ML23151A479: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE:        08/04/1970 TITLE:      PR-030,040,070 & 170 - 35FR12412 - REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND, OPERATING LICENSES CASE
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
 
==REFERENCE:==
PR-030,040,070 & 170
                        *,35FR12412 KEYWORD:          RULEMAKING*COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
 
3401 West Broadway , Hawthorne .California 90250 NORTHROP CORPORATE LABORATORIES                                                            Telephone (213) 675-4611
                                                  *OCHTU O&AEG 11 November 197 0 0V161970 Office of the Secretary Pub;!~ Pro~21dlngs
                                                      ~f"SiiC~
Secretary of the Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:        Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Reference:==
(a) AEC Proposed Revised License Fee Schedule, 10CFR170.21, datedAugust4, 1970 Gentlemen:
In regard to reference (a), it is requested that an interpretation be made pertinent to the licensing fees for TRIGA Mark F Reactor Facilities.
The Northrop Corporation operates a TRIGA Mark F Reactor Facility authorized by AEC License R-90. Section 3A of this license designates the Northrop Reactor as a utilization facility pursuant to subsection 104C of the Atomic Energy Act and Title 10, CFR, Chapter 1, Part 50.
Title 10, CFR, Part 170. 3(h) defines a 11 Research Reactor 11 as a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission under the authority of subsection 104C of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of 1 OCFR50. 21 (c) for operation at a thermal power level of 10 megawatts or less. Part 107. 3(m)(l) under the authority of subsection 104C of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of 10CFR50. 2l(c) for operation at a thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts.
Since the Northrop Reactor is licensed, in addition to the one megawatt steady state limitation, to operate in a pulse mode up to approximately 1800 megawatts of thermal power per pulse, the question arises as to the affect of the pulsing potential as related to the above definitions and the current status of the Northrop Reactor as a research reactor or a testing facility.
 
NORTHROP CORPORATE LABORATORIES                                11 November 197 0 Page Two Secretary of the Commission/ AEC Chief, Public Proceedings Branch All correspondence should be directed to the undersigned at the following address:
Northrop Corporate Laboratories 3401 West Broadway Hawthorne, California 90250 Very truly yours, W. E. Crandall, Chairman Corporate Radiation Committee WEC:RDT:ms
 
nc t,,t , :.U
        \l&A'E.C CT261970 Oftlco of tile sccrctal'J              7760        'Wf;ST DfVON AVf;NUf;
    ~ub\lc \'roceed\ngs sranc\1 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS fJ6ffit 606J/
Phone: 3 12 - 774-09 19 Telex - '25-4'290 October 22, 1970                                                                              REF: Pl070-101 Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:                  Chief Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
I have been advised that all holders of A. E. C. licenses may be required to pay a $40.00 original license fee, plus an additional $40.00 per year to maintain the license.
I feel this will discriminate against the manufacturers and users of this type of industrial instrumentation. The requirement that a prospective customer will have to fill out forms, maintain a license and have inspections occasionally is discouraging to a customer and we will find it difficult to convince him to apply a nuclear gage on his particular project rather than another type that does not require fees, etc.
It is our feeling that A. E. C. regulations were originated for the health and safety of the public rather than the benefit of the individual user. Since the objective is to benefit the general public, it does not seem the individual user should be charged for the cost of this protection.
Certain large companies with large numbers of gages might look upon the charge as minimal, there are other occasions when small level gages, which are worth only a few hundred dollars, could not be sold because of the fee. If this were the case, technology and automation would suffer as a result.
I oppose the recommendation that the proposed fees be adopted and request the present method of operation continue.
Very truly yours, MEMECO., INC.
;f_-g_~ ~
R. E. Kittoe V -
REK :ps                      Acknow      --,..,~ , .:-1
                                  ;_ __ 1."-\1,j._ ..
r *.,.,. ,.~  \o 1~eo11<D,elt,b_
                                                                                    --..i----
                                                      .-.a
                                                              ~,; ~ ,...~  ---~---
 
State of New York AT m1c fNfRGY COUNCIL I'
,                                        Department of Commerce DOCKETED                                112 State Street tlSAEC                              Albany, N. Y. 12207 0CT261970*
    ~  ~    *l!!ili!ll!I October 22, 1970 Mr. Woodford B. McCool Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. McCool:==
 
The members of the New York State Atomic Energy Council have reviewed the Commission's proposed amendments to Part 170 and related proposed amendments to Parts 30, 40, 50 and 70 (35 FR 12412-12414), modifying fees for materials and facilities licenses.
On August 28, 1970, the Committee on Licensing of the Council commented on the proposed amendments and indicated that i t was t heir understanding that the adoption of the modified fee schedule for materials licenses would not raise a question of compatibility between the Commission's regulations and those of the Agreement States. In further discussions with staff of the Commission during the recent Agreement State's meeting, this understanding was reconfirmed.
However, the Council has expressed concern over the proposed increase in fees for power reactors. The proposed increase may have a serious effect on a utility planning t o add gene ri ting capacity. The utility may, in fact, turn to less desirable means to ***meet its project electrical load.
Currently, a 3,000 mwt power reactor is assessed an application fee for a construction permit, a construction permit fee and an operating license fee. The to t~ l cost for these items is approximately $40,000. Under the new fee schedule, the total for these ' fees would be of the order of $380,000.
            ~            ,, ~  ..
kC~ Rili1a~--~..; ,.
_-__..      -- ----*~ -
 
I Mr. Woodford B. McCool          October 22, 1970 The Council urges the Commission to reconsider the proposed increase in view of the possible impact on a state such as New York that has three nuclear power plants in operation, three under construction and three planned, and whose major utilities are heavily committed to nuclear power.
We appreciate the opportunity you have provided us in the State of New York to comment upon these pro-posed changes.
William Staff Coo cc:  Members of the Atomic Energy Council Agreement States
 
Cl' ET NUMBER
* OPOSED .RULE      PR-3D,q0,7D,l?O C. M. Reyle & Co.                                            'r~
- -- ---------Automation for Process and Production------------
P. . BOX 17711 sos      POPLAR AVE. - SUITE 433 MEMPHIS, TENN ES SEE 3B117 TEL .: 9  1-6B2-00S7 October 15, 1970 Secretary US Atomic Energy Commission                        DOCl(ETED Washington, DC 20545                                      t!&AEC Attn,  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch        0CT2 31970 Office of the Secretary Rea. Proposed AEC License Fee                Pub!/!; ~~h]&s lltt!sCb Gentlemen, As you are aware, these are days of increased competition from abroad as well as within *** increased equipment and labor costs *
* decreased profits **
* discouraging returns on investments .
Industry must, therefore , seek improved methods to overcome these obstacles, as well as search for other innovations.
Nuclear instrumentation systems have been providing industry an up-to-date means to increase their productivity , aad, yet, decrease their production costs .
Latest Pollution Control and Sewerage Systemsbenefit from new methods of nuclear gaging, etc .
The proposed AEC License Fee appears to run contrary to our free enterpri s e system. Small business operations attempting to auto-mate with lat est techniques are discriminated against with high ratio/gage-system fees .
AEC regulations, as originally established, were for the protection of the public . Is the proposed license fee in line with original intentions ** or is the program becoming a revenue projecti ***
Therefore, it is hoped your consideration will thoroughly review the costly aspects of the proposed license fee. The citizens and industry of this country deserve the many benefits offered by ad-vanced techniques during these trying times, rather than another obstacle implemented by our own government , which would realize in the long run also from increased production * .
cmr/ch
 
41&deg;&deg;C1{CT NUMB ER PROPOSED RULE PR-s>~t/ll, 7{), (?fJ
                                                                          ~~
CHIPPEWA INSTRUMENTS, INC.
42 BRECKENRIDGE ST.
BUFFALO, N . Y. 14213 A.C. 716 882-3853 October 19, 1970 Secretary
: u. s.      Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c.                          20545 Attention:            Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Subject:==
Proposed AEC license fee for Nuclear Gauges Gentlemen:
We are opposed to the proposed license fee for a number of reasons.
: 1. The technology of nuclear gauging is already priced high to the user. An increase in cost because of a fee could price us out of the market.
: 2. Most of our customers use only one gauge so that the fee is a considerable cost factor. It appears that the user of many instruments has an advantage over the small user.
: 3. Fees and legislation in this field abound and are redundant.
Don't penalize the user who needs the technology.
Please consider our objections and abandon thoughts of an annual license fee.
Very truly yours, CHIPPEWA INSTRUMENTS, INC.
DOCKETED                            ~ /~
ll&AfC                        Keith s. Herbst OCT2 l 1970*                            Vice President Office of the SecretalJ KSH/aeb                  PGIJ'.lc Pmmdlap tr* 0 ;'1 REPRESENTATIVES & DISTR IBUTORS OF PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE , ELECTRICAL, FLOW AND CONTROL IN STRUMENTS
 
e,\. _~ :.0 ..~_.fR. . 30, 40170,, 10 1-llb THE OHMART CORPORATION
* 4241 ALLENDORF DRIVE, CINCINNATI. OHIO 45209 * (513) 272 - 0131 Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Attn:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Reference:==
Proposed Fees for Facilities and Gentlemen:
We wish to add additional comments to those contained in our {{letter dated|date=October 6, 1970|text=letter dated October 6, 1970}}. In our October 6 letter we stated our objections to the payment of a fee by our customers but we did not make a statement about a fee paid by us as a manufacturer.
As a manufacturer we do not object to paying our fair share.
Therefore, we suggest, as an alternate to the proposed material license fee, exemption from the fee for the gage user and an increase in the fee for the gage manufacturer.
We suspect that the major work load of the licensing group for gages is dealing with the manufacturer rather than the user.
The manufacturer is continually developing new gages and new uses for existing gages. These developments require approval by the AEC prior to distribution of the gage. However, the licensing action required for a user should be fairly routine since both the gage and the application of the gage have already been approved. Thus, it is reasonable for the manufacturer to pay the fee rather than the user.
Of course, the manufacturer should be required to pay a fee to only one licensing agency. We suspect that, if a licensing fee plan is adopted by the AEC, all of the agreement states will also require a fee.      A manufacturer in a non-agreement state should not be required to pay a fee to an agreement state.
In summary, The Ohmart Corporation would support an increase in the fee for the manufacturer in return for exemption from the fee for the gage user.
Sincerely, THE OHMART CORPORATION
                                            ~ ~k          q~~/v Vice President
 
De partment - ...                                                            ~~- E~u;:L:t P                          - ~D. YO, 10 , I? V
* PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY                                                      f,eM PACIFIC                            GAS AND                            ELECTRIC                                COMPANY
                            +      245  M ARK ET          S TRE E T
* SA N FRAN C I S CO, CA L IF ORNIA 941 0 6                  *  (415) 781 - 4 2 11 RICHARD H . P E TERSO N SE NI O R VJCE P RES I D ENT October 16, 1970                      WILL IA M B . K U DER WII.. LIA M  E, J OHNS C H AR L ES T . VAN OEUBE N JO H N  C. MO R R ISSEY M,it,.LCCLM JOMN A. SPROUL H. f" URBUS H M ALCOLM A. MACKILL O P              PMILIP A. CRANE . JR.
ANO GENERAL CO UN S EL NOEL K ELLY                        HENRY J . LAPLANTE R I C: MA R O A. CLARKE              GILB IC RT L. HARRICK FREDERICK T . SEARLS                                                                                  EDWARD J . M C GANN EV              JC M N  S. C OOPER VI CE PR ES I D ENT                                                                          J OHN 8 . G IBBON                    GLENN WEST, J R.
ARTH UR L . H ILLMAN, JR,            C HARLES W. TH ISSEL L AND GENERAL ATT ORNEY                                                                            R OBERT  HI.BACH                    5 A NF"  R O M . S K AGGS S T ANLEY T , 5KINNCR                D A NIEL E, GIB S ON J . B RA.OLEY 8UN N I N              B ER N ARD J , 0 &#xa3;LLA5ANTA J A C K F . f"AL L IN , J R .
U.S. Atomic En e r gy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:                Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
This concerns the notice published in the Federal Register (35 F.R. 12412) announcing a large, proposed increase in AEC licensing fees. The time to comment on this proposal subsequently was e x tended to October 18, 1970 (35 F.R. 14655).
If the proposed changes are adopted they will result in licensing fees of unprecedented magnitude. In order to re-duce somewhat this additional burden placed upon nuclear power we suggest that issuance of operating licenses for two or more reactors be handled in the same manner as construction permits for two or more reactors; i.e., assess the fee on only one reactor. The notice accompanying the proposed changes states that the fees are designed to recove r the Commission's costs involved in the issuance of licenses. Thus, there does not appear to be any reason to assess a double fee for operating licenses for two or more reactors at the same site. Similarly, the fee for a different reactor at an established site should also be reduced, because presumably most of the site investi-gative work would not have to be repeated.
Very truly yours, DOCKETED IJ&AEC PAC:TC                        OCT 191970
* Cfflte llf tile Sei:retary Pt'b1' ~ "r,* *;:dings
                                                *.~
 
e HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80901 P .O. BOX 1052 AREA CODE 303 471 -012 3 October 16, 1970 Secretary United States Energy Connnission Washington, D. C.                  20545 Attn:            Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
It is our understanding that the Atomic Energy Commission plans to amend its regulations to charge a fee for Radioactive Materials Licenses.
May we register our vigorous opposition to your proposed policy change.
The object of licensing this material, as we under-stand it, is public protection, not income generation. If charging a fee is needed to cover costs of administration, it would seem that such a practice would have been foreseen and instituted years ago. We question the need for a government body now to implement the policy while the administration warns against rising costs and unhealthy inflation. We feel that it can only result ultimately in restricting the use and development of radioisotopes within private segments of the economy. We for one, will certainly review our current use of them in mea-surement devises if faced with an annual, as well as initial, charge for their installation.
We urge you to reconsider your proposed action.
Very truly yours, HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION OCKElED U&AEC CT 1 91970 OOIC! of the Secr~tarJ l'l:~'!c Pro~~Glnp                        By_ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i d r : : : ~ ~ ~ - - - - - : - -
                              ".r                                                Vice          - Operations i4ckno,o .. *g*** u,r: __ \J~ ~ JQ!Lib.~t..!!.Y=-
 
FKOM'~ -------------------,~'011, r                          SUSPENSE DATE TO                          CLASSIFICATION            REPLY DATES                  SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS Series:
Acknowledg                    0  Appropriate Handling Copy _ _ _ _ _ of _ _ ___, Interim _ _ _ _ _ _ _------;
Final                        D PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
0  CHAIRMAN                O  DIV./OFFICE DIRECTOR 0  GENERAL MANAGER 0  ASST. GENERAL MANAGER REMARKS:
INFORMATION COP IES SENT TO:
D  CHAIRMAN                0  GENERAL MANAGER
                                                        ~-c------=----g-------,
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL                                FORM HQ-284 U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION                                14*681
 
:;~ji;~~ERPR-;t/, ;t?o'
,          I  */
      /'tlLJ,. IAM L. HUNGATE                                                              J_UDICIARY COMMITTEE t,      ~ 9n-1 DI STRICT, MIS SOUR I 1
PHONE, 202-2.25-2956 SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS ROSETTA PAGN ELLA ADf,.tJNISTRATIVE ASSISTANT            <!ongrc~1' of tbe ilnitcb ~tate~          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                                        ~ouse of 1'.eprezentatibts                COMMITTEE 439 Qi:annon 1fi3uilbinn m!a~bington, 119.QC. 20515 October 14, 1970 The ~onorable W.B . McCool Secretary United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington., D.C.
 
