ML20043G913
| ML20043G913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/15/1990 |
| From: | Hiller L NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | Funches J, Glenn J, David Williams NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330E503 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-55FR21173, RULE-PR-170 AD23-2-35, NUDOCS 9006210291 | |
| Download: ML20043G913 (73) | |
Text
_
, /p.# E8Cd('e,,[
gJ
' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RcGULATORY COMMISSION g p 2 3 - 2.-
~c WASH:NGTON, D. C 20666 4,
e February 15, 1990 t
9.h 7
MEMORANDUM FOR:
David C. Williams, inspector General-Jesse L. Funches, Director, NMSS/PMDA John E. Glenn, Chief NMSS/IMAB Robert L. Fonner, OGC Vandy L. Miller, GPA/SLITP Donnie P. Grimsley, Director', ADM/DFIPS Graham Johnson, Director, OC/DAF
~
FROM:
Lee H_ iller, Deputy Controller
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO AMEND 10 CFR 170 Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of a draft staff paper to the Commission and a Notice of Final Rulemaking to revise '.icense and inspection fees for the small materials program.
We would appreciate your comments on the draft by COB February 26, 1990.
Thank-you for your' cooperation in this matter.
&s /d.
Lee Hiller-Deputy Controller
Enclosures:
As stated i
f 90'06210291 900618
+PDR PR
'170155FR21173 PDR 2
/9 D 2 3 - z 1
poa FOR:
The Commissioners
~ J..
FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
License Fees - Final Rule PURp0SE:
To obtain Commission approval of a Notice of Final Rulemaking that would revise the schedule of fees in Part 170.
CATEGORY:
This paper covers a major policy matter requiring Commission approval.
BACKGROUND:
SECY 89-314,-dated October 11, 1989, discussed the proposed rule on thissubject.
Following Commission approval, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1989 (54 FR 49736) in accordance with the provisions of the Independent Offices Appro-priation Act of 1952 (10AA)'and established Administration policy on recovery of user charges.
Three public meeti gs were held in
. Regions I, III, and IV to discuss the proposed changes and.to ans-wer any questions.
A total of ten industry and Agreement State representatives attended the three neetings.
The public comment period expired January 30, 1990.
The -amendments would (1) estab-lish a ceiling of $50,000 for topical report reviews, (2) update the schedule of fees for small radioisotope programs, including the addition of a fee for byproduct material applications for decommissioning (3) change the cost per professional staff hour for all full-cost fees from $85 to $92 per hour based on the FY 1990 budget, (4) delete certain exemption provisions and clarify others for ease of administration, (5) add a new exemption provision to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations will be exempt from payment of fees and (6) request that bills in excess of $5,000 4
.c.
l '.
'g '
Y, iQh Lt 5
, h
- p*:.
h%. I 4
r a fx :. Y '
i m
i
L y
be paid by electronic fund transfer in accordance with U.S. Depart-ment of the Treasury cash management initiatives.
This action more completely recovers costs incurred by the Commission in-..
providing services to identifiable recipients and encourages the continued submittal of topical reports.
Discussion:
Twenty eight public comments were received. They are addressed in L
detail in the draft final rule (Enclosure 1).
The comments are sum-matized in Enclosure 2.
Eighteen letters were from persons con-cerned with materials license fees and ten letters were from utility.
licensees and owners groups concerned about fees for Part 50 l
facilities.
The theme of the comments ranged from strong opposition to the increases proposed for all fees to the position that the Commission was not proposing sufficient' fees to recover the costs of all effort necessary to protect the public health and safety.
Many of the letters contained comments that were similar in nature, which have been grouped, as appropriate, and addressed as single comments.
The staff has identified five areas of comment and the-staff's response.
Specific topics that the staff believes may be of 7
interest to the Commission are discussed below:
1.
The most frequent comment was that the proposed increases in fees were excessive, unjustified, and unfair to small busi-nesses who would find it impossible to escalate prices on the percentage basis as intended by the proposed rule.
On the-other hand, several Agreement States-were encouraged by and supported the proposed revision since it appears to strengthen the fee schedules for categories of licenses regulated by the Agreement States.
One Agreement State in particular commented that the proposed rule does not go far enough and should seek to recover even more of the costs from materials licensees.
