. ,

,Q "

d d

7' *s,.

w,

.

Docket No. 70-371/

Ifnited f:uclear CorporationATTN: Mr. Willian T. Kirk

Nuclear and IndustrialSafety Department .

67 Sandy Desert RoadUncasyfile CT Or>382

. ..

Centlenen:.

This responds to your letter dated October 11, 1978 (NIS: 78-10-17),concerning an amendment fee for the review of your safequards continnencyplan. The matter of fees for safeguards contingency plans has beendiscussed with the Commission's legal staff and a determfration madethat the fee specifici in 10 CFP 170 is due.

*fhe requirements specified by Appendix C of 10 CTR 73 and Pequiato'y GuiderS.55 are for the protection nf fuel cycle and other nuclear factittiesItcensed by the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act of 1054, as amended. The I

submission of a safeguards continqsney plan is required by Comissionregulations, and the purpose of ?!"C's review is to assu're that a licensedfuel cycle facility has in effect an acceptable plan for dealing withthreats, thefts, and industrial sabotage relattnq to special nuclearmaterials. The Commission's fee guidelines provide that fees may beassessed to persons who are identifiable recipients ce "special benefits"

! conferred by spectrically identified activities of the MC. The tem"special benefits *' includes services rendered at tha request of a racipientn

%g and all services required for the issuance of a license, permit, approval,n

or anendment, or other services necessary to assist a reefpient in comply-ing with statutory obligations or obligations under tbc Cnmmission's

08 requiations. The guidelines further provide that it is not necessary to" allocate costs in proportion to the degree of public or private benefitp resulting from conferrirg a special benefit on a reefnient. Vbile some ofp the benefits of this pengram may extend to the general public, the,

| p Comission rust review each contingency plan on behalf of the Itcensee,and if the plan is found to be acceptable, grant its apreoval thereof by!

-

gg license amendment,m e. o

Footrote 1(d) of Section 170.31 provides that amendments resulting fromNDC eritten requests may be cycnpt from fees at the discretion of the

Comission when the a endment is issued for tbc convenience of the comission[. -- The tem "writtan FRC requests", as used in the footnote, is nnt intendei-

te - 1 ,+- e uc ,, , e - m ee- .its r - i,,1 c-.m n n,.

I

L

-

: .. + .,vm y'

,

dj),{ . % ""!t .E ,5

v .,|,4,f.,

p,1 y ap. q s, n.,

,, " : United Nuclear Corporation -2-| r

|

,

),

The Licensing staff has determined that the review of your contingencyplan will require a major review effort to detemine its acceptability,and as mentioned earlier, the Comission has. decided such reviews aresubject to fees. -While it is true that your contingency plan may not

. decrease the effectiveness of your overall Physical Security Plan, it isa plan which the Comission is required by regulation to review, make adetermination and grant its approval. For this review and approval effort,'i

| an amendment fee is being charged. >

| |.. ,

|.

Rased on the foregoing and as requested in our Septer'iber 27, 1978 letter.~*-

| an amendment fee of $3.300 remains due and payable. Payment of the fee( should be remitted to this office. Upon completion of the review, the| Comission will review its' costs and, if necessary, refund.any overcharges.._I

i

| Sincerely.'

.

iWilliam 0. Miller, ChiefLicense Fee Management Franch,

Office of Administration

Enclosure:10 CFR 170-

.

*i

DISTRIBUTION':.

License File (70-371)PDR

Fee File IDAR 5-1| Pending Fee File

,

I LFMB R/F (2)|

- RFonner. ELDDJDonoghue, ADM

DWeiss, ADM .'R$KELTON, SGPSRMcComick IE

.

.

| ,

\ .c'

...#..L..F. P. 8. . :.A.D. .M............L. .M..M..B. . :_A.D..M.......

F .fr : A.D..M......... . . . ., I'

AD. . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . .AD. . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . .. , , , ,

[. 5. ./. ..y. .../. 7. 9......... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.1.tr....... . . . i. . . . . . . R.tr. .... .. .f N,9ggy,,,,,,,,, ,,D,y,0g,noghu,9.em1.1.ac.. ....q b1my.- .. . . . . .

, ,

... 5./.1. 8 /. 7. 9....... , ... 5../..po..../. 7 9 .... ..... 5../..p..../. 7. 9.......... 5 /......../. 7 9. . .. . ./.,. . g. . . . ..??'.5, . , . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . .

' sum: seem ne m.m umas esse * ..-..... ... . ......... ,,, ,,,

. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ .-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

:

i

. ,. _ _

| l. . , , .. n,*

,.

|,* r

, ...u

., .

: .....,,.-.a....,.,

i p%,Myy== ma.;; yc;f= ; ya: m;;.;w=,.;wgu ::v =::::.y':;): ;,.m :: }'

_ , - . , , s . _ . _ . ..- -.

em gggggd ggggggy (gypgregjgg oats ce meuwe=t oats nueveo no t,.

i Uncasv111e. Connecticut 06302 3ctober ll,1973 October 17,1978 LFis-12/78LTP MtMO RtPORT OTMBR

X;

" " ' ** '"'"' r.r. Allen S. CabellXLicense fee Hanagement Branch, ADH,

co'<vaa ~u O a'' ' ^ ~'" "' a0U.S. Nuclear itegulatory Coomission ac'a= ~'unaa'

; un ainn+na. n.c. 2nrr, * o actio= ~tena^av O c = ia' O .-

CLA Eler" '

PU$3 uf f K4 sitg COUS

i unclassifjed ac ~oDISCnif fiON iMat De unsteusies8 NEf tRMED 10 04Tg REtteyt0 GT DATS

] UdC does not beleve that an aandment|

fee should be charged for the sub- Allen S. Cabell. AbH 10/17cission of a safeguards contingency wf,799 t n,1plan. ' -

4

. u o.uai.