==Dear Mr . Secretary:==
 
I___have received a letter from Mr. Lawrence S. Orbin and a copy of a letter to you concerning the proposed r ule making fees for facilities and materials licenses.
I agree with Mr . Orbin concerning the proposal as it would be very unfair, and i mpose an economic hardship on sma ller businessmen such as Mr. Orbin.
I would like to have your comments and reasoning on this proposal. As a member of the House Select Committee o n Small Business I would also like to have a copy _of this proposal to study.
* I will be waiting to hear from you concerning this matter.
Thank you.
With best wishes, I am Since ly ;/
                                                                            .        .  ~
WLH/jlh          DOCKETED USiAfC Enclosure
 
                                                  . RADIOACTlVl:'      ,\IA'tEN.IALS          11 01<    INDUS'/' UY 96'1 I LACKLAND ROA D ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI            6311 4 REC EIy ED                                            c314i 426-2412
                                              *... -. _'. ;oc'r 1 2 1s10                .  '* ,*.
October 5, 1970 William L. Hungate                          '*
755 Cap-au-Gris Troy, Mo. 63379 Sirs The attached letter opposes a propo se d rule making by the USAEC regarding fees for license s to possess, use, transfer, etc. radioactive materials.
The proposed fees themselves are not *only unfair, but would actually impose an economic hards hip on small operations such as ours. We would bo paying the same fee as tho radioph armace utical mnnufncturors who h ave sales of s everal tens of millions of doll ars per year .
While I oppose the fees in general, I nlso question the principle involved--that is, requi ri ng persons to pay for unnece ssary regulation in the first place.                      *                  **
Any help you could give in this re gard would be appreciated.
Sinc/ e;:ely,
                                    /;.1 I
      \,__,?/        /    , .-f '  :' /
  ) 1~(ft vlit l/(t ) , (Jl      fJ      o-0 c~Er(o Lawrence    s. Orbin                    .USllEC LSOskah
* I*          ..~      ;
* t'  l
                                                                                                                                                                                                ,* /1:,.
IN ~    STRIAL                    r            u~i. A a
* co~P~*N*Y
                                                                                              ~                                                                              ..
R(lDIOACTIVE                                      MATERIALS                                          FOU          INDUSTRY
                                                                                              .,    -*, .                                                    , . 96,H LACK~AND ROAD
                                                                                                                                    . ;._ ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI                                            63114 (314} 426-2412
                                                                                          , ,,''j
    ...                                                                  'I
,:*    *. October 5, 1970                                                                                                                                              ..
I      t!I        o
                                                                            '. ~    '    *.      '                                                              *.;
I    1 _ - .- *. ,'                                          '      .'. *,'
W.- B. McCool, Sec rotary                                                                                                        * ....., I        * *  ...., ***                            *  ** -                  J United States Atomic Enorgy Commiasio~
        ,. Washington, D.C.
                    *--                                                                  '      ,,  I Sir1
'  .. Industrial Nuclear Company vigorously opposes the                                                                                      ..        .,.,., ;.  ,. **-*      . ** ...... ... . - ...
proposed rule making regarding fees for facilities and materials licenses for the following reasons,
: 1. The proposal dea ls with licensees as a group, rather than cons idering the uniqu e nature of individual license es , e.g.,                                                            *
: a. No distinction i s made b etwien facilities working wi th sevoral millicuries and facilities using hundreds of curies,
: b. No distinction is made between facilities licensed for a small number of isotopes and facilities licensed for a larger program.
: 2. By imposing identical fees on small and large facilities alike, the pr oposal puts smaller licensees at an e conomic disadvantage 0 with respect to their competitors .
                                                                                                                                                                '*j                              I              .,*
                                                                                                                      ~ ,\
                                                                                                                    ' *r" . **.
r" -***
                                                                            .    .*          t
                                                                                                                                                                  ...... i LSOskah                                                                                                                                                                            *.,:,:,
co,  w. L, Hungate            .  *,  *,*      . .*. .:
                                                                                                                                              ., '* '      :.* .        . .      ~  .
I          ',
I        *;
                                                                                                                                                                                                      *      !    i
:  'I
                                                      ....          1* \  *                                                                                                                                  *  **      *1*
                                                                                                      ,''    r'*                  .
                                                                                                                                  '1,
                                                                                                                                              ~ ~
I
 
Battelle Memorial Institute .                                            COLUMBUS  LABORATORIES 505 KING AVENUE COLUMBUS, OHIO 43201
* AREA CODE 614, TELEPHONE 299
* 3151
* CABLE ADDRESS: BATMIN October 13, 1970 DOCKETED 11S!AEC Secretary OCT 161970*
001ce of the sia-etarJ United States Atomic Energy Con:nnission                Pcb'I~ Pniccefl!IP Washington, D.C. 20545                                        Th-:~
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
We have carefully reviewed the various comments already submitted relative to the proposal to increase the fees for the facility and material licensing by the Atomic Energy Commission. We failed to note any response from facilities whose operation is similar to that at Battelle-Columbus. Since the comment period has been extended to October 16, 1970, we believe the following comments to be pertinent to your evaluation of the proposal. We submit these con:nnents as a licensed operator of a privately-funded research reactor and the holder of various materials licenses.
Charges for use of the BCL reactor facility are on a cost accounting basis of cost recovery. This requires a close watch over costs on our part, including fees for facility licenses. Any increase in research reactor license fees is of concern to us, particularly one of such magnitude as that which is proposed.
It is assumed by us that the proposed increase in fees is based in part on some cost recovery system for the Con:nnission. For new systems perhaps large fees are required, but for pool-type research reactors with (1) long operating histories (the Battelle Research Reactor is in its fourteenth year of operation) and (2) the relatively low fission product inventories, the fee schedule should correlate with the Con:nnission activities related to the potential risk to public health and safety. In the case of research reactors, for the reasons cited above, these activities do not appear to be extensive.
Another factor in establishment of fees is the public interest served.
Research activities, in general, are not directly productive, i.e., do not result in profits, but are long range capital producing segments of the economy.
For this reason t~ey are usually considered to be in the long range public interest. Accordingly, the fees for research reactor facility licenses should be established with this important difference from commercial facilities kept in mind.
 
Secretary, USAEC                        2                        October 13, 1970 Our position above applies also to the fee increases for materials licenses. It appears that undue costs are being assigned to the research and development sector of the nuclear industry. The proposed fee increase schedule denotes an arbitrary assessment with no regard to the scope or complexity of nuclear activities. It would seem that in the current economic climate, the Cormnission would endeavor to foster rather than place additional burdens on the nuclear industry.
We urge your consideration of our position and endorse a reevaluation of the proposed fee increases.
                                                ~~~~
                                              ~&#xa3;.7v Harley L. Toy Licensing Coordinator HLT:lba Airmail
 
REC Elv t.O iJ70 (J~T I:> PM 4  0:
\
 
.I,,.
UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION D AVID  F;. S H AW                                                                  GRASSLA ND S ROAD PRESIDENT                                                                    EL MSFORD, N. Y. 1 0523 (914) 592- 9000 October 12, 1970 Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Reference:==
F. R. Doc, 70-10068
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
We respectfully submit the following corrnnents on the proposed rule making relating to the increase in fees for facilities and materials licenses,
: 1. It is not mandatory that full costs involved in the issuance of such licenses be borne by the licensees. The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 specifically recognizes that, where the public interest is served by the licensing process, it may be proper that the licensing agency absorb part or all of such costs, Since drastic increases in license fees for facilities and materials used in the generation of electricity will inevitably be reflected in utility rate schedules, the public interest is affected to the extent that a major portion of the cost of such fees should be paid for out of appro-priated funds.
: 2. The increased cost of nuclear generating facilities resulting from the proposed license fee schedule is of sufficient magnitude that it may tend to discourage utilities from choosing nuclear power.
3, The magnitude of the proposed increases (we note that certain of the fees reflect a proposed increase of 2500%!) is inflationary, and would result in a real hardship on the processing part of the nuclear industry.
: 4. It is questionable that the concept of a fixed fee is equit-able when considering the variations in effort required by the AEC in individual licensing actions. This suggests that it might be appropriate to negotiate the fees to be charged.
: 5. Considering the magnitude of the proposed fee increases, which presumably reflect actual costs, it would appear that the AEC might be well advised to direct a major effort toward reducing such costs.
 
/
October 12, 1970 For the reasons enumerated above, we reconnnend that the proposed fee schedule be revised substantially downward or dropped entirely.
Sincerely,
                                                  ~
David F. Shaw President DFS :ms
 
SAM YORTY M AYOR DEPARTMENT                                                                    ED G AR L. KANO U SE GENER AL MAN AGER OF                                                            ANO CHIEF EN Gi NEER
                                        -W-ATERAND PO-WER                                                                        J O HN G . COWA N ASSI STA NT GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF ENGINEER THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES                                                              F LO Y D L . GO SS CHIEF EL E CTRICAL ENG IN EER ANO ASSISTANT MANAGER WATER ANO POWER SQUARE CO MM I SS I O N 1 11 NORTH HOPE STREET                                                ROBERT V . PHILLIPS FRA N K R , PALMIERI. PRESIDENT                                                                                                    CHIEF ENGINEER OF HENRY G. BOD K IN                                      M AIL ING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX        11 1                                    WATER WORKS ANO ASSIS TANT MAN AGER NATHAN 0. FR EEDMAN                                  L OS ANGELES, CAL IFORNI A 9005 4 MIKE HOLLANDER                                                                                                                    WILLI A M D . SACHAU JO H N W . LUHRING                                                                                                                CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER TELEPHONE    1 2 1 31 4 81-421 1 M A RY J . BORN, SECRETARY CAB LE ADDRESS: DEWAP OLA October 8, 1970 DOCKETED OOAEC Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission                                                    OCT I 61970
* Washington, D. c. 20545                                                            Oltlce of the Secretary PubHc Proceedings Branch Attention Chief' Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
This is in reference to your announcement of August 3, 1970, concernin~ the proposed amendments to Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) regulations on licensing fees .
We agree that the Commission's licensing costs should be recovered. We believe, however, that this could be accom-plished by a somewhat less drastic increase in rates.
As nuclear power plants become standardized, licensing costs f'or the AEC should be reduced. We suggest, therefore, that the proposed rate increase reflect the projected long-term costs rather than present costs. This cost averaging would avoid the need to lower the fees later.
Furthermore, increase in fees should be accompanied by a significant reduction in the time presently required to license a nuclear plant.
Our other comments are:
: 1. We believe that the cost of licensing is not directly related to the thermal power,and allowance should be made to account for this by a sliding scale or bracketing of plant sizes.
W  A  T E R  F  O R  L I F  E    1D~1          P    O  W    E    R  F O R      P  R  O  G    R E S  5
 
Secretary                                        October 8, 1970 U. s. Atomic Energy Commission                    Page 2
: 2. The basis for fees should be similar for both the construction and operating permit; e . g.,
the present proposal gives credit for simul-taneous applications of more than one unit only at the construction permit stage .
: 3. In addition to giving credit for simultaneous applications of more than one unit, credit should be given for similar applications submitted at a later date .
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments .
Very truly yours, FLOYD L . GOSS Chief Electrical Engineer and Assistant Manager
 
DGCK ET NUMBER Phone  775-1687
                                                                        -      PROPOSED RULE  PR..-gP.'10,70,}7t>
1~
n6o WfST D~ON AVf;NUf; C~ICAGO, ILLINOIS - 60631 nocRE.Hll                                Telex '25-4'290 ll&lEC OCT141970*
Qtll~ et tile Sitret11Y                            October 9, 1970 Pl!ll1'lt l't")telldlnP llral\C.1 Our Ref. H1070-68 Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:                Chief Public Pr oceedings Branch Gentlemen:
It has just come to my attention that all holders of A.E.C. licenses may in the future have to pay a $40.00 original license fee, plus an additional $40.00 per year to maintain the license.
My    immediate reaction to this is that it would discriminate severely against the manufacturers and users of this type of industrial instrumentati Jn. It is at present somewhat of a problem convincing a prospective user that he should apply a nuclear gage rather than some other type of gage for specific application, even though the
* nuclear gage may be distinctly superior. The requirement that he fill out forms, maintain a license and on occasion have inspections is, to many prospective customers, completely discouraging. None-theless, we have understood the necessity for this and certainly have never made any objection to it.
It is our distinct feeling that A.E.C. regulations were originated for the health and safety of the public, rather than for the exclusive benefit of the individual user. Certainly, in most cases the individual user would be willing to *assume the risk, but with the safety of the public in mind, he is quite willing to operate within the framework of the necessary legislation. However, since
* the objective is to benefit the general public, it does not seem that the individual user should be charged for the cost of this protection any more than the individual citizen should be charged for protection of a police department when he individually has need *
  . lthough certain large companies with considerable numbers of gages might look upon the charge as minimal, there are other occasions when small level gages, for instance, which are worth only a few hundred dollars, could not be sold at all because of the fee.
Technology and automation in general would suffer if this was the case.
lc~now,~~~i.ii ,._, ca*~ -~r:/!.~/:!Ef. .'7-12
 
J. EPCO SERVICES, 1*
Secretary                                    October 9, 1970 U. S. Atomic Energy Connnission          Our Ref. Hl070-68 I, therefore, vigorously recommend that the proposed fees not be adopted and that the present method of operation continue.
Yours truly, EPCO SERVICES, INC.
Representing THE OHMART CORPORATION RJV:HR a._1/4.-~
R.
* Vandewalker CC: Ohmart, H. L. Cook
 
DOCKET NUN18&#xa3;R PR-"10,I/0, *70, I~0 INDUSTRIAL NUCLEAR COMPANY RADTOACT TVE PR~      RULE MATER TALS    FOR    TNDUSTRY 9641 LACKLAND ROAD ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI  63114 (314) 426-2412 October      5, 1970 W. B. McCool, Secretary United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.c.
Sir:
Industrial Nuclear Company vigorously opposes the proposed rule making regarding fees for facilities and materials licenses for the following reasons:
: 1. The proposal deals with licensees as a group, rather than considering the unique nature of individual licensees, e.g.:
: a. No distinction is made between facilities working with several millicuries and facilities using hundreds of curies,
: b. No distinction is made between facilities licensed for a small number of isotopes and facilities licensed for a larger program.
: 2. By imposing identical fees on small and large facilities alike, the proposal .puts smaller licensees at an economic disadvantage, with respect to their competitors.
Sincer      y,      "  ~ ,,
i'//l!JUM,,(_J ,(
Lawrence      s. Orbin
({__&#xa3;--
LSO:kah cc:    w. L. Hungate            DOCKE f ED U&AEC OCT 1 3 1970
* IWtic~ ot the se:retary Pub./~ Pr,*, ):11,gs
                                      ~i': :*-.:1
 
PR-31),i/O, ?~,/7' DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE
                                                                                          ~
CHEVRON RESEARCH COMP.ANY A STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA SUBSIDIARY 576 STANDARD AVENUE      RICHMOND    CALIFORNIA D . H . ETZLER                                        October 8, 1970              DOCKETED D E PARTM E NT M A NA G ER RES EAR CH SE RV I CES D E PARTM ENT                                                            USlEC File 050.208 Mr . W. B. McCool, Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. McCool:==
 
This comment is directed toward the proposed AEC License Fee Schedule under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 170.
Section 170.31 shows a table of fees for materials licenses.
Specifically, 3A states "Licenses for possession and use of by-product materials issued pursuant to Parts 30, 32, and 33 of this chapter for commercial processing, manufacturing, or transfer of products containing by-product material or quantities of by-product materials." Fee is $500.
The transfer of by-product materials at exempt concentrations is covered in Part 30, Section 30.14; and we occasionally make such transfers in our commercial products under our license No . 4-720-2. Our concern that we might have to pay a proposed
              $500 fee rather than a proposed $40 fee was alleviated in a telephone conversation between Dr. B. A. Fries of our staff and your Mr . William Miller, Division of State and Licensing Relations, during the week of September 21, 1970. Mr. Miller explained that it was not the intent of 3A to impose the $500 fee on transfers such as ours but rather on manufacturers of radioactive substances such as radiopharmaceuticals.
Inasmuch as the wording of 3A can be interpreted differently from your intent, perhaps a rewording of 3A to specifically exclude transfers at exempt concentrations would be appropriate.
 