In response to these comments, the staff points out that (1) the 10AA requires an update of the license fees as necessary to 2
t
m 5,(.
I 1
u i
recover the Commission's costs far processing applications and conducting inspections (2) the materials fees have not been q
adjustedsince1984andthefeesadoptedthenwerebasedon FYJ981dataand(3)'thestaffdoesnotbelievethattheincrAase
-in fees that would re r from the adoption of the' schedule
-[
would result in a sip -icant economic impact on most materials licensees.
The increase in the annual cost that would be imposed on these licensees would'not be significant in terms of their gross annual receipts.
~
j
'2.
Nine comments addressed the reestablishment of a fee ceiiing for topical reports.
Several supported the $50,000 ceiling as an approximate level while one commenter responded that no fees should be assessed but if a ceiling is reestablishe'd, it should be at the previous rate of $20,000.
Two commen6ers' suggested that the= $50,000 ceiling be made retroactive to. January 30, 1989, 1
the date that ceilings for topical reports were removed.
They agrued that this would be fair to those who submitted topical reports prior to that date with the expectation that they would know the exact cost of the NRC review, but after Janua_ry 30, 1989 became subject to the full cost requirements.
Based on t.
these comments, the staff is proposing to establish in this final rule a ceiling of $50,000 for topical reports and that as a matter of policy to exempt all costs.for topical report reviews that exceed $50,000 and were completed on or after 1
January 30, 1989.
The staff feels this is a fair and equitable way to handle these applications that may have been subject to full cost review with no ceiling limitation.
J 3.
kv=1 comments were received on the proposal to require those bills in excess of $5,000 to be paid by electronic fund trans-fer (EFT).
One commenter endorsed the concept pointing out that he routinely.uses EFT.
Another commenter indicated that spe-cific payment instructions should accompany the bill.
Other commenters indicated that EFT is not justified.
They pointed out that for many companies EFT is not a common practice, would l.
I i
h I
p n
~ E:
require special action' and expenditure of resources to accomp '
lish and'at times may not be desirable to use.
In response *a the comments, the staff feels that establishment of the $5,000 1
requirement. is justified and is consistent with U.S. Depad$nt -
of Treasury regulations relating to cash management initiatives and will encourage timely receipts and deposits of monies owed to'the Federal government.
l Fe s s.
,, a 4,
6eme commente addressed the changes being proposed in the exemp-tion provisions of S 170.11(a)(4) and (a)(11).
The comments here ranged from the suggestion of totally eliminating all fee exemptions in S 170.11 so that all materials licensees are treated equally from a fee standpoint, to one which indicated that exemptions are necessary and those suggested in the pro-l posed rule are apuroPriate..memn c.s r.<e Fna sxuvra.~In respons ec n o m,on., a staff has made clarifying language changes to S 170.11(a)(4)
-i 3
and is proposing to establish a new exemption provision in S 170.11(a)(11) to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations that are Federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary.of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be exempt from payment of license-fees.
5.
One commenter suggested that the initial $150 application fee that is filed with an application subject to full costs'in-S 170.31 be eliminated.
The license fee, he argues, adds an un-necessary ad;ninistrative cost for initiating, processing and I
tracking for the licensee as well as the NRC.
The staff' agrees and has made the'necessary changes to S 170.31.
The staff made a similar change to S 170.21 which'became effective January 30, 1989, l
Having considered all the public comments including the ques-tions raised at the public meetings, the staff recommends that a final rule be promulgated to revise the fee schedules'in.
-Part 170 based on the FY 1990 budget.
p 4
[
l
c e
2, _
Coordination:
The'0ffices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Governmental and Public Affairs and Admin-istration concur in the final rulemaking.
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this final rulemaking and has nc legal objections.
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
- 1. -Approve for publication the amendments to 10 CFR Part 170 which would include the reestablishment of a fee ceiling for topical reports.
2.
Certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
3.
Note that; The final rule would become effective 30 days after publi-a.
cation in the Federal Register.
b.
The House Committee en Interior and Insular Affai'rs, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,'the Senate Commit-tee on Environment and Public Works, and the Budget and Appropriations Committees will be notified by letter.(see ).
A public announcement will be issued when the final rule-c.
is filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication (see Enclosure 4).
I d.
The Federal Register notice will be mailed to all affected NRC licensees.
e.
