ML20217P785

Attaches Comments & Input to Response to Representative Johnson & Disk Containing Changes.P Rabideau Concurs W/Response W/Changes Included

ML20217P785
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/23/1995
From:	Gerard Jackson NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
To:	Deegan G, Catherine Haney NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20217P760	List: ML20217P757 ML20217P767 ML20217P785
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9708280235
Download: ML20217P785 (10)

Text

October 23, 1995 Note To: Cathy Haney, George Deegan from:

01enda Jackson

,je (tA.

Our comments and input to your response to Representative Johnson's October 4, 1995, letter and a disk containing our changes are attached. With these changes -Pete Rabideau, Ofrector, Division of Accounting and finance, 00, concurs in the response.

Please add my name.to the distribution list.

Attachments:

-As stated

'l 9

)

b e

r a

• i 9708290235 951004 PDR ORO EUS

1h Neursnfla A yesentet g Tim Johnson y g g g jg,u,,

,a 6 p,,3,, 3 j m __;

P

.A g u w,,..,ce 809 South Street Suite 104 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 DearRIpMs'est"a e-Johnson:

This is written n' response to your lett r4atei October 4,1995, in which you asked that wpt e the views express 4 Mr. Gary Norton, one of ypur constitu yti, into consideration n his letter to you, Mr. Norten expressed e

concerg regarding the NRC's e, licensing, and inspectioppfograms.

I would Jh5# p litad o use this opportunt to provide you with informAtTon on the items l-b oted in Mr. Norton's le,t er.

/

y(

p

1. cb Mr. Norton provides information on the effetts of NRC fees on small-t'ompanies.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Agt4f 1995 required that NRC blicome a full fee recoverable agency.

As a rejult, NRC began to assess ar/a1 fees and made major changes to the fees associated with the licensing and inspection

/

program.

These fees are Sodified in 10 CFR Parts 170 fid 171.

Revisionstof these regulations are published annually for commer31 in the h deral Reais Wr.

In estabitshing theJ6es, consideration is givenf o the size and incope'of the t'

licensee.

ProvisWnsareinplaceforfeereduttionsifthelicenje6isa small entity aytfefined by the Stall Busin ( Administration.

We note that on its fe revish ns for fiscal Year 1995, t eliminated the "f1p f inspection fees for pat'erials licensees.

As a rey t, most materials 'icensees will only be billed for annual license fees courained in 10 CFR 171 6(d).

Mr. Norton shoul/contactMs.GlendaJacksonof'NRC'sOfficeofth Controller at 301-415-J057 if he qualifies as a smafl entity and is not/eceiving credit as st cfi.

/

bC p

r. Norton provides comments on the NRC inspection procram.

The NRC a

inspection program is documented in NRC Hanual Chapter 2800, ' Materials inspection Program," (co)y enclosed).

Routine inspection frecuencies for materials licensees are )ased on the hazard posed by the licensed activity.

<>}

NRC policy requires that all new licensees be inspected within one year of license issuance.

Current policy includes provisions for staff to extend or reduce the time period between inspections based on licensee performance or information obtained during the inspection process, for example, a licensee in possession of a moisture-density gauge will be routinely inspected every five years.

This cycle could be extended for another two years for good performance.

NRC has undertaken several initiatives in the past to identify ways of reducing the regulatory burden on licensees and ways that NRC could streamline its operations in an effort to reduce NRC resources.

A ma, lor study to reduce both licensee and NRC resources in the licensing process was initiated in 1994 M) and a major study to review the inspection process is scheduled to begin in 1996.

The review of the licensing process identified several areas where the process could be streamlined.

One of the issues identified by this study for further review was the license term.

Staff is currently reviewing this area to determine if the current policy of a five-year licenze should be changed.

As part of this review, staff will consider the impact of the license renewal process on the licensees and the need for the Commission to maintain contact

4 with the licensee, Any changes in Connission Policy on this subject will be noticed in the f.2 der.aLJ109111tr.

In concluding, let ne apufh you that NRC will take views,oxptbssed by the

,1 "*" ' j -

comments on the,prbposed rule (federal Rgghier.J0L0 paFlicular Mr. Norto public into consideption when making decisions.