..                                                                  ,.a:rn DOCKET NUMBER RULE    PR-10, W,10, 170 u.st r.iaI /      ~-..                  650 ACKERMAN RoAo
* coLuMaus, 0H10 43202        (614> 267-6351 cieo.n.ics        - * *- * - ~
CORPORATION October 9, 1970 OCKETED ilSAEC Secretary United States Atomic Energy Commission                                      CT 131970 Mice of the SICllfWJ Washington, D. C. 20545                                                      PubHc PlllCfedlllP Braneil Attention:    Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
Please find herein our comments regarding the proposed rule making for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 170, "Fees for Materials and Facilities Licenses. 11 Industrial Nucleonics Corporation is opposed to the establishment of the proposed fees for the following reasons:
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 found that the processing and utili-zation of byproduct material must be regulated in the national interest in order to protect the health and safety of the public.
Material licensing is clearly intended to be a method for imposing regulatory safety standards for just this purpose. It seems inconsistent, then, with the sense of the Budget Act of 1952 that cos ts shall be recovered 11 * *
* taking in to cons id era tion ...
value to the recipient, (and) public policy or interest served, ... "
to charge fees of the licensee when the program is intended to serve the public interest and the public is already paying for it through general taxation.
The same act had, as one of its purposes, to provide for a program to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy to the maximum extent consistent with the health and safety of the public. In two ways the proposed fees will be a definite deterrent to this program. First, for every industrial use of isotopes for which there is a com-petitive non-nuclear technique, the isotopes already have a dis-advantage due to the requirement to license and the cost of inspection programs. The fees can only serve to increase that disadvantage. Second, the fees will serve to increase the cost of developing new applications and of entry into the field by small companies, and hence tend to discourage these activities.
                  ~ k!I_OWJ!_G~~(~,t-~ar~ __.!_-~)i.~/1LJ+.~
 
Secretary,                      Page 2              October 9, 1970 United States Atomic Energy Commission In view of the great detail in the Atomic Energy Act in describing how the Commission should operate, including reference to reasonable charges for distribution of materials, but noticeably avoiding any mention of fees for required licenses, it is reasonable to conclude that no fees were intended.
Since the Budget Act authorizes, but does not make specifically mandatory, the prescription of fees for byproduct material, we are encouraged to conclude that the fee schedule represents a change in the published purposes and goals of the Commission.
Many aspects of the atomic energy industry are, however, still embryonic and highly vulnerable to economic pressures and adverse public sentiment.
It is difficult for us to evaluate how effectively the proposed fees meet the mark of being" ... fair and equitable taking into consideration the direct and -indirect costs to the government" since no cost data was published concurrently with the proposal.
We do know, however, that we and many firms such as ours are already spending, in addition to the cost of administering our own licensing and safety program, significant amounts of money in direct and indirect support of the efforts of the Commission.
We assist customers in the preparation of license applications to improve the efficiency of processing; we serve on self-sup-porting standards committees which organize information useful to the Commission's regulatory and licensing efforts and provide a degree of self-regulation to the industry; and we provide technical information directly to the Commission and the Joint Committee.
Finally, all cost associated with doing business in any industry will ultimately be passed on to the consumer in one form or another.
These fees are no exception. If the government has a genuine and legitimate need for these funds, then it seems a tragic waste to have them diluted through the administrative costs concomitant with a license fee system when we are already paying for several other systems of taxation.
We recommend, therefore, that the proposed fee schedule, especially
 
Secretary,                    Page 3                October 9, 1970 United States Atomic Energy Commission as it affects byproduct material, be abandoned.
Yours truly,
                                  <2, Q_?-VV'-CVl u E. R. Ferraro, Manager Government Regulations gf cc:  Hon. Chalmers P. Wylie U. S. House of Representatives
 
,                                                                      ~=
DOCKET NUMBER
                                                                                    ~ULE PR
                                                                                                  -6,0,1/0, 70, /,V Pyrotronics, Inc. 8 Ridgedale Avenue, Cedar Knolls, NewJersey07927 * (207) 267-7300 A Subsidiary of Baker Industries, Inc.
October 9, 1970 DOCltLED tl&AEC Secretary
: u. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.                        20545 Attention:                Chief Public Proceedings
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
We have your bulletin No. N-146 regarding proposed revised licensing fees. We have checked with your headquarters by phone and were advised that our operation falls under cate-gory 3A of Part 170.31.
You have granted us an exemption under Parts 32.26 and 32.27 and have issued us a new license number 29-08864-04E.
Condition 11 of this license states that each device shall be manufactured, tested, and labelled in accordance with the state-ments, representations, and procedures contained in applica tions dated June 19, 1969.
These statements indicated that the devices are manufactured and labelled by Cerberus, Ltd. in Switzerland, and not by Pyrotronics, Inc. in the United States. Upon receipt by Pyrotronics, Inc. they are leak tested before shipment to our customers. No commercial processing or manufacturing is per-formed by Pyrotronics, Inc.
Condition 12 requires that Pyrotronics, Inc. file an annual report with the A. E. C. stating the total quantity distri-buted during the reporting period.
It is our opinion that the proposed annual fee of $500 is ex-cessive and would work a hardship on Pyrotronics, Inc. for the following reasons:
: 1. Pyrotronics, Inc. distributes the Pyr-A-Larm detector for the protection of life and property.
Increases in costs must be passed along to the customer. The higher the cost the more difficult it is to provide this needed protection.
p ~*  the fastest fire and smoke detection available w
                                                                                                                  ~
 
Page 2 Secretary
: u. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Attention:  Chief Public Proceedings Branch
: 2. Since no processing of radio-active material is involved in our operation, it is our opinion that the services rendered through the Atomic Energy Commission of re-issuing our license at 5-year inter-vals and occasional inspection by a local inspector at two or three-year intervals are not in line with the suggested annual fee.
We therefore respectfully request that you consider our ob-jections and change our category to SA for which an annual fee of $40 is required.
Very truly yours, 9)&#xb5;,JJc;/-,JJdtl Donald A. Diehl Radiation Protection Officer DAD:ml
 
966-8250
                          *                          . PROP01 : PR-DOCKET NUMBER                30 tl
                                                                                          'TlJ,
                                                                                                '1,
                                                                                                  ~,!7 fJ E. B. MILLER COMPANY, INC.
* 10117 Manchester Road October 8, 1970
* St. Louis, Mo. 63122 Secretary                                                    Gij~U , ED US Atomic Energy Commission                                        USJAEC Washington, D.C. 20545 CT 121970 Attn:    Chief, Public Proceedings Branch                  Office of the Secretary Pub!': Prom dings
                                                                            *:: ~~
SUBJ:  Proposed AEC License Fee Gentlemen s We l.IDderstand that the AEC is currently considering the establishment of a license fee consisting of an initial $40 plus
        $40 per year for users of radioactive materials. We would like to go on record as oppo ing the establishment of such a fee ,
since we feel that i t will definitely be a deterrent to the development of industr al uses for radioactive isotopes. Further-more, we feel that such a license fee would not be in keeping with our understanding of the rea purpose of the licensing procedure.
We feel that a icense is something which is granted to a user in consideration for the user abid"ng by certain regul t*ons set down by the AEC, and should not be considered a commodity to be purchased.
We also feel that the license fee of $40 per year is exorbi-tant. For example, some types of nuc ear gauges may be purchased for as little as $800, and might well be expected to have a ife span of, at least, 15 years. Under these conditions, the user would pay out almost as much in icense fees, over the life of the gauge, as the original cost of the equipment.
Furthermore, we fee that this is discriminatory against small users, that is, companies who may use only one or two gauges in heir opera ion. Under these conditions, a license fee ef $40 per year would be a definite consideration in dec"ding whether to use nuclear gauges or not. In the case of large u ers of nuc ear gauges, the licensing fee wou d be correspondingly less of a percentage of the total cost of the gauges.
We also feel that there will be less of a tendency for users to obtain specific icenses and to operate on general licenses . We feel that this is not a desirable condition.
Very tr ly yours, E. B. MILLER COMPANY, INC.
tA3~
E. B. Miller EBM:vrnr
 
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR- 3tJ, t/0, ?~, ITl) 1/&#xa3;,IJ INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVES SALES I
INC.
709 BETHLEHEM PIKE PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19118 POST OFFICE BOX 4361 CHESTNUT    HILL 7-9600 October 6, 19?.0 Secretary u.s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.c. 20545 Attention:    Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
We have recently received a,notification from you concerning the installation of an AEC license fee.
We strongly object to this fee for obtaining a specific AEC license. We have a number of customers who purchase only one or maybe two gauges for maybe ap-proximately $1,000.00 each. A $40.00 license fee plus $4Q.OO a year seems to be an absorbitant amount of money to charge these people for holding an AEC licaase for one gauge. We have recom.mendedto most of our customers that a spe-cific license be applied for because this gives them a specific opportunity to control the radiation type gauging in their possession. I feel certain that if a fee is installed that a lot of our customers will go to a generally licensed gauge which will lead to a very sloppy type of control by the customers on the gauges that they have in their possession. The purpose of the Atomic Energy Cornrrdssion is to regulate the usage of radioisotopes and to see that they are handled properly. I feel that your present method of having the customer apply for a specific license without charge is far superior to any regulation that you will be getting into if you charge a fee.
I sincrely hope that you seriously consider this request as I feel definitely that a fee is not in order.
Very truly yours, PENN-DEL INSTRUMENT SALES,INC.
: j. --- )1/ c:3/?*___;._ ~',.,t ;__ c./fc~
7 Y. Wayne      }ti. ller DO~H . ,a U&lEC YWM:MD OCT Mice If tlle !eentw, Mite PrDC:!tdlQCS 11me:,
tMo
 
Ft>tss.
                                                                                    *- 3 c)/ 'f o,  70-t-/1{)
T HE OH MART C ORPORATION
* 4241                                                        2 7 2 - 0 131
    *    '*    f**        .
    ..-.. 1..;t.*~-~ u ...... .... w*- ..
                                                /J (C--/
7d
                                                    ~.-.a.-i:Qi*-~
DOCKETED    6, 1970 St' u        tl&AEC Secretary US Atomic Energy Commission Washington, DC, 20545 Attention:                            Chief, Public Proceedings
 
==Reference:==
PROPOSED FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES Gentlemen:
Licensing fees were first proposed in 1967. The Ohmart Corpora--
tion was opposed to licensing fees in 1967 and we are opposed to them in 1970. The reasons for opposition now, in 1970, are still as valid as in 1967.
As a manufacturer of industrial gages that measure density, level and thickness we are particularly concerned about the user who has one or two of these gages as contrasted with the user who has many gages at one plant site.
A simple OFF-ON level alarm system costs about $9 00.00 and has a useful life of at least eight years. If the proposed fee schedule is adopted, the licensee, over the lifetime of the gage ,
would pay a total of, at least, $320 or a staggering 35.5% of the purchase price. Even for a simple density gage which sells for about $2500.00, the license fee would amount to about 13%
of the purchase price. We know of no other license fee require-ment where the fee is such a large percentage of the value of the licensed item. The end result, of course, will be that potential users of nuclear gages will turn to other types of measuring devices.
Users who have several gages at one plant site will have all gages covered by one licens e. But the workload of the licensing group would be out of proportion to the fee because each gaging application must be examined rather than each license. Thus, the proposed fee favors the user who has several gages at one location and discriminates against the user who has only one or two gages at a given location.
Many users have the option of using a gage either as a Specific Licensee or as a General Licensee because the device they use is approved for distribution to General Licensees. However, many of these users prefer the option of the Specific License because they feel that it gives them better control over the radioactive material. Thus, the licensing action required is minimal. These Specific Licensees should not be penalized by the license fee because they choose the route of closer control.
 
Page 2 October 6, 1970 Finally, we offer the argument developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum in 1967 that the regulations of the AEC are promulgated and enforced for the protection of the health and safety of the public. Quoting from the Bureau of the Budget Circular No A-25 dated September 23, 1959 paragraph 3(a)(2) - 11 No charge should be made for services when the identification of the ultimate beneficiary is obscure and the service can be primarily con-sidered as benefiting broadly the general public." A by-product material license fits this description because it is issued to protect the public against radiation hazards.
In summary, The Ohmart Corporation opposes the proposed fee for by-product material, and some special nuclear material, licenses because the fee would be unfair, discriminatory and inappropriate.
Sincerely, THE OHMART CORPORATION
                                      /JJ_ 'al ~ }v H.L. Cook, Jr.
Vice President HLC/pat
 
GEORGE H. BIRCHALL ASSOCIATES, INC.
  ,'m i.:      Engineering Sales Representatives I II!]':
MAIN OFFICE : 1020 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE , MOUNTAINSIDE, NEW JERSEY MAILING ADDRESS : P. 0. BOX 84, WESTFIELD, NEW JERSEY 07091 Telephones : (201) 232-3600 * (212) 227-6881 II II II II II October 6 ,          1970 Secretary, U. S. Atomic En e r gy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:          CHi ef, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Subject:==
License Fee Sir:
We are sales representatives for instruments and de-vices which are installed inindu strial plants throughout the coun try.                        Some of the products we sell contain low level radioactive so ur ces, and our customers often obtain a specific I icense to cover their application.
We believe if our c ust omers, particularly our small customers, are fac ed with a yearly I ic ense fee of
$40. , they may decide agai nst th e pu rch ase and thus our busi* ness wi II be affected. We realize that I icensing costs have to be paid by some means or other, but it would seem that th e proposed flat fee is, at least in cer tain cases, excessive.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours very truly, GEORGE H. BIRCHALL ASSOCIATES,            INC.,
                                                    ~
A'-t:-fi4t; ;
Robertson          l 4
Presi ent AJR:je OCKE ; E USilEC 81970 fifflM o1 t111 SQcretary Pubtlt P~*edlngs nran~n                        ,,J .... ..... . ,
Branch Offices:    Boston , Mass .
* Danbury, Conn .
* Philadelphia, Pa.
 
PROCESS CONTROL 4866 Cooper Road
* Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 * (513) 891-1838                            EQUIPMENT October 5, 1970 Secretary US Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:      Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Subject:==
Proposed AEC License Fee Gentlemen:
Since we are engaged in the sales of nuclear instruments in this area, we wish to protest vigorously the proposed license fee now being considered by you for nuclear sources. This fee would certainly discourage the use of these instruments.
Further, in view of the fact that AEC Regulations are set up and enforced for the protection of the health and safety of the public, it doesn ' t seem fair to charge the individual user for having these devices.
We certainly hope a decision will be reached not to apply these license fees for nuclear devices .
Very truly yours, SUR.KAMP & ROWE, ftL-.t~
Richard E. Surkamp RES:bw DOCKE ( ED tl&lEC CT 71970
                                                                      '~;r  'T'
                                                                                ~
                                                                                ~
 
                                                                                          ~*rR. . 30,tfo ,10, (7()
f~
MACHINE TOOLS 2322 CHESTNUT AVE. WEST                                                                MARKING DEVICES MINNEAPOLIS MINN. 55405        I_____.                                            INSPECTION EQUIPMENT PHONE 37 4- 1970                                                      PLA:STIC MOULDING EQUIPMENT October 5, 1970 Secretary                                                              DOCKETED U.S. Atomic Energy Commission                                                USAEC Washington, D. C.      20545 CT 71970
();flee of the Secretary Attention:    Chief, Publi c Proceedings Branch                      Pu~iic Proceudlngs Dranc'1
 
==Subject:==
Proposed AEC License Fee
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
We are in receipt of your notice relative to the proposed fee for an AEC license. We are against this proposed fee. We are manu-facturers agents selling nuclear gaging equipment in the area of Minnesota, North & South Dakota and Western Wisconsin. We re-present the Ohmart Corp. of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Our basic reasons are these:
We have one specific license here in our company, this added coat for a license and continued renewals cuts into our profit picture on total nuclear gage sales. We have several customers who have need of only one or two such nuclear gages. Let ' s say the gage would cost $800 and have a life expectancy of 6 years. A license fee of $240 in this time period represents 30% of the purchase price. This high cost would certainly discourage the use of this type of equipment for the small user. We do rely on the small user market to sell our product.
We have always encouraged our customers to apply for specific licenses even though they could purchase the equipment under general license. We have encouraged this to emphasize the con-trol of a nuclear source while in their possession and to pin the responsibility for said source to an individual. In these days of all the pollution, it hardly seems a time to drop this responsibility and allow a source to be used only under a gen-eral license. My customer is penalized for trying to do a responsible job by charging him a fee . Seems to us any re-gulation provided for the public safety should be shared by the public and not only by the ultimate user .
                                                    ~~~mm~~~a~.J .,,, __ --~-*    =lPJ2f_?f2.L~
 
Secretary - U. s. Atomic Energy Commission  (2)    October 5, 1970 We therefore urge you to drop your proposal for the AEC license fee.
Respectfully submitted, WM. K* NELSON CO *
?Jt~,d~
Martin D. Haraldson, Vice President MDH:ilb
 
MfMfC~
7760 Wf;ST Df;VON AVf;NLJf; I
C~ICAGO, ILLINOIS 060~ 606.1/
Phone: 31'2 - 774-0919 Telex - '25-4290 October 2, 1970                                                REF:  Pl070-6 Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington , D. C. 20545 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
It has come to the writer's attention that                    comments are invited regarding the proposed AEC license fee for                    gages and other devices containing radioisotopes. It is felt that                    a license with a con-tinued annual charge is discriminatory for                    a number of reasons.
Gages and instruments supplied under general licenses would not be required to pay an AEC fee, since this equipment is licensed under the manufacturer's general license. A number of industrial firms elect to license their nuclear license under the AEC specific license arrangement as a means of better control. Since it appears that the intent of the regulatory body is to provide protection and safety for the public, it would appear to be discriminating against the user who elects to have better control over devices than others.
We also feel that a continuing char ge for an annual license will discourage the use of radioisotopes type devices, thereby placing the manufacturer of this type of equipment at a competitive dis-advantage with unlicensed type of equipment. For this reason the writer is opposed to any license fee imposed on radioisotope equipment.
Very truly yours, MEMECO, INC.
DOCKETED US!AEC Jb.(-1~1,-                            CT S 1970
                    ~
c:11ce of the Secretary Public Proceedings Geo. R. Folds, Jr.                            Branch GRF:ps
 
)
A)tX _________________A_b_e_x _c_or_p_or_at_io_n_ __
Engineered Products Division
                                                        '$ O    ,-        TAYLOR STREET and AB BE ROAD. ELYRIA. OHIO 44035 I T ", ? cJI / 7 tJ                            TEL, 216-323- 3202 TELEX, 98- 6498 October 2, 1970 l
_L1-L~J_?&#xa3;J:.
                                                                                ~
Secretary, u. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Subject:==
10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, & 170 Fees for Facilities and Material Licenses Gentlemen:
At the time (1967) of the original proposal for fees we registered a very negative reaction and listed why a license fee is unfair for industrial radiography by an isotope user.
Our interests and reasons have not lessened by time. We are more rigidly opposed now than in 1967. Reason for this action is simple. It is quite apparent that the ABC has no intention of changing its direction with respect to licensing fees.
Many negative responses were submitted in 1967, and inspite of these the Commission plunges headlong toward an enactment.
Obviously they disregard our dissents.
The Legislature has not helped. Sufficient legislation has been passed that grants the Commission authority to collect fees for substaining themselves. The AEC's original conception was a service by the Federal Government. If they have grown beyond the state of their existance, then cut back or increase the operating allowances.
we, the industrial users of isotopes, must now be penalized when in fact it was our very early efforts to use isotopes that helped make the AEC successful.
BRIDGWATER TIRE MOLDS/ ELECTRO-ALL OYS CASTINGS / ENGINEERED CASTINGS / NATION AL BEARINGS AND CASTINGS
 