This final rule cont ure no information collection require-ments and theret ':., ot subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Redur.twn Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
5
~
v f.
Action required under this rule is administrative and will not impact the environment; therefore, neither an environ-mental impact statement nor an environmental assessment 7
(10 CFR Part 51.22(c)(1)) has been prepared for this rule.
g.
The final rule is administrative and would' assess fees for regulatory services provided by the NRC.for nuclear power reactor licensees.
The final rule does not impose' any new,-
2 more stringent safety requirements on Part 50 licensees.
Accordingly, the backfit rule in 10 CFR 50.109 does not apply,to this rule.
Di h.
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
. Administration will be informed of the certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
i.
Fees collected will be deposited with the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations m
Enclosures:
1.
Final Rule amending Part 170 2.
List and Summary of Comments 3.
Draft Congressional Letter 4.
Draft Public Announcement 7
r B
Enclosure'l (7590-01]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 170 RINS 3150-AD23 Revision of Fee Schedules:
Radioisotope Licenses and Topical Reports AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final Rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations by-revising _ its schedules of fees charged for licensing and regulatory services provided by the NRC contained in 10 CFR 170.
The revised schedule of fees will more_ completely recover NRC costs incurred in providing services to iden--
tifiable recipients, including both materials and facility applicants.
The revision is based on the FY 1990 budgeted costs of providing services in. accord-ance with the Commission's license fee guidelines and evaluation of public com-ments on the proposed rule.
All applicants and licensees currently subject to fees'under NRC regulations are affected by the rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
[ Insert a date _^0 days following publication in the Federal Register.]
FOR FU;"t 4. 'INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lee Hiller, Deputy Controller, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301 492-7351.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
1 Background
U Responses to Comments 1
l
____.u a.
< - - " " - " ' ' ' " ' ' - ' ^ ^ ^
111 Changes _ Included In the Final Rule
'lV Section-by-Section Analysis V
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion-VI Paperwork Reduction Act Statement VII
_ Regulatory Analysis VIII Regulatory Flexit,ility Certification-IX-Backfit Analysis.
I.
Background
1 On December 1, 1989 (54 FR 49763-49771), the Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking for revisions to 10 CFR Part 170
-(" Fees for Facilities and Materials ' Licenses and Other Reguiatory Services ***").
This action was necessary for the Commissiun to update the fee schedules in Part 170 to more completely recover costs incurred by the Commission in provid-ing services to identifiable recipients and to encourage the continued submittal of topical reports.
The notice of proposed rulemaking invited interested persons to submit written comments for consideration in connection with the proposed amendments on or before January 30, 1990.
In addition, the Commission's staff has been avail-
'able to answer any questioni, concerning the proposed rulemaking.
Three public meetings were held in Regions I, III, and IV to discuss the proposed changes i
and consider any questions.
A total of ten industry and Agreement State representatives attended the three meetings.
The Commission placed a copy of
.the workpapers relating to the proposed rule in its Public Document Room at n
j 2120 L.' Street NW., Washington, DC, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.
II.
Responses to Comments The Commission received twenty eight (28) letters commenting on the proposed rule.
Eighteen letters were from persons concerned with material license fees
.and ten letters were from utility licenses and owners groups concerned with fees for Part.50 facilities.
The comments fell into the following broad categories.
2
I
\\
- 1.
Increases in fees.
1 2.
Reestablishment of topical report fee ceiling.
3.
Payment of fees by electronic fund transfer (EFT).
4.
Exemption provisions 5.
Other comments.
1; Increases in Fees.
i Comment.
Commenters' main concern is that the proposed increases were sub-i 7
stantial and businesses in private industry would find it very difficult i
to escalate prices on a percentage basis as intended by the proposed rule, In several, specific areas such as teletherapy and nuclear medicine (Cat-g,
+
egories 7A and 70); manufacturing (Category 3B) and research and develop-ment (Category 3M)'commenters were concerned not only about the proposed increases but why, in some instances, the proposed cost for an application for renewal would exceed the cost of a new application.
Responsh The Commission agrees that the proposed increases in many instances may be substantial.
