ML20136J130

Requests Review of Biennial Fees by 961015.Info Will Be Used to Develop Matls License Fees for FY97

ML20136J130
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/07/1996
From:	Scroggins R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
To:	Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20136J108	List: ML20136J130 ML20136J145 ML20136J171 ML20136J193 ML20136J233 ML20136J246 ML20136J266 ML20136J287 ML20136J306 ML20136J348 ML20136J358 ML20136J373 ML20136J388 ML20136J402 ML20136J407 ML20136J427 ML20136J434 ML20136J443 ML20136J476 ML20136J514 ML20136J534 ML20136J584 ML20137A004 ML20137A010 ML20137A024 ML20137A033 ML20137A038 ML20137A066 ML20138G399 ML20138J003 ML20138J008 ML20138J774
References
FRN-62FR8885, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AF55-1-002, AF55-1-2, NUDOCS 9703200024
Download: ML20136J130 (2)

Text

'

s August 7, 1996 f f 55 l MEMORANDUM T0: Carl J. Paperiello, Director Poe Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards-FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Original Signed By Deputy Chief Financial Jesse L. Funches for Officer / Controller

SUBJECT:

BIENNIAL REVIEW 0F FEES Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the agency's Chief Financial Officer is required to perform a biennial review of fees and other charges imposed "for services and things of value it provides and make recommendations on revising charges to reflect costs incurred by it in providing those services and things of value" [31 U.S.C. 902)(a)(8)]. As you have the responsibility for certain licensing information that is used to determine 10 CFR Part 170 flat fees for material licenses, I am again asking that you review the information to determine if it should be modified (updated) to reasonably reflect costs incurred. A review of this information was last performed by your staff in 1994. We suggest that in order to obtain the best

" average", that data for the last five fiscal years be analyzed.

Please note that although materials flat inspection fees were eliminated in FY 1995, it is still necessary that the average inspection hours be provided for each small materials category because the data will be used, along with the average time to process an application for a new license, as a proxy to determine the amounts of the 10 CFR Part 171 materials annual fees. We would also appreciate it if you would address the issues listed in Attachment 1. i These issues have been raised by licensees since the last biennial review.

By October 15, 1996, please provide me a report that evidences your 1996 review, and provides the bases for any changes in the fee'information. This information will be used to develop the materials license fees for FY 1997.

Should you or your staff have' any questions about the biennial review, please contact Glenda Jackson of my staff at 415-6057. .

Attachment:

As stated cc: John J.-Linehan, NMSS Distribution:

OC R/F

.0C S/F GJohnson JTurdici GJackson CSeelig, NMSS EJacobs-Baynard, NHSS DOCUriENT

a. e . m orNAME:

a. m.G:\HOLLOWAY\

m e, w PAPER.ILL c . c. .a (memo);

a G:\HOLLOWAY\

r-c ATTACH

- .a.- n . no m.

OFFICE OC

[ h Oc h OC E NAME CJHol1 JLFunches j R ogri .9s DATE 08/i/96 08/ 7 /96 086/96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

[

""sN * $ p 9703200024 970317 6 ROBOS PDR

- -. . - -.~ - - . - - - - - - . - - - . - ..-.- - .- - --

e' I

l Attachment 1

1. A few licensees are authorized to operate analytical laboratories that process bioassay samples of 11(e)2 byproduct material. The licenses authorizing this type of activity are issued pursuant to {t0.4 (a-1) of 10 CFR Part 40. Classifying these licenses under fee Category 2C "all l

other source material" has been questioned because the material is defined as "ll(e)2 bvoroduct material". After discussion with OGC on i

the matter, the licenses are currently classified for fee purposes as fee Category 3P "all other bvoroduct material". Two questions have been raised: 1) should a separate fee category be established in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 to provide for these analytical laboratories, or 2) should fee category 2C be revised to read "all other Part 40 licensees" which would then cover the laboratories. The answer to the question will depend on the amount of-effort NMSS expends to process these types of licenses. We would appreciate your review of this matter and advise

! us accordingly.

2. Fee Category 7B

currently covers (medical licenses institutions which are issued with a to broad scope medical license) and institutions l

l authorize the use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material for

! broad scope research and development at the institution as well as human use of the material. Some medical institutions have argued that l although they have a broad scope program for research and development activities, the broadascope activities are not for human use and l therefore the license should not be classified as fee Category 78, but

' rather it should be classified'as fee Categories 7C and 3L. The question is whether the average time to process an application for a new

license or amendment is the same for fee Category 3L license (broad i

scope research and development) as it is for processing an application  !

for a new license or amendment for a medical institution for broad scope research and development and non-broad scope human use (fee Category

• 7B). If so, is the average time to process a new license application or amendment -the same for a medical institution that conducts R&D but no human use a.; it is for a medical institution that conducts both R&D and human use p"ograms?

3. Should the 10 CFR Part 32.73 references in fee Categories 3C and 3D be deleted since 632.73 was deleted by a recent rulemaking? If yes, how should the seven licenses affected by the change be classified for fee purposes?

4. What is the current status of the USEC certification; when does NMSS expect that USEC will be certffied?

5. In accordance with Footnote 3 of 10 CFR Part 170.31, the NRC assesses a minimum fee for processing a " full cost" case. This minimum fee is 4 twice the hourly rate (currer.tly $240) shown in 1170.20. Should the two

! hour minimum be revised? If yes, what should the revised minimum number j of hours be?

?

- . - - - .