.,,,r *page          October 2, 1970 e
10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, & 170 In our age of bureaus on top of bureaus, the efforts of people who made the existance possible of even one bureau is forgotten.
We strongly recommend positive action to negate the move for a license fee requirement of an isotope user for industrial radiography.
Very truly yours,
      'i!t,{~
K. c. LOwstetter, Radiation Officer Engineered Products Division Abex Corporation KCL:da
 
                                                          '+~
                                                ~fflY ~nD mrrormrnc conTROLS FOR ,noUSTRY PH ON E 8 36 -250 1 - 840 N . F ULTON - P . 0 . BOX 15827 - T U L SA , OKLAHOMA 74 11 5 October 1, 1970 Secretary U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.        20545 ATTENTION:    Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==SUBJECT:==
Proposed AEC License Fee Gentlemen:
It has been brought to our attention that the A.E.C. is considering a fee of $40.00 initially and $40.00 per year thereafter be charged to holders of Specific Licenses.
Our Company opposes the fee for reasons that follow:
: 1. Our customers are faced with proportionately higher costs of Nuclear Gauges over conventional means of measurement already. The fee can discourage the use of our equipment.
: 2. We do not feel that it's fair to charge individuals a fee when, in truth, A.E.C. regulations are set forth for the protection of the public.
: 3. Since General Licenses are not required to pay a fee, we feel that it is discriminatory that Specific Licenses will have to pay a fee. The majority of our customers have chosen to be licensed as the latter, cora::ientiously be-cause of the better control it affords them.
We earnestly request that you decide not to charge this fee.
Very truly yours, PAUL KING CO .
C~c:~Donald E. Driscoll Sales Engineer DED/aw
 
                                                                                                                        -~ lftJ, ?l><i-l ?V GEORGE E. PICKETT, M.D., M.P.H.
Public Health Director GEORGE P. SWEDA, M.D., M.P.H.
flt~ or llttroit .,..ROA-- To:~                        President 0
Deput,y Commissioner                                  ROMAN S. GRIBBS, Ma,yor Medical and P"blic Health SeNJices                                                                    DIANE MCLANE PLACE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH                                  Vice President FRANK MARKOWSKI Deput,y Commissioner                                  DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226                          ]AMES  J. MCC.BNDON, M.D.
Adminisu-ative Service~!""9'~-.
HERBERT J. BLOOM, D.D.S., Ph.D.
AREA 313  965-4200 RONALD    J. THAYER nocKETE.D                        8801 John C. Lodge                                Secretary to th, Board USAEO                  Detroit, Michigan 48202 OCT 51970_.
me, af iila t tcr \VJ p, ~'.;e r    ~lnP September 30, 1970 Secretary, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Att:          Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
We should like to express our appr~tion for ~ing afforded an opportunity to comment on proposed amendments to Parts 30, 40, 70 and 170 of AEC regulations as indicated in your news release dated August 3, 1970, which has just been brought to our attention.
As part of a public agency charged with the responsibility for protecting the public health, the Bureau of Industrial Hygiene of the Detroit Department of Health is licensed to possess limited quantities of a broad spectrum of reactor by-products for the calibration of radiation detection instruments, and for the standardization of laboratory equipment used to evaluate potential radiation hazards. While we probably could qualify for exemption from licensing fees under **civil Defense, '1 we would much prefer that exemption for "non-profit agencies utilizing by-products for protection of the public health" be specifically mentioned so as to avoid confusion.
In our opinion, non-profit organizations using by-products for the protection of humans are at least as important, from a license fee exemption standpoint as licensees engaged in human uses.
Sincerely, George E. Pickett, M. D.
PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR WGF:lo
                                                                            ~dM Director BUREAU OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
                                                                            @kno_ i~-- 111~ **ii_,.,=-."' J.P._i-s 1tc2
 
r ..." . r *T . ,, ' ~ *""' **r-i j ~, 1 i*  I j\;J.{1 1.*1,:;, t-lji
:r.,.:-*r-- :1\ \UL-:              1***t(~~ r~7tJ,/}l>
1.RP4                                                  .
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 888 OLD TARRYTOWN ROAD WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10808 914 949-15880 October 2, 1970 Secretary United States Atomic Energy Commission                                                                          us,.::,
Washington, D.C. 20545                                                                                            5 1970 Gfflce of tfl ~ sc:ratary Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch                                                            Public Proce,e~l,1 gs Branen
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
Nuclear Technology Corporation wishes to make known its objections to the proposed license fee schedule published August 4, 1970, in the Federal Register.
We fully support the Commission's intention of putting licensing and regulatory activities on a self-sustaining basis.
It is not apparent in the proposed new fee schedule, however, that due consideration has been given to the consequences of the new fees on that sector of the nuclear industry in which we are most interested - low power reactors for commercial applications.
Nuclear Technology Corporation is developing a low power, minimum cost reactor for use in neutron radiography, activation analysis, isotope production, heat and power pro-duction in remote areas, oil well stimulation, and other applications which are principally in the private, commercial arena. The power level is in the range of 100 kWth* Typical u235 loadings are approximately 2 Kg. We estimate a capital cost of approximately $100,000 and an annual fuel cost of approximately $4,000 for our reactor in production quantities.
In our estimation, the low costs of our reactor will be a principal factor in achieving a successful penetration of commercial markets. The proposed new fees will introduce a serious perturbation to the economic advantages we hope to offer. By way of illustration, under the new schedule, when licensed as a production facility (Class 103 license), our reactor will require initial fees of about $46,000 and an annual fee of about $13,000. These charges are respectively
                      -~  HO~*~-~lia ~~ "'J _ 1.iJa'~ _,pjs.J.2E.1-{..~-
 
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY CoRPORATION about 5 and 7 times larger than the initial and annual fees under the existing schedule. Even if the reactor is qualified for a Class 104 license, the new initial and annual fees would be about $9,000 and $5,000 respectively, which are 3 and 8 times larger than the existing research reactor initial and annual charges. We are seriously concerned that these new fees, which are very large compared with the costs of the reactor itself, will defeat the important advantages we now envision, and will deter the development of low power reactor applications.
We respectfully request that the structure of the proposed new licensing fees be reviewed and evaluated by the Commission from the viewpoint of the low power reactor in commercial applications, and we hope that the imposition of an unduly large economic penalty through large licensing fees will not be deemed necessary.
* Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours, NU  EA  TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Art r          an Vice Pr    ent AJG/sd
 
AREA CODE 313 TELEPHONE 962-2 100
                                        ..,o*::,. l :,;.~:, e ;~:'
                                                                , __ -~  I~ 01 7=-"~ I. -,-..
THE DETROIT EDISON CoMPA;r~                                    ~        .J.--g_,._,
2000  SECOND AVENUE                                        OCKETED tl&AEG DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226 51970 ENGINEERING RESEARCH DEPARTMENT                            OT~~ "f ~~ -: r *i '~:ry r *'              '3 Chemical and Metallurgical Division Secretary, USAEC Washington, D.C. 20545 ATTENTION:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==SUBJECT:==
AEC Proposed Revised License Fee Schedule In the proposed revised license fee schedule, Section 170.31, we would like some clarification on certain byproduct materials licenses we possess.
We have License Nos. 21-2335-02 through 21-2335- 07 , which do not fall under Category 3, except possibly 21-2335-02. Our question is: Are all of these licenses consideEed one license s ubject to one
$40 fee, or are they considered six separate licenses, each being subject to a $40 annual fee?
We would appreciate your opinion on this matter.
Very truly yours,
                                              ~r              -, ,    ;!J,~
                                                  /      ~ c~
ad~a~
odz ~~  6
                                                                  ! Safety Officer JJB:sc
 
B.asic 5_ervice CORP              OR      AT                  0      N 16544 plymouth road                          detroit, michigan 48227                              vermont 7-8820 SEPTEMBER      29, 1970 OCKETED i/&AEC SECRETARY US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 51970 Cffice of the Secretary WA6H ~N GTON DC 20545                                                                    Pub:;c Proc~.Jdlngs Brcr.Cil Arr:    CHIEF,    PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS BRANCH DEAR SIR:
WE WISH TO ENTER AN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED REVISED LICENSE FEE SCHEDULE                  PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ON AUGUST 4, 1970.                OUR OBJECTION IS SPECIALLY AIMED AT CATEGORY #5        OF THE SCHEDULE IN PARAGRAPH 170.31.                                          WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NEITHER "EQUITABLE" NOR "UNIFORM".
IN FACT, IT IS 0ISCREMINATORY AND CANNOT POSSIBLY REPRESENT ANY REASONABLE ~ L LOCATI0N OF COSTS.
IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE SMALL USER OF RADIOISOTOPES OR INSTRUMENTATION USING RADIOISOTOPES; SINCE THE CHARGE IS THE SAME FOR THE SMALL USER AS THE LARGE USER.                                      FOR EXAMPLE, A USER WITH A SINGLE LEVEL GAGE USING A RADIO ACTIVE SOURCE MIGHT PAY LESS THAN $1,000 FOR THE INSTRUMENTATION AND SOURCE MATERIAL BUT WOULD HAVE TO PAY $400 IF HE UTILIZED THE DEVISE FOR TEN YEARS.            IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE COST OF ISSUE-ING AND ADMINISTERING SUCH A LICENSE OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD WOULD AMOUNT TO $400.                    IT IS CERTAINLY NOT EQUITABLE IHAT A LARGE USER WHO MIGHT HAVE TWO DOZEN INSTRUMENTS AND REQUIRE SEVERAL LICENSE AMMENDMENTS A YEAR WOULD PAY THE SAME COST.
THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE HOLDER OF A SPECIFIC LICENSE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO UTILIZE EQUIPMENT UNDER GENERAL LICENSE.                        THIS IS DISPITE THE FACT THAT THE HOLDERS OF SPECIFIC LICENSES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME TRAIN-ING IN RADI ATION SAFETY AND ARE BETTER PREPARED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC THAN INDIVIDUALS AND ORSANIZATI0NS WHO UTILIZE RADIO-ACTIVE MATERIALS UNDER GENERAL LICENSE.
IF THE AEC FEELS THAT IT MUST HAVE A FEE FOR LICENSES OF THIS TYPE, THEN WE FEEL THIT A ONE TIME FEE WOULD BE MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE.        THIS FEE COULD BE FOR THE ORIGINAL LICENSE AND FOR EACH AMMENDMENT WHICH INCREASED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RADIO-
                    ~~          ~
O'wk.... .. " --.,  V *
* _j _LQJ.?]:1g..&. ~ -
                              - INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT FOR INDUSTRY -
THICKNESS GAGES  e  LEVEL AND DENSITY GAGES            e GAS ANALYSIS    e    PHOTOELECTRIC RELAYS            e  BELT SCALES LOAD CE L LS e  INSPECTION EQUIPMENT        e      DYNAMOMETERS      e SWI T CHES  e  COUNTERS            e    MOISTURE GAGES
 
SECRETARY                                      SEPT. 29, 1970 US AEC CHIEF,  PUBLl6 PROCEEDINGS ACTIVE MATERIAL COVERED BY THE LICENSE. SucM AN ARRANGEMENT WOULD BE MORE EQUITABLE TO THE LARGE AND SMALL USER AND WOULD MORE NEARLY BE IN TRUE PROPORTION TO THE TOTAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE AEC. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER THIS SCHEDULE ATLEAST IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA WHICH IS ONE IN WHICH WE HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE. WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING THESE COMMENTS.
YOURS TRULY, YP~          a~r:
RALPH A. HOXIE PRESIDENT RAH,?F
 
BILTM            E Area Code 412              PRODUCTS Phon e: 563-0808 CO., INC.      450 CASTLE SHANNON BLVD., PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15234 September 30, 1970 Secretary                                                                      DOCK L EO U. S . Atomic Energy Commission                                                      U&AEC Washington, D. C. 20545 OCT 21970*
cmce or the secretary Attention:                Chief, Public Proceedings Branch                  Public l'romdlngs Br~
 
==Reference:==
Proposed A.E.C. License Fee Gentlemen:
We have received your notice regarding the proposed fee for those having A . E . C. Licenses. We oppose the initial fee of
          ~40.00 plus $40 .00 per year for the following reasons.
: 1.        Our method of earing a living depends upon the sale of our nuclear density and level gages to the process industries. The fees our custome~
who have specific licenses, would have to pay each year would discourage them from buying our,*
gages having radioactive isotopes.
: 2.      Some of our customers have only one gage, as com-pared to other customers, who may have as many as fift y gages. Yet, the fee is the same for both customers. The small user is discriminated against .
: 3.        As an A.E.C. License holder, I do not possess any radioactive isotopes. I g ot my license so that I cou ld perform radiation surveys and relocate radio-active isotopes as a service to my customers , who do not have A. E . C. licenses. Over the past ten years , I have performed this function four times.
10w , if I had to pay a fee over this period, it would have amounted to G440 .00. This is an exorbi-tant fee/price to pay to adhere to the A.E.C.
regulations.
We hope the Atomic Energy Commission will review the above and not charge a fee to the A.E.C. license holders.
!)_k
  . !ill!i*;..,:~ .:J ,,;;* w~** ~ _L~J2--j_1_QL~., . Very truly yours,
-    -                    -                        BILTMORE PRO~            COMPAiIT '          me.
DKB:nw                                    ~ ~ce*                  ~
Vice Pre:s i dent
 
I)
                                                                            .-~*Pf\:3f,~0/10, 11 0 CHEM-RAWLAND F. TAPLETT PRESIDENT                                                            POST OFF ICE BOX 918 TELEPHONE  ( AC 509) 662-5220                                        WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON 98801 September 23, 1970 Secretary, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C.
Attention: Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir,==
 
I am writing you in regard to your bulletin ( N-146) dated August 3, 1970 proposing to ammend the regulations to revise fees for facitities and materials licenses. I can not understand the exorbitant fee increase.
I know of no other business that even comes close to matching this type of fee. What is the purpose? Could it be to keep private business out of this field? Certainly the AEC is funded by federal monies. The fee money should not be required for salary and etc., to run the of fi ce. If that is the problem maybe more efficient methods and reduction in pay-roll should be considered. The Nuclear business is still pretty much in its infancy and to expect the first few to get into this field, to pay such a fee as you are suggesting is asinine on the part of those setting up the budget. As stated before, I know of no business or agency in Federal or private business that charges such an out-landish fee for a license. Being primarily interested in the waste dis po sal portion of the Nuclear cycle, an environmentalist would think, this could be another road block.
I believe this could stand a thorough investigation by the persons re-sponsible for your budget.
Sincerely yours, R. F. Taplett President CHEM-NUCLEAR SERVICES, INC.
 