However, as was pointed out in the proposed rule, the last revision to the materials license fees in 10 CFR Part 170 was in 1984 and the fees in that schedule were based on FY 1981 data. In terms of cost data, effectively ten years have elapsed since the schedules were revised and during that time the professional licensing staff hour j
rate increased from 558 per hour to $92 per hour, a 59% increase.
The
-professional inspection staff hour rate has increased from $53 per hour to'$92 per hour, a 74% increase.
One commenter who supported the proposed changes pointed out that the hourly rate increases have been on an aver-
-age of 6. to 7 percent per. year, barely keeping pace with inflation.
In addition, thu*e have been changes in the emphasis on some of'the programs resulting in greater professional staff effort being expended for those particular categories of licenses.
With respect to why renewals require more time than new licenses for Category 3B,.this type of license often has frequent amendments to add new products or to change existing de-scriptions of products or processes.
The renewal process often requires a review of many documents-to determine which descriptions are current 3
l l
h
L L
and which have been supersededt a situation that does not occur with a new application.
In addition,' companies applying for new licenses will 3
on the average operate simpler programs using both smaller activities and varieties of radioisotopes than are utilized by the existing companies.
i i
lith respect to Category 7C, renewals require more time because the average new applicant for a medical use license is a small clinic or private phy-sician who,is' requesting authorization to perform one or only a few medical l
procedures.
The average medical use licensee renewing a license is an institution offering a full variety of diagnostic services and often some n.
therapy services.
Because of the total revision of 10 CFR Part 35 in 1987, new applicants and licensees renewing medical use licenses must submit com-i plete applications and descr1ptions for all activities to be authorized.
Thus the simplifications in the licensing process due to the-Part 35 revi-
.sion have helped reduce review time for the simpler programs being initiated
}
more than for the existing programs with more activities to describa.
Some commenters, particularly Agreement States support the proposed revisions in-that it strengthens the fee schedules for categories of licenses regulated by Agreement States.
The Commission will proceed in adjusting the fees in Part 170 because the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (10AA) requires that fees be updated as necessary to more fully recover the Com-mission's costs of processing applications and conducting inspections.
2.
Reestablishment.of a. ceiling for topical report reviews.
\\
Comment.
Nine commenters addressed the reestablishment of a ceiling for-topical reports.
Several commenters supported the $50,000 ceiling as an appropriate level for reestablishment.
One suggested that if the ceiling were reestablished it should be set at the previous rate of $20,000.
Most of the commenters in this area indicated that the public interest, as well as the interests of NRC and the industry, are better served by encouraging the submittal of topical reports.
Two commenters suggested that the $50,000 ceiling be made retroactive to January 30, 1989, the date the ceilings for topical reports were removed.
4
_-.__.--_--.-__-__--_.1.-.-..._,.
e Response.
The Commission has reestablished the fee ceiling for the review f
of topical reports at $50,000 and the review of any amendments, revisions, or supplements to topical reports at $50,000.
This figure represents an adjustment'of a previous ceiling of $20,000 to reflect the. effects of,_
inflatica and is an amount which approximates the median of topical report fees charged over $20,000 in'1989.
As a matter of policy the Commission will exempt all review costs that exceed $50,000 for those topical reports completed on or after January 30, 1989.
Thus applicants for the review of topical reports or for amendments, revisions,or supplements to topical reports will be treated equally for those reports-completed on or after
~
January 30, 1989 since all will be subject to the $50,000 ' fee ceiling.
3.
Payment of fees by electronic fund transfer (EFT).
.S n eensu ru.s Acoussa o Comment. -Sc'ecn! ccr^^t; werc rccaivd-the proposal to require those bills.in excess of $5,000 to be paid by EFT.
One commenter endorsed the concept pointing out that he routinely uses EFT.
Another commenter indi-E-
cated that specific payment instructions should accompany the bill.
Other commenters-indicated that EFT is not justified.
They pc:nted out that for many companies EFT is not a common practice, would require special action by them as tell as the expenditure of resources to accomplish, and at times, is not available or desirable to use.
Response.
The Commission has established the $5,000 requirement for EFT
-and will provide specific instructions on its use for those bills issued for more than $5,000.
This is consistent with U.S. Department of Treasury regulations relating to cash management initiatives and will encourage timely receipts and deposits of monies owed to the Federal Government.
4.
Exemption Provisions.
Comment.