Of stributton!1-PDR,

: Infa enntee t i.

W m 'er, AKCJ8ellowsv. (M-

;

j ""'"" IN REPLY, PLEASC itEFER TO: W'ISS' AMHIS: 78-10-17! *

,

f e o i,;,,pu..u . uCt... ..out.ro , coj , ,co,y,,L ,,,,

i

j

i

1

!i

,

|

I4

?

J

iI

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

b -

f ?'Q . ,1 [8 .

g ;,4 - .t' v

b ^ IJAC UNITED NUCLEARC O R P O R A T 1 o N,

e7 saNov ossant moaoIn Reply, Please uncanvitte. co~~rcticut cessa

Refer To: NIS: 78-10-17 T s '.. e 4 8 t s u

October 11, 1978

Mr. Allen S. CabellLicensee Fee Management BranchOffice of AdministrationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Subject: Docket #T0-371Licensee Safeguards Contingency PlansControl No. 10813

,

Reft (1) Letter, W.F. Kirk, UNC, to R. Black, NRC, datedSeptember 15, 1978.

(2) Letter, A.S. Cabell, NRC, to Manager, Nuclear MaterialsControl, UNC, dated September 27, 1978.

Dear Sir:

We do not believe that an amendment fee should be charged for the submission ofa safeguards contingency plan. Such a plan la primarily for the protection ofGovernment owned uranium and the prevention of its theft and use in detrementallyaffecting the health and cafety of the general public; further, the plan was sub-mitted in responce to new NRC opecified requirements given in great detail inNRC Regulatory Guide 5 55

As noted (FR Vol.143, p. 7211) citing several court decisions, a charge forservices rendered 10 precluded when the identification of the ultimate bene-ficiary is obscure and the servicea can be primarily considered as benefitingbroadly the general public.

Confirmation of the benefit to the g''neral public can be found in several in-stances:

1. Ref. (2) considers the reference (1) to be a " major safeguards amendment".10 CFR 170 31, footnote 3 defines a major amendment as one where theproposed action could precent a potential risk to the public 'a healthand safety.

RECEIVE,0 BY LFM3

ia /Q'4J1.l.L. ...:N '.. . . . . .. .v, p .

I ?|m . . . :.'. ".'. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '\ -w,-

en. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .sJsc.iela Carnal. . . . . . . . . . ;

__-_ D

c ) (, . - Mr. A.S . Cab:11

''"' ''Page 2

* October 11, 1978-

.

2. 10 CFR 21 devoted to reporting of substantial cafety hazards to thepublic health and safety givec (Statements of Consideration 42 FR 28891)failures in a security cystem as an example of possible substantial safetyhazard.

As written in Statements of Consideration 43 FR 11962 for IIRC implementation ofthe Safeguarda Contingency Plan; the licensee may combine all security relatedplans into a single plan aa long as he assures that all requirements of AppenlixC of 10 CFR 73 have been addreased. Regulatory Guide 5 55 (March 1978) page 11also indicated that the Safeguardo Contingency Plan may be submitted as an attach-ment to the Phyoical Security Plan. Pleace supplement ref. (1) to show that theoubmitted Safeguards Contingency Plan is to be an addition to our existingSecurity Plan under 10 CFR 70 32(e). Obviously there is no decrease in the effee-tiveneca of the overall Security Plan.

In summary, our basis for determining this cubmiccion [ref. (1)] chould carry nofee requirement is:

1. It ir for the convenience of the IIRC and at the request of IIRC per l'(0 31

footnote (d).

2. The requirementa are specified in detail by the IIRC for the protection ofits uranium and the safety of the general public.

3 It confera no benefit to the licensee.

4. It la an att tchment to our existing Physical Security Plan that does notdecrease the effectiveness of the Plan.

5 All operations at this site are conducted in cupplying the U.S. Governmentwith nuclear reactora.

Pending resolution of the question of any actual fee, please proceed with your {review as provided for in 10 CFR 70.12(c) and 170.31 footnote (d) na discuasedwith Mr. Allen 3. Cabell on October 10, 1978.

To minimize IIRC conta during review, plence note that our plan la very nimilarto thouc cutmitted by U:;C Fuels Recovery Operations, Wcad River Junction, R.I.and Iluclear Fuel Servicec, Erwin, Tenn. as all three plans were prepared by theonme consultant. In addition, all plans submitted uhould be very standardizedbaued on the detailed upecificationc given in NRC Regulatory Guide 5.55

Should further clarificationa be nececcary, please contact me. Ref. (2) shouldhave been addrenaed to me.'

Very truly yourc,U:IITED |iUCLEAR CORPCRATI !T

k 4**t- GW.F. Kirk, ManagerIluelear and Indus urialSafety Department

/eJm

k . )