                                                                                            'J
                                                          ~
DOCKETED OOAEC                          01V1S10N OF AUTOMATION INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED
    &lfir.e of the Setretary Pub:ic Proceadlngs Kenyon Marine                                  GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT 06437 Dranch Q}lft--
22 September 1970 Secretary, United States Atomic Energy Commission Attention:                Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Washington, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
I have received the copy of "AEC Proposed Revised License Fee Schedule", and I wish to protest this revision as it applies to our business.
Kenyon Marine imports from England                            a fine handbearing compass utilizing Beta Light (tritium) for                            night time illumination of the compass card.                These compasses are            sold for use as precision naviga-tional instruments in the pleasure                            boating market.
Since 1965, we have had a license to import these compasses.                                                    At the time we applied for our license, we submitted a sample compass for inspection and observation to the Atomic Energy Commi-sion.        When the compass was returned to us, we were advised that the AEC was pleased to see this application of atomic energy in the pleasure boating market.
                                                                          ~ fr, 1-/u.triY,. l C, / 3,_j )?o, VtA._
Attached is a copy of Kenyon Marine' s                            r..f9Jo. catalo,$, and you will note that subject compass is described at the top of page 12.
While it carries a suggested list price of $150, we distribute these compasses to the wholesale marine market at a price of $75.
Over the past several years, our sales have averaged somewhere in the range of 30 compasses sold per year, which has produced gross sales to us of approximately $2,250 per year.
Under the proposed schedule of materials license fees, it appears to me that we would fall under 3A with an application fee of $500 plus an annual fee of $500.                            Simple arithmetic will show that if we should be forced to pay as much as only $500 for an annual fee we would be stupid to continue in the business of importing s u bject compasses.                If this $500 per year fee were applied to us, I would immediately cease to import the compasses.
They are already a high-priced navigational instrument, and in-clusion of the fee in the price (there would be no alternative) prices the compasses out of the market.
GUILFORD, CONNECT ICUT 06437
* 203-453-2774
 
I' Secretary United States Atomic Energy Commission - page 2. 22 September 1970 If the AEC determines that some category of license must be ap-plicable, I strongly recommend that we come under Numeral 5A with an application fee of $40 and an annual fee of $40. This we can afford to pay and continue to import and distribute these fine navigational instruments.
You may properly interpret my comments as a strong protest against the proposal of charging us the $500 application fee and a $500 annual fee. If you do this, you will put us out of business with respect to subject compass.
Should you have any questions concerning my comments, please let me know.
Sincerely, Hugh S. Wagner Vice President and General Manager Kenyon Marine jm enclosure
 
OFFICE OF THE DEAN                                                                                    UNIVERSITY STATION , BO X 3 29 5 oo:;;rr  NUMBERP R rr.o:OSi::J RULE__    - 30, 1/0,  10 , 110 THE UNIVERSITY OF W YOMING                If.Pk COLLEG E OF ENG I NEE R I NG LARA MIE, WYOMING              82070 RETURN IN TE N DAYS TO                  September 22, 1970 THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BO X 3295, UNIVER S ITY STATION LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070 Mr. W. B. McCool, Secretary Atomic Energy Commission Germantown, Maryland
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
With reference to Proposed Rule Making 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, 170, dated Tuesday, August 4, 1970, comment period ending October 18, 1970, we f ee l that we remain exempt from the fee schedule stated therein as we are a tax-supported nonprofit educational institution.
Sincerely, A. J. McGaw, Dean and Reactor Administrator AJM/ml cc:    John Flora, Denver Division of Compliance, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
 
IN0U!.TAIAL
                                    ~(RV'ICI RADIOGRAPHIC A~~OCIATtON
* DOCi<ET NU MBER PROPOSED RULE .. PR_  _*#__    . ,'W, 17V 30, Lf&
Industrial Radiographic Service Association P.O. Box 1214 Magnolia Park Station - Burbank, California September 17, 1970 Secretary, U. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.                                                                FRED W. ROHDE I. R.S.A.
Attention:              Chief, Public Proceedings Branch                              P.O. BOX 1214 MAGNOLIA PARK STATION BURBANK, CALIF. 91 505 Re:        Proposed Rule Making 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, & 170 Fees for Facilities and Material License Gentlemen:
As a Service Association representing over 50 commercial testing firms engaged in nationwide field of industrial radiography and general nondestructive testing, many of our member companies hold valid Byproducts Material Licenses issued by the A.E.C. and a~so the several agreement states.
Accordingly, we offer the following comments in regard to the Proposed Rule Making and specifically to Paragraph 170.31 (3) B.
After adoption by the Commission, it would seem probable that the several agreement states would adopt a similar fee schedule for Byproduct Material Licenses as California's.                          This would put our member companies at a disadvantage when operating at temporary job sites in agreement states beyond the reciprocity period.
A flat fee per license would seem to place a heavy burden on the single radioactive source user as compared to large companies using several radioactive sources of Byproduct Material.
Respectfully submitted, INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION Fl::!~
OCKEHD IJSAEC EP221970
                                                                          ~fice of the Secreta,y Executive Secretary                                                        Public ProCeedlngs Branch 90916 ":II~ ')fNVSlfnB NOl.lV.lS )HJ'o'd Vl1ONOVW t>tlI X08 *o*d
            *v*s*M*1 30HOM "M 03M!I
 
                    *                                          - ~=E        :";:[R pR-      30, 4, '70, /70 PROCESS VALVE & EQUIPMENT CO.
Manufacturers' Representative P. 0. BOX 65
* 18 NORTH MAIN STREET                                        PHONE CHAGRIN FALLS, OHIO 44022                                          216 247-6111 SEPTEMBER 18, 1970 OCKElED tlSilEC SECRETARY                                                        EP2 l 1970 u.s. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION                                    lfflca at t11e SeUetVr WASHINGTON, D.C.                                                    Publ{: rre~~dlags Bruch ATTENTION:  CHIEF PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS BRANCH DEAR SIR:
I NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISED LICENSE FEE SCHEDULE, WHICH YOUR COVER LETTER EXPLAINS NECESSARY TO COVER COSTS OF LICENSE ISSUANCE. ASSUMING A REASONABLY CLOSE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE COSTS OF SUCH ISSUANCE AND THE AMOUNTS OF TAX, I CAN SEE NO OB JECTION, AS I FEEL STRONGLY THAT SUCH OPERATIONS SHOULD BE
. SELF SUPPORTING.
HOWEVER., NO MENTION IS MADE OF THE COST OF R -INSURING PU BLIC UTILITIES USING NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR POWER GENERATION.                                IT IS BY NO MEANS CLEAR TO ME WHY SUCH RE-INSURANCE SHOULD BE A FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS 1 UNDERSTAND IS THE CASE, UNLESS DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY FEES CHARGED TO THE UTILITIES.
IN VIEW OF THE NEAR DISASTER SEVERAL YEARS AGO AT THE FERMI ST TION, IT SEEMS THAT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST REQUIRES ADEQUATE MEAS .TO REPAY THE KIND OF LOSS WHICH IS A POTENTIAL IN NUCLEAR . GENERATING PLANT S.
THERE IS NO ASSURANCE IN MY MINO THAT SUCH ACtIDENTS ARE IMPOSSI BLE, AND THERE SEEMS TO BE MINIMUM' PROVISION BY THE UJILITIES TO F D THE COSTS OF THE VICTIMS SHOULD AN ACCIDENT OCCUR. ,.
TO SUMMARIZE THEN, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO MORE PROTECTION FROM THE RESULTS OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT THAN NOW APPEARS TO BE AVAILABLE. IF SUCH ACCIDENTS ARE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, THEN THE UTILITIES RATHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT, OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE INSURANCE. WHETHER THE INSURANCE IS PROVIDED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES OR THE GOVERNMENT, THf USERS OF . NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTS SHOULD BE CHARGED ALL SUCH COSTS.
1 WILL APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AS TO THE STATUS OF THE INSURANCE AND WHO IS PAYING FOR IT, ALSO WHAT THE LIMITS OF OBLIGATION ARE.
SINCERELY, PROCESS V~LYE & EQUIPMENT                        co.
                                          ~ C% ~~k~u-A. C. WOODRICH ACW!ADW
 
Babcock & Wilcox                                                                Research and Deve lopment Division P.O. Box 1260, Lynchburg, Va. 24505 Telephone: (703) 384-5111 LL, ... -~
Uti.\cG              September 4, 1970 Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Connnission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:        Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemen:
We noted with interest and some concern the recent notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 35, No. 150) increasing the fees for facilities and materials licenses.
The Babcock & Wilcox Company's Nuclear Development Center is a research and development facility with seven separate licenses subject to the annual fees prescribed by 10 CFR 170. Under the new schedule one of these licenses, a combined by-product, special nuclear and source material license, would be subject to an annual fee of $9,300 versus
    $100 under the 1968 fee schedule. In total the new schedule would obligate the Company to an annual payment of $19,300 for all Nuclear Development Center licenses, an increase well over 400 %.
The increase seems unusually large, and we question whether the Commission considered the effect this increase would h ave on a facilit y such as ours. We suggest that the Connnission provide under the applicable part of 10 CFR 170 a provision whereby a licensee could pay a single fee f or a combined license which would be l e ss t han the total amount f or a ll the individual licenses.
Points for consideration during ne gotiation would be:
: 1.      Reactor Operation - Although the Company is licensed to operate four critical e xperiments (Licenses CX-1, 10, 12 and 19) and one pool reactor (R-47), several facilities are held in standby for periods e x ceeding a year. Reducing the fee to a negotiated amount and relief from payment of fee for standby facilities are possible alternatives.
: 2. License Overlap - License conditions of several licenses are for the mutual benefit of all ; therefore, it would appear reasonable to expect a combined license fee, less than the total fee for all licenses, where there i s a license coverage overlap.
          -_J/lJJ/..J.tJ1- 1 k The Babcock & Wil cox Company/ Established 1867
 
Babcock & Wilcox Secretary, USAEC                                September 4, 1970
: 3. Government Contracts - Several of our licenses are maintained and used for the conduct of USAEC sponsored research and development. In consideration of Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act which excludes "those engaged in the transaction of official business of the Government", it appears that some relief is due licensees engaged in Government contract work beyond the possibility of inclusion in overhead. Two instances of relief provided to leasees of special nuclear material (SNM) are:
3.1  where organizations involved in research and development may pay for consumed SNM at a reduced base charge (FR Vol. 33 No. 160 dated August 16, 1968), and 3.2  reduced lease charges for plutonium used in research and development programs in which the USAEC determines it has programmatic interest (FR Vol. 33 No. 160 dated August 16, 1968).
Babcock & Wilcox believes that the suggestions herein would provide a more fair and equitable rate for a licensee operating a multi-licensed facility and would be in keeping with the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952.
Yours very truly, BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY Research & Development Division H. H. Poor, Vice President HHP/jwr
 
(w D U KE POW ER COMPANY 1.
                                                                    .~JJ>, tkJ, 1o,I P OWE R B UILDINO 422 SOUTH CHU R CH S TRE ET, CHARLOTT E ,  N.C. 262 01 B . B. PARKER September 4, 1970 E X E CUTIV E Vie r P R ES I DEN T P O WER OPERATIONS Secretary U S Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.                      20545 Attention:                  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
With reference to a notice of proposed rule making dated July 30, 1970, on the subj ect of revised license fee schedule, we respectfully submit the following comments -
1]            The construction permit fee schedule recognizes the efficiencies in i ssuing permits for two or more power reactors at a single site at one time, and that fee applies to only one reactor which is for the largest if they are of different size. We ur ge that the fees for operating licenses reflect the same principle, which is commensurate with the efficiencies obtained in the operating license proceedings when two or more reactors are considered at one time.
2]            The rule making states tha t the proposed fees are designed to recover the Commission's costs involved in the issuance of facilities and materials licenses.
T his appears to require that the costs of the licensing process must be borne by an applicant for a facil.i ties or materials lic ense. We believe that the Commission's license fee schedule should explicitly incorporate the principle that because of the public interests served by the licensing process, it is proper for a proportionate part of the costs and expenses to be funded through the public appropriations process and an applicant should not be required t o bear all of those e xpenses. A fee s ch e dule incorporating this principle would be fully in a c cord with the intent of the Congress a s ex pressed in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952.
BBP-r
 
P.O. BOX 3100 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33101
                                . ,        fCGS
                                . :* _2,&o,?.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY September 11, 1970 Secretary U. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
This relates to the Commission's published notice of proposed rule mak ing to amend 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 170 involving increased fees to be charged for facilities and materials licenses.      In response to this notice, Florida Power & Light Company would like to comment on the proposed changes.
On a twin-unit nuclear installation the size of Turkey                        ~  I I
Point, the construction permit and operating license fees                        I I
would be increased to $556,000, or approximately nine                            I I
l times the present level. The magnitude of this increase is surprising and it would seem appropriate for the Commission to furnish an explanation of the basis for these fees.
The difference between the schedule for construction permit fees and operating license fees on a twin-unit plant is difficult to understand, to say the least. The construction permit fee is $45 per mwt for the largest reactor unit, or for a single unit if both are the same size and the con-struction permits are issued at the same time. This obviously reflects the negligible extra cost involved for the second unit since a single PSAR and review are required and there are few, if any, shared components. The proposed operating license fee is $65 per mwt for each unit which obviously is not based on the Commission's minor incremental costs for the duplicate unit even if its operating date is a year later.
If the fees are to be increased at all, we believe that the Commission should take the long overdue steps to expedite HELPING BUILD FLORIDA
 
Secretary, U~C September 1. 1970 Page 2 the present unnecessarily protracted licensing procedure.
Even a routine project with no new features on an ideal site require,s seventeen months between PSAR filing and construction permit although the DRL has said that seven months would be a reasonable time. Despite several past studies, there is still much repetition and the ACRS con-tinues to function as a super review board rather than as the advisory committee i t was intended to be.
We respectfully suggest that the Commission review the justification for the proposed fee increases and take act.ion to improve the efficiency of its licensing operations.
Very truly yours, 4~
George Ki~an                                      I I Senior Vice President GK: std
 
Duquesne l..iglt Company    -          435 Si xth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 JOHN M. ARTHUR Chairman of the Board and Chi ef Executive Officer Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:        Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
By a Notice in the Fe deral Register dated August 4, 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission stated that it proposes to amend its regulations to revise the fees charged for facilities and materials licenses. The pr oposed increase in fees is drastic.
Total licensing fees for a 2,600 mwt nuclear power plant would be increased approximate l y 770 per cent over present l evels; the operating license fee would be inc reased 3,600 per cent.
Duquesne Light Company has a very direct interest in this matter, being one of the co-owners of the Beaver Valley Power Station, a nuclear power plant n ow under c onstruction at Shipping-port, Pennsylv ania.
We have no knowledge of the financial needs the Com-mission expects to satisfy through the proposed increase in fees.
We do, however, desire to point out that the proposed increase in fees must necessarily find its way into the rates Duquesne Light Company charges its customers for electric servic e and we urge tha t the Commission c onsider that fact before making a final decision to effect so large an increase in its fees.
Very truly yours,
                                                        /411/~
 
(                                                                                                  'f-llfi r'
                                                                                                      , . " , - ~q.)~ ( 70 Jersey Nuclear Company DIVISION OF JERSEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
777 106th Avenue N. E., Bellevue, Washington 98004 September 3, 1970 9(206) 455-5130 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:        Mr. W. B. McCool, Secretary
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
The Jersey Nuclear Company has reviewed the Atomic Energy Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making published for public comment in the Federal Register dated August 4, 1970, which would amend the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70 and 170 to revise fees charged for production and utilization facilities and materials licenses.
The published assumptions underlying the specific fee schedules which are contemplated are not sufficient to permit comprehensive analysis and comment.
We would set out several matters related to Section 170.31 which should be given consideration.
: 1. We interpret the provisions of Section 170. 31, Category l .A, to contemplate that an ensuing materials license is granted to a company in the furtherance of its operations on special nuclear materials and the materials license application fee pertains thereto, as does the annual materials license maintenance fee. Thus, changes in the scope of work, number or location of physical facilities in which operations on special nuclear materials are performed, or other changes required from time to time in the materiols lic ense as issued would be accomplished through materials license amendments. _Thl.l,~, ,rnultiple materials license application fees are not required under the contemplated modified regulations to license multiple and diverse activities involving special nuclear materials by a given company, and the maximum annual fee would be $8,000. Specifically, the scope of Category l .A                        ~
would include fuel fabrication, research and development, in fabricating plants, pilot plant facilities or laboratories employing large but licensed quantities of uranium 235, uranium 233 and plutonium.
: 2. The cost of maintaining a Iicense subject to Section 170. 31, Category l .A, should be related to the scope and diversity of the operations conducted under the license and the levels of AEC surveillance which may be required. We suggest that, rather than average the expected cost for the industry as a whole, it may be appropriate to establish risk categories in which operations with favorable experience records may qualify for a reduced annual fee rate.
 