Four commenters addressed the changes being proposed in the exemption provisions of S 170.11(a)(4) and (a)(11).
The comments ranged from the suggestion of totally eliminating all fee exemptions so that all materials licenses are treated equally from a fee standpoint to that of. indicating that exemptions are necessary and those suggested in the 5
l' y.
proposed, rule are appropriate.
One commenter suggested that the language
.I in 170.11('a)(4) be clarified by using the we. Jing in the Section-by-Section 3
Analysis.
Response.
The Commission will maintain the exemption provisions in
-S 170.11 and has made clarifying language changes to 10 CFR S 170.11(a)(4) as suggested.
The Commission will establish a new exemption provision in S 170.11(a)(11) to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations that are Federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the
. Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be
~
' exempt from payment of fees.
i 5.
Other Comments.
One commenter -auggested the elimination of the initial $150 application a.
fee required in S 170.31 for those reviews based on full costs.
He indicated that it adds an unnecessary administrative cost for initiat-ing, processing and tracking for the licensee as well as the NRC.
Response.
The Commission agrees and has made the necessary changes to eliminate.the $150 filing fee in S 170.31.
This is consistent with a similar change that was made with respect to filing fees in S 170.21 effective January'30, 1989.
b.
One commenter sug;= ted noted the inconsistency between 10 CFR 52.55
" Duration of Certification"~ nich provides a 15 year validity of design certificates and S '170.12 ' Payment of Fees, Paragraph (E)(2)(ii)(C) which mandates a 10 year period over which review costs are recovered for designs-not referenced in utility w lications.
Response..The Commission agrees and Part-170 has been amended to correct
.this inconsistency.
p see. lo a. + 6 nexr Pues III.
Changes Included in the Final Rule The changes included in the final rule are outlined below.
Any differences between the final rule and the proposed rule are explained in the following 6
'y1
.. -,......i
...w-E P
.A'.
One 40mmentor suggested that the Commission assess f,ees for inspection of general licensees since these costs are not currently recovered.
In addition, the commentor suggests that the Connission reduce the tire available for reciprocity currently at 180 days.
He indicates that this would place licensees in the NRC jurisdiction in a esa os nnus more economic position with some Agreement State licensees who do'not.
3
(
pay fees.h'. the present time,an Agreement State licensee who ooes not pay fees cad
'serate for six months in a non-Agreement State in' E
competition with the NRC license who has to pay fees.
r
Response
The Commission will continue its current policy of not assessing fees to NRC general licensees.
In a majority of cases, general licensees are not required to file an application, do not receive specific aoprovals and are infrecuently inspected. With respect to the reciprocity provision, (GPA & NMSS to supply response).
.cl. One commentor suggested that reasonable limits be established co o
prevelt excessive routine, inspections of small programs.
The Coanentor felt that er is unacceptable to be charged an inspection fee anytime an inspector chooses to visit a facility.
i o
L i
0 m
Response
Similar comments were received on the June 27,1988 Mropose5-rule (53 FR 24077). These connents were addressed in the final rule
. published on December 29,1988(53FR52633).
Effective January 30, 1989, the Comission removed the billing frecuencies for routine inspections of small programs from 6170.31.
The Comission indicated at that time that the routine inspection program is a structured program
~
and that the frequency of inspections is not gene. rally expected to be more frequent than that stipulated in the previous regulation,
- e. One comentor requested that the Comission consider establishing a separate fee category for portable gauges and lower the inspection fee,.and consider this action for gas-chromatographs as well.
Re,sponse rtable @ e and gas chromatograph licensegs are i
grouped Fe4 fee purposes with other similar license types, such as fixed gauge licenses.
The fee for this category of licenses reflects the Comission's average cost to review applications and perform inspections of these programs. At this time, it is not practical to develop a separate category for each type of license or authorization.
Establishing a separate fee category for portable gauges and gas chromatographs ghave an adverse impact on licensees since they would be subject to multiple fee categories if their licenses include items other than portable gauges and gas chromatograghs.
The Comission, therefo[has determined that the fees in the proposed rule are appropriate for portable gauge and gas chromatograph I
licenses.
t
. O.D discussion.
5 Most of these changes were included in the proposed rule pub-lished on December 1, 1989 (54 FR 49763) 1.
Amend S.170.20 to change the cost per professional staf f-hour from $86
.per hour to $92 per hour based on the FY 1990 budget..The $92 per hour rate is a decrease from the proposed-$95 per hour.