1 jp')

ts.g 60 FR 46784) that t ' 4, /(,/ provides for an automatic five-year extension'on the expiration date for f

certain} rule.at'erial licensees, will be takcVinto account during the finalization of t >

I hope the information 4rovided above is aseful to both you and Mr.

rton, Sincerely, James H. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

[nclosure:

As stated tca-Darrell-Wr4hoemaker -

TM. AI -/

ha'l O

on

//*

' p ') / q pc,tl g,t I iede M' C

I 1 am responding to your October 4,1995, letter in which you asked that we

,g) take into consideration tne virus expressed in the September 29, 1995, letter I

/1 from your constituent, Mr. Gary Norton, Radiation Safoty Officer, Alliance of I

Architects and Engineers.

Mr. Norton's letter was sent to the NRC in response to our request for public coments on a proposed rule to grant an automatic five year extension of the expiration date for the majerity of mhterials licenses. Mr. Norton commented favorably on the proposed rule, but expressed concerns over the impact of HRC's inspection and fee recovery programs on small businesses.

Mr. Norton states that NRC's licensing fees create an undue hardship on small companies such ks his, which has approximately 20 employees and only 2 nuclear a;,

density / moisture gauges.

He believes that the licensing for these types of M

gauges should be for a 10 year increment with an inspection every five years, unless a licenseo has a history of noncompliance or an incident has occurred.

I Mr. Norton stated that requiring lit.ensees to pay for each inspection can present an undue hardship on smal~l companies.

He also suggests that the annual fee be tierad based on the number of nuclear devices a licensee has and that thi. fee should be in the range of $250 per device por year.

lhe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) requires that the Commission recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Nuclear Waste f und, for Fiscal Years 1991 through 1998 by assessing license and annual fees.

To recover the budget, the NRC--assesses licensing and inspection fees under 10 CFR Part 170 and annual foes under 10 CFR Part

,rp i 171.

Fees assessed under 10 CFR 170 for materiais licenses currently include 11 ^

license application f ees, amendment fees, renewal fees, and in some cases, inspection fees. Annual fees recover NRC's generic and other costs that are not recovered as identifiable services to specific licensees and applicants under 10 CFR Part 170.

The annual fees allocate the Commis; ion's generic costs that are attributable to a given class of license (e.g. nuclear gauge) to that class.

The NRC realizus that fees do have a financial impact on NRC licensees, particularly in regard to smaller programs.

To alleviate these impacts, the Commission hat established maximum annual fees for those licensees who qualify as small entities under NRC's size standards For FY 1995, the previous size

.cl q standards were revised to provide more licensees an opportunity to qualify as i

a small entity.

The annual gross receipts thresholds were raised from $3.5 million to $5.0 million to qualify for a maximum annual fee of $1,800 per licensed category, and from $250,000 to $350,000 to qualify for a maximum annual fee of $400 per licensed category. Additionally, a new small entity t

fee for manufacturing industries with 35 to 500 employees has been established at $1,800, as well as a lower-tler fee of P 00 for those manufacturing industries with less than 35 employees.

The Commission believes that establishing a maximum annual fee is the most appropriate approach to minimize the impact on small entities.

The Commission

(/

also recognizes that this approach does not eliminate all impacts but strikes a balance between the requirements of the Public Law to collect 100 percent of ip )

the budget by recovering costs attributable to a class of licensees from that class, and the Regulatory flexibility Act requirement to consider the impact on small entities.

l l

5' In the final revision to the annual. fee regulai.on for FY 1995, which went into effect July 20, 1995, several major changes were made which are.

beneficial to most materials licensees, including those holding licenses for nuclear density / moisture gauges. A change in the method of allocating costs of certain NRC. activities resulted in reduced annual fees compared to FY-1994 for most small materials licensees.

For_ nuclear density /noisture gauge licenses, for example, the annual foe was reduced approximately one third from

$2,470 in FY 1994 to $1,700 for FY 1995. Another major change addresses Mr.

Norton's concern about the inspection fees. ' Inspection' fees are no longer 4

'l h

assessed for inspections of most small materials licensces, including those for nuc13r density / moisture gauges, which are conducted after Octcber 1, 2

1994.

Pr her, those fees are now included as.nart of the annual fee. The net effect is that as long as The Alliance of Architer.ts and Engineers qualifies as a small entity, they will 091y be charged up to the maximum annual fee established for small entities and not fees for inspections.

