 Inspections *********************************** None

10. Transportation of radioactive material:

A. Evaluation of casks, pac~ages, 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:

45

Application ................................... $ 150 Approval, Renewal, Amendment ****************** Full Cost Inspections................................... None

12. Special projects:

Application ................................... $ 150 Approval:

1. Topical reports *************************** $50,000

2. Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports *********************** $50,000

3. All other approvals, special reports and reports except those specified in 1 and 2 above .................................. Full Cost Inspections ................................... None

13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:

Application ................................... $ 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 .................................... Full Cost

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 *******.*************************** $ 150 Approval, Renewal, Amendment .................. Full Cost Inspection:

Routine .................................. 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 40.14 70.14, 73.5 and any other such sections now or hereafter 1 1 1 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

ML23156A422

Text

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

Dear Sir:

Dear Sir:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Subject:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Subject:

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Dear Sirs:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Dear Mr. Holloway:

Dear Sir:

References:

SUBJECT:

Reference:

Subject:

Dear Sir:

Dear Sir :

Dear Sirs:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Dear Sirs,

Dear Mr. Hiller,

SUMMARY

Dear Sir :

Dear Secretary:

Subject:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search