This decrease is a re-sult of adjustments made by Congress to the FY 1990 budget.
The method used for calculating the hourly rate is exactly the same as that used in the
~
proposed rule.
An analysis of the budget which generated this rate is-provided in the Section-by-Section Analysis.
- 2.
Establish in Part 170 a fee ceiling of $50,000 for. topical report reviews
. and for the review of any amendments, revisions or supplements to topical reports.
l 3.
Update the schedule of fees in S 170.31 for small radioisotope l'icenses based on the FY.1990 budget.
Because the pr essional staff hour rate has decreased from $95 to $92, all fees shown in the proposed rule for small radioisotope licenses have been reduced in this final rule to reflect the decrea'se.
4.
Remove the $150 application filing fees in S 170.31 for those applications where fees are assessed based on the full cost for the review.
5.
Change Category 108 in Part 170.31 from full cost fees to flat fees.
6.'
Delete the exemption provision in S 170.11(a)(3), broaden the exemption in S 170.11(a)(4), and clarify the exemption in S 170.11(a)(5).
7.
Establish a new exemption provision in S 170.11(a)(11).to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations that are federally recognized as eligible for services provided-by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as-Indians will be exempt from payment of fees.
k 7
? -
i
.c.
8.
Revised S 170.12(h) to request that bills in excess of $5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer.
The Agency workpapers which support the final changes to 10 CFR 170 are avai1-
' ~
'able-in.the Public Document Room, at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC in the
~
lower leveltof the Gelman Building.
IV.
Section-by-Section Analysis
_ The following section-by-section analysis of those sections affected provides
~
additional explanatory information.
All references are to 10 CFR 170,c.ne en jaoet.Au Raceu nw.r.
Section 170.3 Definitions.
This section is revised to remove the paragraph designations for the definitions,
' arrange the definitions in alphabetical order, and add definitions of " Indian organization" and " Indian tribe."
" Indian organization" means any commercial group, association, partnership, or corporation wholly owned or controlled by an Indian tribe.
Indian tribe".
- means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided to Indians by the
-Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians.
Section 170.11 Exemptions.
Paragraph (a)(3) is being removed in its entirety.
Fees for any byproduct, 1
source, or specic) luclear materials licenses issued under 10 CFR Parts-30, 40, 70, or 71 that art considered to be incidental to the operation of a nuclear reactor will be charged under the. respective materials fee category rather than under the 10 CFR part 50 reactor fee category as has been past practice.
Therefore, for a special nuclear materials license or any other licenses which are required prior to operation of the reactor, e.g., startup sources, reactor i
fuel, or calibration or monitoring equipment, fees will be assessed under 10 CFR 170.31 rather than S 170.21.
If an applicant possesses byproduct, source, I
8
(
g or special nuclur material for decontamination, inspection, repair, modifica-tion, or testing of their reactor components, for which a license is required under the Commission's applicable materials regulations, fees will be assessed in accordance with 10 CFR 170.31.
Paragraph (a)(4) is changed to broaden the exemption for non profit educa-tional institutions to include certain activities (e.g., research) not covered by the current exemption.
it does not include power reactor licenses and mate-rials licenses which authorize human use, commercial distribution, remunerated 7
service to other persons, or activities performed under a Governm.ent contract.
If a nonprofit educational institution provides services to other persons with-out charge, the exemption would apply.
The Commission has received several exemption requests from colleges and universities for licensed activities not covered by the current exemption.
Additionally, this change is in keeping with
- the concern of Congress regarding the impact of the current schedule on some entities and their limited ability to pass through the costs of these charges to the ultimate consumer.
Although the legislative history for annual fees con-tained in Part 171 of this chapter discusses the option of considering modifica-tions to these fee schedules for hospitals, research and medical institutions and uranium producers, the Commission is continuing to limit this particular exemption to non profit educational institutions.
Paragraph (a)(5) is changed, for clarification, to include certificates-of compliance and other approvals.
Paragraph (a)(11) is added to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organi-zations that are Federally recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians will be exempt f rom license fees.
Indian tribes are recognized as separate political entities similar to-State governments.