In concluding, let me assure you=that NRC takes the views expressed by the public into consideratien when making decisions. All-proposed rules, including changes to tne NRC fee regulations,;#rs' published in the Federal 4

Register for public comment.

In addition, copies of proposed and final fee regulations are mailed to all-licensees, with'a transmittal, memorandum

'hp (}

summarizing the major proposed and final changes.

Mr. Norton's comments on the propose 6 rule (rederal Register Notice 60 FR 46784) that provides for an automatic five-year extension on the' expiration:date for certain materials licensees, will be taken into account during the finalization of this rule.

I hope the information provided above is useful to both'.you and Mr. Norton.

b

!=

4 4

4 4

6 i

.n

- -...,. -,. :.L +

^

J g%f9 4 y I I d Cs k.

I <

te4 EDO Principal Correspondence Control l

i FROMs DUE: 10/25 /95 EDO CONTROL:- 0000728 DOC DT 10/N '15 FINAL REPLY:

R p, Tim Johnson (Darrell W.-Shoemaker)

Tot s

OCAL FORiSIGNATUP.B OF

• • GRN CRC NO: 95-0877 Executive Director

--DESCt ROUTING:

ENCI.. LETTER FROM GARY NORTON, ALLIANCE OF Taylor ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS,RE COMMENTS ON 5-YEAR M11hoan

' AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF CERTAIN MATERIAL LICENSES-Thompson Blaha p

Scroggins DATE: 10/13/9'i

' ' ASSIGNED TO2-CONTACT:

NMSS Paperiello

'SPECIkLINSTRUCTIONSORREMARKS:

'F Npare-response to Rep. Johnson for EDO's

'01gnature at the-Rapid. City. Office.

J/wus Action Duc b 11l0SS D' rector's Office P V " E # # ' '#/'9'*

99 jo/pc y

,JnrsS D': ' l"'N J

~,,.AA2 ibO(ebY Eco:

p>gg _

t.

,f

-.=

.i

• OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

_ CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:

-CRC-95-0877

-LOGGING DATE: Oct 11 95 ACTION OFFICE:

EDO

+

AUTHOR:

REP TIM JOHNSON /D..SHOEMA AFFILIATION:

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADDRESSEE RATHBUN LETTER DATE:

Oct 4 95 FILE CODE:

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS BY CONST ON NRC REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES ACTION:

Direct Reply i

DISTRIBUTION:

OCA TO ACK SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE

. CONSTITUENT:

GARY NORTON NOTES:

DATE DUE:

Oct 25 95 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

1 m

EDO --- 000728 i

\\

Tiu soHNsoN.

'lg','.;mll.

mv>w.

marwv se s

,,9

='

Congress of the tinited estatcs

...Z.l.

.........s.

110USC 0f RCpCCSCDtatioCB

....X',;,,,.

,;;',i',%

..sm.

Elashington, BE 20115 1101

"""~'

619 3Ov4M CMCf. 4.f LE Scut 8.ut 50 5'$0i 605 332 eats October 4,1995

,.'ew '$

ou "

a Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Rii:

Comments by constituent on NRC requirements and policies

Dear Mr. Rathbun:

On behalf of Congressman Johnson, I am contacting you at the request of hir. Gary Nation, Radiation Safety Officer for Alliance of Architects and fingineers of Rapid City, Soulh Dakota.

I am enclosing a copy of h1r. Norton's letter to lite Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

M r.

Norton provided our office with a copy.

hir, Norton expresses various concerns and opinions cf several NRC issues and policies, primarily in the areas of licensing and

fees, ll is our liope that you will take htr. Norton's views into consideration, especially if these are any public comment periods on NRC policies.

^

Please direct any response to the Rapid City office listed above.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter, on behalf of Congressman Johnson, I am Sincerely.

NtY -

bh

'tp t'n w X,

9 Darrell W. Shoemaker

')

Field Representative Rep. Tim Johnson DWS/x x x lin clo su re

,'pM THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIDERS

.. o 1

September 29,1995 A

ANCE AacHeTICTS and SHQNtitt Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 suto Raped City. 50 17/01 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch 605 542 94/(

Dear Mr/Ms. Secretary:

' m05H2 m As a small company of approximately 20 employees and only 2 Nuclear DensityAioisture Gauges, we feel that the proposed 5 year automatic extension of certain material licenses is a great idea, llowever, we also feel that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can take further steps to reduce the burden on small companies hke ours as well as reduce the work load of NRC licensing personnel.