.f U.S. Atomic Energy Commission                                      September 3, 1970
: 3. It is not clear to us that the annual fee to maintain a materials Iicense should exceed that for a large nuclear power station or be 80 percent that for a major chemical reprocessing complex. The differences in risk are evident, in fact recognized in many ways including Price Anderson indemnity coverage, and we would be lieve that the cost of maintaining a license would bear a first-order relationship to the potential risk to public health and safety.
: 4. While Jersey Nuclear is not directly engaged in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, we are d irectly concerned that nuclear power is not unjustifiably penalized economically relative to non-nuclear thermal power generating plants. It wou Id appear to us that the costs of initial I icensing and maintenance of a license should decrease as experience is gained in the industry, increasing standardization is evident and the numbe r of nuclear stations increases. The fee schedule information available to us makes it difficult to conclude that any of these relationships obtain.
We appreciate this opportun ity to present our views on this subject.
Very tru Iy yours, Raymond L. Di ckeman General Manager RLD:db
 
J
{,CJ P. a\ - 3u, ~01v OREGON STATE BOARD OF HEAL TH
                                                                            . ~ .......
STATE OFFICE BUILDING
* P.O. BOX 231
* 97207 TOM McCALL GOVERNOR          September 1, 1970 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD A . V. JACKSON, D.O .
President Forest Grove            Mr. Woodford B. McCool BEATRICE K. ROSE, M .D.
Vice President          Secretary Portland CONRAD N . McCONNELL, R.Ph.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Second Vice Preside nt  Washington, D. C. 20545 Portland EDWARD M. ANDERSON Eugene                 
 
==Dear Mr. McCool:==
 
B. BRANDT BARTELS, M .D.
Medford JOSEPH E. BURNS            I am writing you in regard to proposed amendments CFR Hermiston CHARLES S. CAMPBE LL, M .D.
Parts 30, 40, 70 and 170. I am about to reiterate what Salem                  I have told other members of the Atomic Energy Commission ROBERT I. DAUGHERTY, M .D.
Lebanon                regarding fees. It just isn't worth it.
ARTHUR HUBER, D.M.D.
Astoria FREDERICK H. TORP
: 1. Licensees will band together in large numbers Portland              under a single license creating absolute chaos for EDWARD PRESS, M.D.
compliance inspectors.
Portland Secretary and Stale Health Officer        2. Industrial radiographers, salesmen of sealed sources and devices, and various other sales personnel will run rampant throughout the* non-agreement states with a single agreement state license without prior notification of their intent. The single, ordinary license request in a non-agreement state will be ignored even if the fee is altered.
: 3. A rather significant staff will be necessary to handle the fee program. The licensing and fees must be concurrent and no fee approved without prior license approval.
I would like to reiterate the comment made by Mr. Oliver Townsend of the State of New York, Executive Department, Office of Atomic and Space Development, in his letter to the Commission on July 7, 1967 where he quotes Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-25, paragraph 3 (a) (2):
Telephone: Area Code 503 - Days 226-2161 - After Hours 222-1500 S-26
 
Mr. Woodford B. McCool Secretary U. s. Atomic Energy Commission September 1, 1970 Page 2 "No charge should be made for services when the identification of the ultimate beneficiary is obscure and the service can be primarily considered as benefiting broadly the general public *** "
s1:~:7jJ Malsfi.11 W.
Director Radiation Section MWP:kg cc:  Agreement States Committee on Licensing
 
William J. Cahil ' -.
~      ' ce Presider.
Consr ,dated Edison Compeny of New York. Inc 4 rw,g P'ac.e. New York. N Y 10003 Telephone (212) 4 60-3819 Secretary
: u. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c. 20545
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
respectfully submits the following comments on proposed amendments to regulations concerning the fees for facili-ties and materials licenses pursuant to a notice published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on August 4, 1970.
The notice states that the proposed fees are designed to recover the Commission's costs involved in the issuance of facilities and materials licenses. Since we have no knowledge of the Commission's costs, we cannot express any comments on the size of the fees.
We respectfully submit that the fees for facili-ties licenses should not be directly proportional to the size of the facility. The statutory principle involved in setting the fees is to take into consideration cost to the Government as well as value to the recipient. We question whether the cost of licensing a 1000 MW facility is twice the cost of licensing a 500 MW facility.            It would appear to us that there would be no difference in cost between licensing an 800 MW facility and a 1000 MW facility. The proposed manner of relating the fees dir-ectly to size of the facility would appear to take into consideration solely value to the recipient and not to consider cost relationships of different size facilities.
Since we do not have access to the cost studies referred to in the notice of rule making, we are unable to offer specific suggestions. However, a fee schedule based on a sliding scale or in brackets for various size
 
                                                            . o:,i-- .. ,. :  ~  T          f  Pp'S Pi7." "
* _1 i.ULE I. I  S o'I 4- ~  7 C::, 17 d
* ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 63145
* 314 AX 1-0540 September 4, 1970 Secretary
: u. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington ) D. c.        20545 Attention:        Chief ) Public Proceedings Branch Gentlemeq:
The purp ose of this letter is to submit our comments on the proposed amendments to Parts 30 and 170 of the AEC regulations.
Mallinckrodt Chemical works operates a facility under license by the u. s. Atomic Energy Commission at Maryland Heights ,
Missou;t;'i; St. Louis ) Missouri; Rosemont, Illinois; Cleveland ,
Ohio and Carlstadt , New Jersey; as well as two facilities in agreement states.
Our Maryland Heights facility is classified a"Priority l" operation by the Commission and as such receives maximum attention from the Commission. All of our other facilities do not have this priority rating and correspondingly receive less attention from the Commission.
We first question the need for assessment of a fee for each of our facilities and second question the logic of a fixed fee for each facility without regard to the magnitude and complexity of operations.
c$:5"' ..,,,
Sincerely ,
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS MALLINCKRODT/NUCLEAR Werner H. Wahl , Ph.D.
Director of Operations WHW:cm cc: Edwin A.Wiggin Committee Secretary , Atomic Industrial Forum MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS
 
n,.,r, ,--      r=- tip.. s-3 0 ~ c/ 71 I 7,              consumers R. C. Youngdahl Senior Vice President
                                                                                        ~            Power company General Offic e s: 212 We s t Michigan Avenue, J a cks o n, Michigan 49
                                                                                                    ~
                                                                                                  '3, 1970 \
                                                                                                              \ ...  \
L        \
I --
i*\. 1,1,, ,_. ~ - -~ :. . . . _,                                      ,,
                                                                                                                      /
Secretary                                                                                                      /
I U. S . Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Gentlemen:                                                    Attn:    Chief, Public Proceedings Branch This letter is in response to the Commission ' s invitation for comment on proposed amendments to Part 170 of the Commission ' s regulations published in the Federal Register for August 4, 1970 . Consumers Power Company, while recognizing the basis on which the fee increases are made ,
must register its surprise at the magnitude of the increases . Considering the already high costs and the excessive delays in constructing and licens -
ing nuclear plants, the amount of the fee increases seems to add one more factor discouraging the development of nuclear power .
Consumers Power Company has three comments on the changes in the proposed fee schedules apart from the magnitude of the increases .
OUr first comment is that the requirement that a separate full operating license fee be paid for each reactor licensed results in an excessive operating license fee payment in the case of a two-unit plant containing similar units being constructed under a single construction permit . If a two-unit plant is being planned, the construction permit fee is based only on the thermal output of the largest reactor . However, at the operating license stage a separate fee must be paid on each reactor . Since the amount of licensing work required by the AEC for a two -unit plant, where the units are of the same design and construction on each unit is progressing fairly evenly, is clearly not double the amount of work required for one unit, some adjustment should be made in the fee to reflect that fact . It is probably true that there is more work required by the AEC at the operating license stage for a two-unit plant than for a one-unit plant, due to the necessity of compliance inspection of two units instead of one and there-fore the type of arrangement applicable to the construction permit stage may not be applicable here . But it would seem that some other more equit-able arrangement than that proposed could be arranged .
Additionally, Consumers Power does not think that an operating license fee should be paid concurrently with an application for an amend-ment to an operating license, particularly in a case where a low-power
 
Secretary                                                              2 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission September 3, 1970 testing license is issued initially. The requirement that the remainder of an operating license fee be paid upon application for amendment could result in a substantial sum being paid at the time of application where the amended operating license itself may not be received for many months.
It would appear that it would be more equitable that the operating license fee for the amended license be paid at the time of issuance as is the fee for the initial license.
Our third comment is that the proposed regulation does not make it clear when the annual fee payments are to be made once an amendment to the operating license has been granted. Is it intended following is-suance of an amended operating license that a fee be paid on the anniver-sary date of the original operating license, and an additional fee covering the increased power provided for in the amended license be paid on the anniversary of the issuance of the amended license, so that two fees will be payable annually? If this is so, might it not result in three or four annual fees being payable for the same plant if several amendments have taken place? This seems to require needlessly complex accounting and more payments than are necessary. This could also cause the inequitable result that an annual fee on a portion of the license would be below the $2,000 minimum annual fee and that the $2,000 minimum would be charged due to the fractured payment schedule. Of course, the regulation, as far as the cal-culation of the minimum fee required is concerned, could be interpreted to combine the various fees that would be payable over the course of the year in order to make the minimum, but this is not necessarily clear from the regulation. It would appear that a clearer result would be reached if a single annual payment date were set up, presumably the anniversary of the initial license, and that when amended licenses were issued between anni-versary dates, a prorated amount of the increased annual fee would be pay-able on the fixed anniversary date.
RCY/JFJ{/pb
 
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35101 ALAN R. BARTON                        September 2, 1970 SENIOR VICE PRES ID E NT
_1 1g- L7 o __ .
5u/                  V  .1/
Mr. W. B. McCool, Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Re:  Notice of Proposed Rul e Making to Revi      ees for Facilities and Materials Licenses
 
==Dear Mr. McCool:==
 
By application dated October 10, 1969, Alabama Power Company requested the issuance of a construction permit for the first unit of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. On June 30, 1970, the Company amended its application to request a construction permit for a second unit of the Farley Plant . We, therefore , wish to express our interest and concern regarding the AEC 's proposed revi sion of its schedule of fees for licensing of product i on and ut i lization facilities.
The announced purpose of the proposed revision is to recover the Commission's cost involved in the issuance of licenses. Footnote 3 to the schedule of fees in proposed section 170.21 recognizes that the costs of issuing construction permits for multiple units at a single power station are not materially increased when the Commission ' s review of the units is conducted at th e same t ime. Thus, under the proposed revision , the total construction permit fee for a multiple unit plant when the construction permits are issued at the same time would be cal-culated on the basis of the largest singl e unit authorized. Ther e may, however, be situations in which the Commission's review of applications for construction permits for a multipl e unit plant will be conducted concurrently, but for some technicality, the permits may not be issued concurrently . The costs expended by the Commission in such event would not increase, but a literal reading of the proposed revision would require payment of the sizeable construction permit fee for each power reactor.
An example of this possibility could arise in the Company's situation with the Joseph M. Farley Plant . The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 requires the company to obtain a certificate of reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met prior to the issuance of a construction permit for the second unit . Because of the timing and procedures involved, however , the Commission has authority to and may issue a construction permit for the first unit without prior receipt of the water quality certification . Should this new legislation result in issuance of construction permits for these two units at different times,
 
.I Mr. W. B. McCool - AEC            =2=                            9-2-70 the Commission's cost for issuing the construction permit for the second unit would probably not increase since the review of the second unit would have been conducted concurrently with the first unit.
While this example may be unique, it is our feeling that other similar examples could arise in which, because of technicalities, con-struction permits were not issued on the same day. We would, therefore, suggest that the proposed fee schedule be revised to recognize that it is not the simultaneous issuance of the construction permits of multiple units at the same site which is important, but rather the Commission's concurrent review of applications for such units.
We are further concerned that the proposed fee schedule fails to follow the cost recovery principal in the calculation of the operating license fee for essentially identical multiple units at the same site.
Where an applicant submits a single Final Safety Analysis Report for a multiple unit plant, it appears reasonable to assume that the Commission's review effort is reduced below the effort required for two separate units on different sites. While there are costs involved in the review of multiple units on the same site which would not be incurred in the review of a single unit at such site, we would suggest that the Commission may reasonably separate this additional expense and establish two licensing fees at the operating license stage--one for labor performed in common for both units, and a separate licensing fee for incremental expense.
In view of the proposed substantial increases in the fees for licenses and permits, we respectfully urge the Commission to consider carefully the above comments to assure a reasonable schedule of charges.
Yours very truly, ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
                                      ~a-I    ,,e ~,2Z>
Alan R. Barton Senior Vice President ARB:c
 
INDUSTRIAL      RADIOGRAPHIC          INSPECTION A DIVISION OF BUCKEYE PIPE LINE COMPANY 2101 28TH STREET S.W ., ALLENTOWN , PA . 18103 PHONE 215 - 797-8700 August 31, 1970 Secretary, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Re:  Proposed Rule Making 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, 170 Fees for Facilities and Materials License Gentlemen:
As an industrial radiographj.:c inspection company working nationwide, we hold a Byproducts Materi al License issued by A. E. C. and also several agreement states. Therefore, we wish to make the following comments in reference to the Proposed Rule Making and specifically to Par. 170.31 (3) B.
After adopti0n by the Commission, it would seem probable that the several agreement states would adapt a similar fee schedue for Byproduct Material Licenses as California has. This would put companies such as ours at a disadvantage when operating at temporary jobsites in agreement states beyond the reciprocity period.
A flat fee per license would seem to place an undue burden on the single source user as compared to large companies using several sources of Byproduct Material.
Respectfully submitted, CANJ ~ .J.
Syoc
                                                                                  ,,j"'c'-
(}
nager
                                                                            .!rf!~
obert A. Cook Radiation Safety Officer RDV/jad
 
                                                                        ,I .......
@              NucLEA~ fuEL sE~VICES,JN                            _ C_. _ _
NFS WHEATON    PLAZA BUILDING , SUITE 9 0 6 WHEATON , MARYLAND 2 0 9 0 2 AREA CODE 301 - TELEPHONE 9 3 3 - 5 4 4 0 September 2, 1970 Mr. W. B. McCool, Secretary u.s.A.E.C.
Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch RE:  Comments on Proposed Rule Making Concerning Fees for Facility and Materials Licenses.
Federal Register, August 4, 1970.
 
==Dear Mr. Mc Coo 1:==
 
Nuclear Fuel Services holds various licenses issued by the Atomic Energy Commission, including a provisional license to operate a reprocessing plant at West Valley, N. Y. Under the proposed rule making NFS would be required to pay total annual fees up to $34,000 compared to the present fees of about $2,200. The increase in annual fee is thus about 1700% over the present fee schedule. The increase would appear to be excessive.
As pointed out in the Commission's Notice, cost recovery is not the sole criterion in establishing the fees of Federal agencies. The Federal agencies are directed to determine charges which are "fair and equitable taking into consideration direct and indirect cost to the Government, value to the recipient, public interest served, and other pertinent facts." It is suggested that these additional factors would indicate that it would be equitable to charge fees for reprocessing and fuel fabrication plants that are considerably lower than the actual costs incurred by the Commission in regulating such facilities.
The Commission is no doubt aware of the pricing structure in the reprocessing field where contracts are typically for much longer periods than are customary in other sections of the atomic energy field. This pricing structure makes increases of this type and magnitude particularly unfortunate in that there is no ready recourse for recovery of such increased costs by a reprocessor, such as NFS, which has entered into such long term contracts.
 
lo Mr. W. M. McCool September 2, 1970 Page 2 For these reasons we would suggest that the fee schedule be re-evaluated to determine if such increases are warranted.
truly yours, Robert N. Miller President RNM/hhl
 
358-2343                                                                ae,n.fand, cDfJ:alwma,                74020 DISTRICT OFFICES 358-2416 BORGER. TEXAS 274-2352 WICI-IITA, KANSAS 265-0495 EVAN S VILLE ,  INOIANA  425 - 9156 MENDOTA. ILLINOIS    7949 COLORADO      SPRINGS ,  COLO . 392 - 6685 Secretary, U. S. Atomi c Energy Commission Washington D. C.
Atten:      Chief, Public Proc eedings Branch RE: Proposed Rul e Making 10CFR Parts 30,L.0,70,170 Rees for Facilities and I1at erials License
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
As a small commercial testing company in statewide field indust rial radiography, we have a Byproduct Laterial License from the A. E.C. and most of the agreement states. We feel that if your dept . adopts this most of the agreement states will adopt a similar fee and would put companies such as ours and several like ours at a great disadvantage when we operate at temporary jobsites in agreement states beyond the reciprocity perio .
We feel a fee per license would put a great cost and burden on the single source user as c o1npared to large companies using greater numbers of Byproduct Haterial.
ational Testing of Oklahoma Inc .
~  ~""Y""\ 4&deg; L~-~
Don Earl Edwards , V. P.
dee/mk ffndtt!,htiaf 9<.-c:Ray, o1Jl.a;Jrutia fPa'tficie, .[J,uju-ation,
                  <l/l!.ua[ fln~p i:,ation of <wddirlfl,  and c:Jlydw-dtatia 'Jetlln:J
 
e s MUD SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UT ILITY DISTR ICT  6201 S Street, Box 15830, Sacrament o, California 95813; (916) 452-3211 August 31, 1970 Mr. w. n. McCool Secretary
: u. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c. 20545 Attention:      Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
The proposed changes in the schedule of fees charged under Section 170.21 of CFR-10 would increase per-mit and licensing costs for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's Rancho Seco No. 1 nuclear plant from approximately $41 1 000 to nearly $377,000. This increase of over one-third of a million dollars would occur during a period of rapidly escalating costs for nuclear plant mate-rials and construction, and at about the same time that an increase has been proposed for AEC fuel enriching charges.
If this trend continues, more and more utilities will be forced to step back to fossil-fired generation even when faced with increasing roblems of environmental pollu-tion and projected shortages of fossil fuel resources in the United States.
It is interesting to note that this proposal to increase fees precedes any resolution of the "finding of practical value" problem. As you know, our construction license, along with others issued to date, was granted pur-suant to Section 104 of the Atomic Energy Act.                            Until nuclear power has graduated from the developmental stage and require-ments and costs of licensing have stabilized, it would seem reasonable that the Federal Government should continue to                                                  ,;,:)
bear a considerable portion of licensing costs. Also, it                                                  ';'1 seems to us that as soon as a determination of "practical                                                  ,,,,
value" is justified, the design and construction techniques                                              '*=
will have been proven to such an extent that the costs of                                                  ~ I Qt providing AEC review and regulations will have considerably                                                r=
                                                                                                              .:.C i reduced. Further, many more licenses will have been issued.                                            o .:
                                                                                                              -C l At that point of time an increase in fees designed to cover actual costs would not appear so exorbitant as the present proposal.
Paul E. Shaad General Mgr. & Chief Engr.
AN  ELECTRIC  SYS T EM  SERVING      MORE  THAN    6 0 0.000    I N THE    HE AR T OF      CALIFORNIA
 