The Commission intends to exempt Indian tribes and wholly owned tribal commercial organizations conducting licensed activities on tribal lands from license fees in the same manner as it does States and governmental agencies.
Section 170.12 Payment of Fees.
9
4 As indicated in the proposed rule, paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are revised to more clearly distinguish the fee payment requirements for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost from the requirements for~other licensed activities that are subject to full cost.
In addition, paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(c) is being revised to change the 10 year period of cost recovery to a 15 year period to be consistent with Part 52.55.
Also paragraphs (e) and (f) are being revised to eliminate the $150 application fee for those applica-tions where fees are determined based on full cost.
Paragraph (h) is being revised to indicate that (1) payments may also be
'. made by_ electronic fund transfer (EFT) and (2) that where specific instructions regerding payment are provided on the bills, payment should be made accordingly.
~
lt is the-intent of the Commission to request payment by electronic-fund trans-fer of those bills which are in excess of $5,000.
This change is being made to encourage timely receipts and deposits in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations relating to cash management initiatives.
Section 170.20 Average Cost Per Professional Staff-Hour.
This section is modified to reflect an agency-wide professional staff-hour rate based on FY 1990 costs to the Agency.
Accordingly, the proposed profes-sional staff rate for the NRC for FY 1990 for all fee categories that are based on full cost is $92 per hour, or $161.4 thousand per FTE (professional staff year).
For FY 1990, the budgeted obligations by direct program are: (1) Salaries and Benefits, $203.16 million; (2) Administrative Support, $74.64 million; (3)
Travel, $12.27 million, and (4) Program Support, $148.70 million.
In FY 1990, 1,636 FTEs are considered to be in direct support of NRC programs applicable to fees (see Table 1).
Of the total 3,180 FTEs,1,544 FTEs will be considered overhead-(supervisory and support) or exempted (due to their program function).
Of these 1,544 FTEs, a total of 286 FTEs and the resulting $26.1 million in support are exempted from the fee base due to the natura of their functions
'(i.e., enforcement activities and other NRC functions currently exempted by Commission policy).
10
r
-_1
'4 h
-Table 1. - Allocation of direct-FTEs byGffice Office Number of direct FTEs!-
5 NRR......................
1,007.5 RESEARCH.................
146.0 NMSS.....................
317.3 AE00.....................
85.0 ASLAP/ASLBP..............
22.2 ACRS.....................
25.0-0GC......................
33.0
-Total Direct FTE.......
1,636.0 3
1 Regional employees are counted in the office of the program each supports In determining the cost for each direct' labor FTE (an FTE whose position /
function is such that it can be identified to a specific licensee or class of licensees) whose function, in the NRC's judgment, is necessary to the regulatory process, the following rationale is used:
1.
All direct FTEs are identified by office.
2.~
NRC plans, budgets, and controls on the following four major categories (see Table II):
(a)
Salaries and Benefits.
(b) Administrative Support.
(c) Travel.
i L
(d) Program' Support.
3.
Program Support, the use'of contract or other services for which the NRC pays for support from outside the Commission, is charged to various categories as used.
4.
All other costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel, and Administra-tive Support) represent "in-house" costs and are to be collected by allocating them uniformly over the total nun:her of direct FTEs.
11 I
k
iu ll M
k k
c Using this method which was described in the December 1, 1989 proposed rule (54-FR 49763'and the FY 1990 budget, and excluding budgeted Program Support obligations, the remaining $263.97 million allocated uniformly to the direct FTEs (1,636) results in a calculation of $161.4 thousand per FTE for FY 1990 (an hourly rate of $92).
M
.C Table II - FY 1990 Budget by major category
[$ in Millions)
Sal' ries and benefits..............
$203.16 a
Administrative support.............
74.64 Travel...................
12.27 Total nonprogram support obliga-tions..........................
290.07 Program support...................
148.70 Total budget...................
$438.77 The Direct.FTE Productive Hourly. Rate-($92/ hour rounded down to the nearest whole dollar) is calculated by dividing the annual nonprogram support cost
($290.07 million) less the amount applicable to exempted functions (26.1 million)
-by the product of the direct FTE (1,636 FTE) and the number of productive hours in one year (1,744 hours0.00861 days <br />0.207 hours <br />0.00123 weeks <br />2.83092e-4 months <br />) as indicated in OMB Circular A-76, " Performance of Commercial Activities."