He current schedule for licensing fees creates an undue hardship on small companies like ours.

De Nuclear DensityAtoisture Gauges like the Troxler 34 I l-11 have been proven to create virtually no threat to public safety, when handled p.roperly. %erefore, it is our opinion that licensing for Nuclear DensityAtoisture Gauges should be done on a 10 year increment with an inspection by the NRC every five years, unless violations are encountered within this period. We further feel that the yearly fees should be tiered. For example, a company such as ours that has only two nuclear devices should not be required to pay the same yearly fee as a larger company that may have 5 or more machines The current fee schedute is a major burden on small companies. We would propose that the fees be based on a per machine basis for all companies and that this fee should be in the range of $250.00 per device per year.

Another requirement that the NRC has that puts an undue burden on smaller companies is the NRC's inspection policies. To require a small company to pay for inspections at any time and as many times as the NRC determines can present undue hardship on a small company. As stated above we feel that the Nuclear Density / Moisture Gauges have limited risk to public health and safety and an inspection every 5 years would more than adequately serve the health and safety needs of the public. We understand that additional inspections should be allowed if the company has a history of noncompliance with NRC regulations or if an " incident" with the device has recently occurred He suggestions mentioned would not only relieve unnecessary burden on small companies, it would also free up NRC stafT to pursue entities that pose greater risk to public health and safety.

We hope that the NRC will take a serious look at its current license and fee policies and realize that some of them place undue hardship on small companies such as ours. With an extension : Tthe license from 5 years to 10 years and a re-evaluation of current fee and inspection schedules, both small compr.mes and the NRC would greatly benefit without creating any greater risk to the public health or safety.

J 1fI j

t

oo O 4

%ank you for your time and consideration of the matters outlined in this letter. We hope that the NRC will take a serious look into these issues and create a better method that w entities involved, if you have any further questions please contact our omce.

ALLIANCE OF ARClilTECTS AND ENGINEERS W 4 Gary A. Norton, E.I.T Radiation Safety Omcer cc:

Senator Larry Pressler Senator Tom Daschle Representative Tim Johnson

mg b.

L I

,1, o) q r

j.m

!f j

g$d"74?@ip q jgg j

1

EDO Principal: Correspondence Control FROM s -

DUE 10/25 / 95 EDO CONTROL: 0000728-DOC DT: 10/,04/95 A.; i FINAL REPLY: -Iffpr/9f*

H H3p. Tim' Johnson (D:rrol3 W. Shoemaker)'

TO t '-

- OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF

• • GRN- **

CRC NO 95-0877 Exccutive Director-DESC1 ROUTING:

ENCL. LETTER FROM GARY NORTON,~ ALLIANCE'OF Taylor ARCHITFCTS AND ENGINEERS,RE COMMENTS ON 5-YEAR Milhoan AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF CERTAIN MATERIAL LICENSES Thompson Blaha Scroggins 3 ATE 110/13/95 2SSIGNED Toil CONTACT:

__NMSS Paperiello~

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

- Prspara response < to Rep. Johnson for EDO's icignature at the Rapid City;' Office.-

Sp/4s*.tjan 23 DucA1ESS D'redor's Office S/////f Od. /o/8MJ~{

9, yp/;2s gy

,umss no: ' lp'W ~

i

,,,,,,seWdx/k roo:

, y4_.

1. 1

-NRC FILE CENTER COPY w

.+

=-

- l-- ;,'

[ * --;

i. 4*'

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY-CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET

.j ~

-PAPER NUMBER:

CRC-95-0877 LOGGING DATE: Oct 11 95 ACTION OFFICE:

EDO

-AUTHORS.

REP TIM JOHNSON /D.-SHOEMA AFFILIATION -

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

-ADDRESSEE:

RATHBUN LETTER DATE:

Oct 4 95 FILE CODE:

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS-BY CONST ON NRC REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES

' ACTION:

Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:

OCA TO ACK SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE CONSTITUENT:

GARY NORTON NOTES:

DATE DUE:

Oct 25 95 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

EDO --- 000728

+-

.