                                                                                      ~ '*' * : .. -...,. *--*:_ . .....,
                                                                                              . t" ;. _,:*. ~      }1.e_~t~lfl VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23209 August 31 , 1970 Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:    Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
We would like to comment upon the proposed rule making concerning proposed changes in 10 CFR 30, 40, and 170, which appeared in the Federal Register of August 4, 1970.
Our comments primarily pertain to power reactors as covered by 10 CFR 170 or are of a general character, as follows:
: 1. Your basis for establishing license fees and for the adjustment of dollar values to recover Commission costs for the licensing of power reactors appears reasonable, and we endorse the proposed increase in fees with the following exception. Relative to the "Operating License Fee 11 and multiple units of similar design at the same site, it is our opinion that the substance of the AEC regulatory work load is focused on only one of these units with the work load on the others requiring a very small increment of effort. Therefore, if we assume that the proposed fee is appropriate for a one-unit station, then the total 11 0perating License Fee 11 associated with multiple units at the same site should be substantially less than that obtained in the proposed computation. This does not appear to be the case under the proposed fees since no credit is given for the reduced work load of the Commission.
This principle is evident in the fees established for construction permit review of multiple unit applications as compared to single unit fees. It is recognized that the construction permit review is not quite similar to the operating license review of multiple units at the same site because the construction phase review of each is concurrent while the operating phase may be one year apart. However, the experience gained in the operating review of the first unit substantially reduces the effort required for subsequent review of additional units at the same site.
 
vrnorn IA ELEcrni c AN D PowEH Co MPANY To Sec re ta ry, U.S. Atom i c Energy Commission 8-31-70 2.
: 2. On the basis that the proposed fees substantially recover the licensing expense to the Commission, we believe that with the adoption of this proposed rule making the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Government must assume a greater obligation to perform regulatory services on a timely schedule. In this context, the obligation should specifically be addressed to completion of the technical regulatory reviews in a much shorter time period; a fraction of that now required. The reduction in this time period should provide a more efficient review and utilization of personnel of the AEC and the applicant.
It will definitely reduce the applicant's costs tending to offset the increased construction costs attributable to the new fee schedule.
Si nee rely, SR/psm
 
Commonwealth Edison Company ONE      FIRST      NATIONAL  PLAZA
* CHICAGO,  I LLINOIS Address Reply to, POST    OFF I CE  BOX 767
* CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60690 August 31, 1970 Mr. W. B. McCool, Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr . McCool:==
 
This letter is Commonwealth Edison Company's response to the invitation of the AEC to submit comments or su g gestions con-cerning the proposed amendments to 10CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 170 of its regulations.            These amendments were published in the Federal Register (Volume 35, No. 150 - Tuesday, August 4 , 1970) and would revise the schedule of fees charged for facilities and materials licenses.
The fee increases proposed in these amendmen t s seem exces-sively large to us .      If indeed the Commission ' s costs of issuing facilities and materials licenses have increased to the extent that the proposed fee schedule indicates, then it would appear that a thorough review of the cost effectiveness of this regula-tory activity should be made.
The increase in fees, if put into effect , would come at a time when the costs of producing electricity , including the already high costs of licensing nuclear power plants , are increasing rapidly. These costs must ultimately be paid for by the consumer.
Such increases tend to d isadvantage nuclear power as compared to alternative forms of generation and further burden the consuming public already facing rising prices in this difficult inflationary period.
Therefore, Commonwealth Edison respectfully requests that the Commission reexamine the proposed fee increases to determine if they can be substantially reduced or possibly eliminated .
Sincerely,
                                          ~:!::a~~
                                          ~    Assistant to the President
 
F.*..
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER Servi ce Corpo s
2 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 10004 (212) 422-4800
_:e./.J_LJ_~.              _______ \ '"1/"'
                                                                                      .~
                                                                                          /
                                                            <;,l September 1, 1970 Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c. 20545 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
On August 4, 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to amend 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70 and 170. The Commission's proposals would increase the fees charged for facilities and materials licenses. In response to the Commission's Notice, the American Electric Power Service Corporation wishes to comment on the proposed regulations.
The most significant fact about the proposed changes is the extraordinary increase in the amount of fees to be im-posed on applicants for power reactor licenses.                For example, the Donald c. Cook Nuclear Power Facility, comprising two 3250 Mw(t) reactors now under construction, under the existing fee schedule would be liable for license and permit fees total-ing a maximum of $85,500. Under the fee schedule as proposed by the Commission, the fees for the Donald C. Cook Facility would spiral to $618,750.
We recognize the policy expressed in Title V of the Independent Office Appropriations Act of 1952 that certain activities of Government agencies, to the fullest extent poss-ible, should be self-sustaining.        However, the increase of almost eight hundred percent in the license fees for power reactors may become more than self-supporting.                We also note that Title V directs an agency to consider the "public policy or interest served and other pertinent facts" when it establishes or adjusts its fee schedule .            Since a significant proportion of the Commission's expense in many power reactor licensing proceedings can be attributed to the efforts of
 
                                "public interest" intervenors, the Commission should consider whether these additional costs should be borne by general Federal revenues rather than by the license applicant.
We would hope that the proposed fees, nearly eight times the existing level, would permit the Commission to secure the numbers of personnel needed to avoid delays in the licensing process. In view of the nation's critical need for new electric generating capacity, the necessity for more prompt regulatory review is obvious. An expanded regulatory staff could significantly speed up the lengthy process which applicants for construction permits and operating licenses must now undergo. With additional personnel, we feel that the Commission can accomplish this aim without in any way sacrificing the thoroughness of the Commission's regulatory procedures.
We would also like to call attention to an apparent inconsistency in the proposed fees. Under the amended fee schedule the construction permit fee for a multiple reactor facility would be $45 per Mw(t) for the largest reactor if the permits for the reactors were issued simultaneously. The rationale for this is clear. The reactors would almost invariably be dealt within a single Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Identical reactors would generate little additional effort.
On the other hand, the proposed operating license fee of $65 per Mw(t) must be paid for each reactor at a multiple reactor facility. If a two or three unit facility were covered by a single Final Safety Analysis Report, the cost of the licensing proceeding to the Commission would be much less than two or three times the cost of the licensing of a single unit facility. Automatically doubling or tripling the license fee for such a multiple unit facility would ignore the fact that only a single review of the FSAR would be required. The additional compliance effort would be significantly less than that required for the equivalent number of single unit facilities. Naturally, operating license applicants for multiple unit facilities covered by a single FSAR should be willing to pay a license fee based on the incremental cost caused by the multiple units. However, the Commission's pro-posed fees would be an unfair levy on these applicants.
Very truly yours,
* nter Assistant Vice President and RSH:kb                        Chief Nuclear Engineer
 
F(".os
- - I'
                                                                                                      ~ \ * ~o, ~ C.: ?q n, Nuclear Radiation Developments. Inc.
2937 A lt Blvd. North - Grand Island, New York 14072 Telephone : 716 - 773 - 7634 August 29, 1970
: u. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c. 20545 Attention:    Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
This is a response to the proposed schedule of fees published in Federal Register Tuesday, August 4, 1970. The fees pro-posed involve 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 170.
It is my interpretation that the required fees would include a forty dollar fee for licensing persons who have need for even a single small unit of byproduct material. Any increase in the cost of handling radioactive materials will, of course, have a restrictive effect on the industry, but a fee to obtain even a small experimental sample would prohibit or at least greatly slow the development of many of the potential uses of byproduct material.
The development of many valuable devices starts with an en-gineering idea and proceeds with minimum funding by using a very small sample of radioactive material supplied by pro-ducers like ourselves. From this initial development the engineers obtain enough definition to justify funding for continued work.
Smoke detectors for building fire protection systems, static elimination equipment, measuring devices such as gas chroma-tographs, and radar switching tubes are a few of the many valuable developments which started or are under improvement by use of small radiation sources.
Another important consideration is that many users of small radiation sources are working on projects that are ultimately funded by the government, especially NASA and the AEC, so such fees ultimately are paid by the government and in fact increase the cost because of all the accounting involved.
_1-L1::./_1_fd..--~
                                                  ~ ckno  - .a.:..:
                                                                  - - ,, .1-* *-**
                                                                                            / c/,
 
Nuclear Radiation e  velopments, Inc.                    Page 2.
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch              August 29, 1970 Because of the restrictive effect on the byproduct materials industry the proposed increased schedule of fees would have I wish to register a strong objection to the increases, par-ticularly the forty dollar fees proposed under 10 CPR 170.31, item B. 5. in the table SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS LICENSE FEES.
Orval L. Olson Project Engineer OLO: ao
 
C-
                                                        -+-~
NUMBE!i
                                                , OP ~    .R Nuclear Radiation Developments, 2937 Alt Blvd. North -
August 31 ,  9 70 Secretar oS.Atomic jnerg Commissi Washington , DoCo 20545                              Public Proceedings
 
==Subject:==
ASC Propose , evised Li rense Fee Schedule Gentl.emen:
We note from the Federa Ragister of Aug . 4 ,      7, that a revision of the License fee sche du le as presented in Part 170 , C ,
has been ro ose . We have considered this revision carefu 1 and, if we understand it correct y, license fees in certa i n categor i es have een substantial ly increased and , in addition , fees have been ro ose in severa new cate cr i es i nclu ing B Product rocessor s and end users. It sour assumption that category SA is ap licable to all commercial and other end users - exce t non rofi educationa l grou s and other Federa A encies ,- who now constitute the entire customer ist of rocessors and istrnbutors such as ourselves.
We can well und rst~nd and a , reciate the purpose of the pr o-osed revision and the ad ition of these new categories. The es i ra il-it of estab ishing a se f su poring mechanism for icensing an the advanta es to        e AEC of the revision are obvious. It is pro able that to a limite extent at resen and o a much greaterl extent eventua lly, a fee for all licenses may prove advantageous to the ByFroduct rocess-or and distri u or as wel . The requirement of a fee cou d imit the time and effort he must devote to new ro j ects t o those of the most realistic nature by en ing to discourage persons interested primarily only from the standpoint of curiosity and those acking entirely in financial res onsibi ity.        i e the atter is a desira e end result ,
ap lication of roce ures to accom. ish t i s to an in ustry which is sti    e m >r onic , ins ite o the a . vancement ac~om lished to date ,
sePms remature an , as wi .l be men ione        ater , will create a su stan-tial road lock to future ra p i p rowth.
Je wou    a preciate it if the Commission would give further consideration to the pro ose revision before jt is finalized. Having had rior ex erience with the ef ort and time which goes into icense a rova s, we can un erstand the cos invo ved an we do not ebate ,
vio ent y at least , the re uirement of a fee for icensing o a By Product production or processing and d i tribution faci ity. The re -
uirement of a $40 .0 fee for the customer however , wi          definite y be a serious deterrent to the development of new a lications and to expansion of the market . Attem tin      o intP-rest new customers is dif-ficult even now with no fee involve , even ho the distributor offers to, an usual        does, com)lete the license a      i cation forms for the customer and su lies re uired supplemental data . The requirement for a license still carries a frightening connotation to most new otential accounts .The re uirement of a fee increases the problems immeasurably.
ivhile this situation is not pecu iar to our organization , it is espec-ial    cri ica in our case since we are relativel new in the field ahd not yet well known or well estab ished.
 
We oubt that any customer who has oncP esta _ is ed the utility of a radioac ive evice or source nd is rea, y now to use it either in his own o erations or to incorporate it in o an en    roust he is read    o market, would have an objectimn to a reasonable ic-ense fee. It is on    the new or otentia customer, who re uires con-vincing of the uti ity of or desirability of a radioactive a proac1 to his roblem, and a so requires preliminary test or rotoyype i ems, who would be re uctant to become involved in a icen e and a fee, who would cons itute the big prob em. To esta lish his osition an to in erest he custo~e , the processor or distri utoe is o ten re uire to provide at no charge, a re iminary test unit or rovide a free dem-onstration at considerable ex ense to himsel. This usually requires that the customer first obtain a license to possess the uni and the re uirement for pa mPnt of a eP (a ee whic in some cases excePde the co~- of the samp e e was reluc ant to or re used to urchase) ads another di ficult o stacle to romotion. Easing the pro lem of romo-tion is essentia to the processor or istri utor and it is also advan-tageous to the Commission which is charge with the responsibi ity of romoting industrial applications of isoto es.
There are oubt ess several alternative methods for modifica-tion of the pro osed revision which woul essentia y accom ish t e in ent an we wou d be hp y to discuss such alternatives in erson.For the moment, however, we would like to suggest only one which we feel would represent a ogical approach consistent with the aims of the pro-posed revision and t1e situation as it affects the romotional problem.
: 1. Eliminate the fee requirement on pre iminary icenses which are designated as ex erimenta , prototype or emonstration.
: 2. Limit amount of material or demonstr tion period on such licenses to that requested b the applicant, or to some amount of material or time such as two or three times the re uested amount, to allow for com ete evaluation, if re uire    t' is minimizing the re e for a ditional licenses.
: 3. Put a nomina fee ' $2 * - 4 .00 'on an, renewa      or modification of he existing ex erimenta licen~~ P.rr~
: 4. On issuance o a final pro uctiou, u::;e or distribution license, increase the presently ro osed fee for an initial license an  erha s estab ish a more modest fee for renewals.
The suggest d ap roach re resents only a brief outline, but with modificationns, to compensate for factors and situations we have doubtless overlooked, should accom lish en resu ts esire        the Commission, overcome the ro lems confrontin industry, he      sort the realistic from t1e etherial and rove advantageous to oh the Com-mission and industry.
e are most intereste in cooperating with the ommission since a rogram such as sugge te wil eventua 1 make life easier for industry a so. We trust that the suggestions, or others, 1~ we can e elpful, wi 1 be of interest to the Commission a"ld wil    c ive favor-able consi eration.
ice President
 
Babcock & Wilcox                                                          Power Gene rati on Div ision P.O. Box 1260, Lynchburg, Va. 24505 Telephone : (703) 384-5111 August 31, 1970 U. S. Atomic Energy Connnission, Secretary Washington, D. C. 20545 DUJ . ~ d Attention:    Chief , Public Proceedings Branch                                              U&AEC
                                                                                                        ,) "'970
                                                                                                        -~*    I
 
==Reference:==
Notice of Proposed Rule Making for 10 CFR t:Hlc~ llf the sr;re!ar/
Parts 30, 40, 70, 170 published in Federal                              P~t::~ 'rn:--".l1!gS Register Vol. 35, No. 150 -August 4, 1970,                                    e, :. -.,,
Page 12412.
Gentlemen:
The Babcock &Wilcox Company,          Nuclear Power Generation Department (NPGD) is a licensee directly        affected by the reference proposal.
In addition, our relationship          to the nuclear electrical power industry as a supplier prompts further          concern.
Our review of the proposed schedules of fees has raised certain questions not answered by the proposal. We believe the f ollowing considerations are germane to the fair and equitable nature of the fee determination, and recorrrrnend they be dealt with fully prior to adjustment of the schedule.
: a. Ther e is no provision for a reduction of fees for multiple licenses in a single facility, or complex. Our experience indicates that the administrative costs in such a situation are less than when the same licenses are distributed among several unrelated installations.
: b. The proposal does not provide sufficient information to permit an independent judgment of the equity of the various fees. In some cases, for example $1.60/gram for special nuclear material to a rnaximlIDl of $8000 (5 kilograms ) , the relation of fee to value is not at all obvious. It would appear that $1.60/kilogram would be more appropriate.
: c. The annual fee for all licenses is apparently based solely on possession of the license without regard to level of activity. In some cases, for significant periods of time, there may be no activity related to a license (particularly in a facility having multiple licenses) and consequently AEC administrative costs would be minimal.
The Babcock & Wil cox Company / Established 1867
 
I Babcock & Wilcox U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Secretary                    Page 2 Washington, D. C. 20545                            August 31, 1970 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch We trust these comments will be helpful in assuring that all aspects of the proposed change are explored before implementation.
Very truly yours, I) .ct //ed'ru--nv D. E. Heyb~ , ~ anager Commercial Nuclear Fuel Nuclear Power Generation Department DEH:NF
 
CONAM Inspection, Inc.
HOME  OFFICE
* 1115    WEST    41ST STREET
* TULSA , OKLAHOMA 74105
* P. 0 . BOX 7589
* PHONE < 918 ) 446 - 3551 August 28, 1970 INSPECTION Secretary, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
Attention:      Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Re:      Proposed Rule Making 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, 170 Fees for Facilities and Materials License Gentlemen:
As a commercial testing firm engaged in nationwide field industrial radio-graphy, we hold a Byproducts Material License issued by A. E. C. and also the several agreement states. Accordingly, we offer the following comments in regard to the Proposed Rule Making and specifically to Par. 170. 31 {3} B.
After adoption by the Commission, it would seem probable that the several agreement states would adopt a similar fee schedule for Byproduct Material Licenses as California has. This would put companies such as ours at a disadvantage when operating at temporary jobsites in agreement states beyond the reciprocity period.
A flat fee per license would seem to place an undue burden on the single source user as compared to large companies using several sources of Byproduct Material.
Respectfully Submitted, CONAM Inspection, Inc.
                                                                    ~  M. I. Vannier Director Radiation Safety MIV:mw A SUBSIDIARY OF AUTOMATION I NDUSTR IE S , INC.
 
State of New York ATOITTIC fNfHGY COUNCIL Department of Commerce 112 State Street Albany, N. Y. 12207 August 28, 1970 Mr. Woodford B. McCool Secretary U. s. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. McCool:==
 
This is in regard to the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, 170 - "Fees for Facilities and Materials Licenses" as published in the 4 August 1970 issue of the Federal Register (35 FR 12412-12414).
Members of the Committee on Licensing of the New York State Atomic Energy Council have reviewed the proposed revised fee schedule and have no objection to its adoption by the USAEC. It remains our understanding that this fee schedule would not raise a question of compatibility between the Commission's regulations and those of the Agreement States. Therefore, its adoption would not directly affect the regulatory program of New York State.
We appreciate the opportunity you have provided us in the State of New York to comment upon these proposed changes.
Sincerely,
                          ~        George Anastas Committee on Licensing cc:  Agreement States Committee on Licensing
_ff':'}2.1.f..1,.Q__
Jii.1.
                                                  ..-~ --
                                                        ~r ., ........ ~-
                                                              .~                    >',41'
 
TECHNICAL OPERATI O NS INCORP O RATED BURLINGTON
* MASSAGHUSETTS      01803 ERIG T. GLARKE VI CE PRESID ENT RESEARCH DIVISIONS Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Co mmission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention: Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir :==
 
As an industrial processor of byproduct material and a leading manufacturer of isotope radiographic equipment, we have the following comments on the AEC' s proposal of 3 August 1970 to levy license fees with respect to these activities:
: 1. The magnitude of the applicable fee ($500) does not seem inordinate to us , since it represents only a minor increase in our co st of doing business. However, smaller organizations that are licensed to handle byproducts, or those that are involved in only a minor way , may feel the added cost more substantially. We suggest that a sliding scale of fees, based perhaps on gross annual sales of nuclear-related equip-ment and byproduct material , might be a fairer way to obtain at least partial cost reimbursement for the licensing services performed by the AEC.
: 2. If the proposed license fee schedules are adopted, we would expect that the AEC would, as a result, augment its capabilities in its licensing activities. We have consistently found the quality and the ability of AEC ' s licensing and regulation personnel to be above reproach. How-ever, we believe that the staff is undermanned, judging by the delays we encounter when we apply for necessary AEC approval on equipment using byproduct material. If we are to pay directly (at least in part) for such services, it would seem only proper that the staff be increased to provide us more timely service.
: 3. Licensees of Agreement States would, of course, not be affected by these fee schedules. To reduce the discriminatory impact on users in non-Agreement States, we suggest that implementation of the fee schedules be delayed by a year or so after adoption to permit the States to act on the question of adopting similar schedules.
Very truly yours, ETC/me
 
DOC/ (-:- i*' '_!~_-.*~~~~ . ) !
PROP0~. J RULt            r  i \- ~~ t/&, 7&, l7t COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO C/-.ldA...
[Puerto [Rico Water [Resources .Jfuthority 8an Yuan, [j)uerto rRico CABLE ADDRESS                                                                                            P. O. BOX 4267 August 21, 1970                                                    00905 PRWRA Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:      Chief, Pub I ic Proceedings Branch Secretary:
The Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority has reviewed the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission press release No. N-146 on "AEC Proposed Revised Fee Schedule" . When in 1968 the Commission proposed the establishment of license fees as a mean of aiding the Commission to recover part of the costs involved in the issuance of facilities and materials I icenses, PRWRA commented the Commis-sion intention to continue to study the matter of I icense fees. We were con-cerned that further studies of this matter would result in an additional cost burden for those public utilities that were looking forward to the use of nuclear power in their systems. Our concern is partially confirmed by the information con-tained in the press release which states increases in the order of 10% for an application of a constrnction permit and about 20% for the operating licenses.
Furthermore, there is no indication in your press release that these fees will stabilize at the moment, leaving in the open the possibility of further increases in the future.
If the burden in the cost of obtaining an AEC I icense to build and oper-ate a power reactor is al lowed to increase in the way proposed in your press release, the decision of electric utilities to make use of nuclear power in areas with marginal economy might be seriously affected. Due consideration should be given to this thought before attempting the approval of the proposed revised fee.
DOCKETED U&AEC                          Modesto Iriarte, Assistant Executive Director for Electrical Planning, Research and Construction
 
Ot 3Dl CENTER* ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
* TEL. 733-1110 medical Department MEDICINE* HEALTH PHYSICS* INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE* TOXICOLOGY August 26, 1970 Secretary U_ S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 3!!1 3M CENTER
* 5TT PAU~.A~~~'r~f1/4J,A 55101 ROBER        b. \IVl~~II""
Attention:      Chief, Public Proceedings Branch                          HEALTH PHYSICIST 220-2E
 
==Subject:==
Fees for F a cilities and Materials Licenses Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the proposed fee schedule for 10CFR170. 31 as published in the Federal Register on August 4, 1970, and have several comments to offer.
: 1. 3M Company has deliberately filed individual byproduct material applications and has obtained individual licenses for the use of sealed sources in such equipment as beta gauges in our various plants around the United States. By so doing, much better health and safety control can be exercised by the user in each of these plants since he is specifically listed on the license and is respon-sible for complying with Commission regulations. As we interpret the proposed fee schedule, each of these licenses would have an annual fee of $40, which will encourage us and similar licensees to combine all such equipment under one license administered from a headquarters office to avoid the large number of fees involved.
Up until 1964, 3M had such a system, and we discovered that when all sources are included on one license their identity with respect to location tends to become lost and control for purposes of health and safety is not as good as the individual license system. It also complicates Compliance inspections by the Commission.
: 2. As a manufacturer and seller of byproduct material sources, it has been our experience that licensing procedures in themselves tend to discourage the use of atomic energy materials by prospec-tive new use rs. The addition of an annual license fee will further discourage the use of such material and the prospective customer will look for other alternatives to his problems. In some cases this will lead to the use of less regulated ionizing radiation sources
                            --- -*- _'i/7-7
  ...!._m,~;:~.; ., -*;* ,,._,_.,  _ff!.4.tJ.q    ~,,..
                                            /,,tJ. ____
mINNESOTA mININ[j                          ANO  mANUFACTURIN[j        camPANY
 
Page 2 August 2 6, 1970 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission which could be a significant hazard to public health and safety.
: 3. Individuals licensed for broad scope activities under 10CFR33 often have additional licenses for the distribution of generally licensed items. These latter licens e s incorporate by reference the broad scope lic e nse. A $500 fee charged for each of them will create a disproportionate burden on source manufacturers who have several generally licensed product lines and are also carrying on research and development activities in connection with them.
In the interest of both promoting the use of atomic energy materials by the small user, and to encourage the individual licensing of sources and their locations by licensees such as 3M, we would like the Commission to reconsider Category 5, "All Other Licens e s" in the proposed fee sc hed-ule and we suggest that it be deleted. We further suggest that any indi-vidual licensee who holds a licens e pursuant to 10CFR33 and has in addi-tion licenses to distribute generally licensed items be required to s ubmit only one fee under Category 3 "Byproduct Material. 11 RGW:els                              Chairman, Isotope Committee
 
NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY NUCLEAR METALS
                                                            ,~
DIVISION - Industrial Department    51 8 - 459-2700 1130 CENTRAL AVENUE, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12205 August 20,      1970 Mr. W. B. McCool, Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attention:  Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Mr. McCool:==
 
Reference is made to the proposed schedule of fees for materials licenses as published in the Fernald Register, Vol. 35, No. 150 - Tues., August 4, 1970.
We recognize the practicality of making regulatory activities self-sustaining by collecting fees to defray the cost of services rendered. Conversely, we believe the service rendered should be commensurate with the fees collected for that purpose.              The pro-posed schedule apparently provides only for the former.
In order to assess more equitably those facilities holding licenses, we propose that the annual fee be substantially reduced and that a fee for each request for license amendment be established.
Thus, those requiring fewer services of the Commission would not be in the position of supporting those for whom the larger staffs must be maintained.
The fee of $8000 per year will penalize unduly those users who must distribute this expense over a limited number of contracts as compared to those who can amortize it among many customers.
This places the smaller companies in a very unfavorable competitive position.
A fee of $800 per year for handling over 550 kg of depleted uranium could discourage experimentation into new applications for this material.      In light of the Commission's stated desire to reduce the stockpile of depleted uranium, the fee schedule may be detrimental to more desirable objectives.
Your consideration of these comments is much appreciated.
Very truly yours, DOCKETED ll&AEC              J.    . Huss, Manager NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY JDH/PNM/sb
 
i Monsanto DOCKEHD tJSilEC            MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION Dayton Labor ato ry AU G261970~                1515 Nich olas Road
    ~mr.e ot the se3retary    Dayton , Ohio 45407 Publit rroc~edlngs      Phone: (513 ) 268-3411 Sranch 20 August 1970 Mr. W. B*: McCool Secretary U.S. At omi c Ene rgy Commission Wash in g ton, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. McCool:==
 
This letter is in r esponse to t he advertised ch ang e in schedule of the USAEC Fees For Faciliti e s An d Ma terials Licenses as publishe d in the August 4, 1970 Federal Reg ister, Vol. 35, No. 150.
From t he information publis he d, it appears t he proposed fees ar e not fair and equitable and are, to a consider-able extent, arbitrary in their application. Such exaction is de trimental to the comme rcial radioisotope business and further enhances t he already unsta ble conditions prevalent in the industry.
Ou r experience has shown that within reason, the quantity of material one is licens e d to possess ha s little relationship to the effort expended by bot h the licensee and t he US AEC in administering t he license. If, according to the AEC 's analysis, a "fair and equitable" fee for a lice nsee possessing 350 grams or less of special nuclear material is $40 , t hen a fee of $1. 60 per gr am for lic en s e s abov e 350 grams is excessive. As an example; f or possessing one additional gram above 350, the schedule of fees im plies t hat the costs to t he AEC increas e to $561.60 annually from
  $40 , which is doubtful to say the least.
The proposed fee s will ulti matel y produce an inflationary increase in the cost of goods. Po ssessing licenses to handle 351 grams of s pe cial nuclear material and any q uantity of by -product material will cost a licens ee $1,062 annually under the new schedul e wher e in the present fee, institut e d less t han two years ago, is $100 . Actuall y , license fees a subsidiary of Monsanto Company
 
W. B. McCool                                  20 August 1970 Washington D.C.
(Continued) may be much higher because source manufacturers are generally licensed to possess quantities of material considerably above their average use - because of the time and expense involved in obtaining license amend-ments. In addition, purchasing small quantities of raw material from the Atomic Energy Commission to assure an arbitrarily lo w inventory lev e l, will necessitate paying excessive encapsulation and handling charges.
The proposed license fee coupled with the additional handling cha r ge s may incr e ase the material costs by 10 % or more for a typical source manufacturer, all of which is passed on to the user.
The high fees pro posed will unquestionably increase Commission and licensee administrative costs because it will encourage manufacturers to possess limited quantities of material under a continuing license, and to request amendments each time they expect to go above their licensed level.
It is t he Monsanto Research Corporation's op1n1on that t he license fees proposed are excessive an d are struc-tured in a manner unrelated to the actual costs of administering licenses. We, therefor e , request that the proposed changes in special nuclear and by-product material licenses not be instituted. If the Commission deems it necessary to change t he existing fees, then a schedul e should be establis hed wh ich ta kes into consider-ation value to the r e cipient, cost allocations for services perform e d an d interest served.
Resp e ctfully yours, Robert L. Schimmel Manager, Nuclear Products RL S: j as
 
oorP-"P' ~ I I * -. - \
                                  -                                          4t    PRO, vv-L-              R"''&deg;*"o, 10 176 f;u_
DELMARVA                              POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 600 MARKET STREET          WILMINGTON , DELAWARE      19899 A. T. GARDNER CHAIRMAN OF&deg; THE BOARD PRESIDENT                                              August 24, 19 70 Secretary
: u. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Atten: Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Subject:==
A. E. C. Release No. N-146 A. E. c. Proposed Revised License Fee Schedule Gentlemen:
The subject Release, dated August 3, 1970, listed a revised schedule of fees for construction permits and operating licenses for nuclear power reactors. Comments on the proposed revisions were invited.
Delmarva Power & Light Company has a joint ownership share in the nuclear generating units #2 and #3 at the Peach Bottom, Pa.
Plant, and nuclear generating units #1 and #2 at the Salem, N. J.
Plant. System development planning includes consideration of nuclear generating units to be built by us in our service area.
In reviewing the proposed fee schedule, we note the very substantial increase from the present schedule. For example, the charges for construction permit application for a 800 MW (Thermal) reactor is increased ten times, and an operating license for this size reactor increased thirty-seven times. We believe that the need for increases of such magnitude should be carefully reviewed and only considered if they can be substantiated by facts to support and justify them.
Sincerel~      ~
0-t__,,/~
A. T. Gardner ATG/M INVESTOR - OWNED; BUSINESS - MANAGED UTILITY SERVING DELMARVA PENINSULA
 
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING, INC.
914 CHICAGO AVENUE EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60202 PHONE: 312/475-4600 August 24, 1970 The Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545                      Att: Chief of Public Proceedings Branch
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
Word has come to us that the Federal Register of Tuesday, August 4, 1970 in Volume XXXV, Number 150 ..* that the AEC looks with favor upon the establishment of licensing and application fees for the users of isotopic material.
Since we are attempting to get a copy of the Federal Register of that date, and since we would copy the same and mail a copy to all interested members of this Society ... some 12,000 who are involved in the use of isotopes, we ask that you inform us of an allowable delay so that our membership might, in a personal manner, write letters to you in this regard.
What this Society feels in the matter is that all of our interested members should have the opportunity to express themselves in the matter to you and thus this request for an extenswon.
Your cooperation will be most appreciated.
DOCKEIED tlSiA&#xa3;G J!~k~*,.i.-;.:"_-,_"~ ~-?/J!kh!'.1..~
MEMBER ENG INEE RS JOI NT COUNCIL
 
Qr'"
                                -      HALLIBURTON SERVICES .            , ~        . '. a -30,IJD,70, 170 DIV ISION OF        dttA_
CC>MPANV D U N C AN ,    O K L A HOM A    7 3 53 3 CHEMICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT .
FRANCIS M . ANDERSO N. MANA G ER CA LVIN D. SAUNDERS , A SS' T MANAGE R                      August 21, 1970 Secretary U. S . Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attn:      Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Gent l emen :
We must protest the fees system proposed in Federal Register, Augu st 14, 1 970, Vo l. 35 , No . 1 50, pages 1 241 2 -
14 inc l usive .
It is qui te obvious that the ~roposal is simply a means of increasing revenue - not 1 * * * * *
* to prescribe therefore such fee , charge **... to be fair and equitab l e, taking into consideration direct and indirect cost to t he Government *.*.* 11 Also, l et us consider that the Government assesses and coll ec t s truces for the purpose of providing servi ce to the publ i c . The licensee cert a inl y ob t ains no benef i t from the AEC's l icensing, enforcement and inspection services . These worthwhile services are furnished pure l y for the general public - not the lic e nsee .
Under 171 . 31 - 3A, you propose a fee of $500 plus an annual fee of $500 . Since licenses are usually for 5 years, the ac t ual cost per l i cense is $2 , 500 .              Certainly you cannot justify a charge of $2,500 for a few days checking and issuing such a license .                  In our case this would cover less than 1 curie of Cs 1 37 per year .
OOCfE.: J USi!iEJ
 
U.S. Atomic Energy Commiss ion                  August 21, 1 970 Und er 171.31 - 5, you propose a fee of $40, plus an annual charge of $40 - an actual lic ense fee of $200.          In our case we have two such li censes - $400, and use abo ut 3 curies of material annually.
On e of our subs i diaries has about t h e equivalent in licenses and u sage of radioisotopes .
Shoul d the .AEC set the examp l e by impos ing these fees, it would soon be 11 n ecessaryn for each state to assess similar charges . We and our subs i d i aries are lic ensed in about 35 s tat es .
It should be quite obvious that the imposition of these wholly unjustifiable fees will e limi nate the many users of small quantities of radioactive materials.
Respectfully submitted,
                                            ~~
R. George Mihram Rad i atio n Safety Officer RGM:bgg cc:    Mr . Coleman Smith Okl ahoma State Department of Health}}

Latest revision as of 13:03, 14 November 2024

PR-030,040,070 & 170 - 35FR12412 - Revised Schedule of Fees for Construction Permits and, Operating Licenses
ML23151A479
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/04/1970
From:
NRC/SECY
To:
References
35FR12412, PR-030, PR-040, PR-170, PR-070
Download: ML23151A479 (103)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23151A479&oldid=3701882"