For subsequent fiscal years the professional staff-hour rate will be revised, as.needed, using the same methodology to arrive at a new hourly rate as described above.
Any changes in the staff-hour rate for future fiscal years will be pub-lished in the Federal Register prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which they will become effective.
0 l
12
__ -.--. - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - =
- ^-^ ' ^ '
" ^ '
^
4 Section.170.21 Schedule of Fees for Production and Utilization Facilities, Review of Standard Reference Design Approvals, Special Projects and Inspections.
Since the Commission decision (53 FR 52633; December 29,1988) toremoveth[ fee ceiling for topical reports reviews, and as discussed in the proposed rule pub-lished December 1,1989, the number of topical reports submitted for review has significantly decreased.
It appears that the principal reason for the reduction in topical reports being submitted is the uncertain and potentially unlimited fee for NRC review of these reports.
This is counterproductive to the agency
~
because, in many cases, the regulatory effort gains significant benefit in terms of (1) the resolution of safety significant problems, 7nd (2) the staff time saved by conducting a generic review of a topical item thereby saving extensive 7
plant-by plant review in the same or similar areas.
Examples of beneficial topical initiatives are numerous.
The recent B&W Owners Group decision to undertake a complete reassessment of all B&W reactor designs, thus eliminating a costly NRC review, saved time and produced a more complete technical review than could have been accomplished by NRC alone.
Another example is the CE Owner's Group development of EP Guidelines for all of its units.
This generic effort saves NRC costly review time assessing plant-by plant guidelines.
These-are just'two of many examples where the public interest is served by an industry undertaking to resolve an issue.
The surfacing of safety significant items stemming from the review of topical reports and the subsequent resource savings to.the NRC, as well as the overall high level of technical competence available from industry, justifies NRC encouragement of-industry submittal of these reports.
In conclusion, a balance must be maintained between the need to encourage industry submittal of these reports and the need to assess fees for the costs L
of reviewing the reports.
The current system of charging a fee with no ceiling for NRC review of these reports appears to have had an inhibiting effect on the industry.
As a result, the Commission is amending 10 CFR 170.21, Category J, Special Projects, to provide that the maximum fee for review o. a topical report shall not exceed $50,000 and any amendments, revisions, or supplements to topical reports shall r ot exceed- $50,000.
This figure represents an adjustment of a previous ceiling of $20,000 to reflect the effects of inflation and is an amount which approxima".es the median of topical report fees charged over $20,000 thus far in 1989.
The Commission, as a matter of policy, will exempt all costs for topical report reviews that exceed $50,000 and were completed on or after January 30, 1989.
13
The professional hourly rate assessed for the services provided under the schedule is revised as shown in S 170.20.
Footnote 2 of S 170.21 is revised to provide that the professional hours expended up to the effective date of this 4
rule will be assessed at the professional rates established for the June 20,.
1984 and January 30, 1989, rules, as appropriate.
Any professional hours ex-pended on or after the effective date'of this rule will be assessed at the FY 1990 rates shown in this final rule.
Section 170.31 Schedule of Fees for Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory
~
- Services.
~
The licensing and inspection fees in this section are modified to reflect the FY 1990 budgeted costs and to more completely recover costs incurred by the Commission in providing licensing and inspection services to identifiable reci-pients.
It includes the addition of a category for decommissioning applications for byproduct material.
After the effective date of this final rule, the fees shown in this proposed rule will apply to those decommissioning applications that are currently pending NRC review as well as subsequently filed applications.
Fee categories 1A,18, 2A, 4A, SB,10A,11,12,13, and -14 are revised to to delete the $150 initial application fee. _ Fees for these categories-are based on the full cost (professional staff hours and any contractual services costs) to conduct _the licensing review.
Since licensees are billed for these costs and are required to pay invoices within a specified time, this will eliminate the administrative cost related to initiating, processing and track-ing the $150 payment for the licensee as well as the NRC.
Fee Category 3N is revised to include licenses which authorize leak test services, with a provision added that licenses which authorize leak test ser-vices and/or calibration services only will be subject to fee Category '3P.
This revision is in response to Health Physics Associates' July 22, 1988, com-ment'on the June 27, 1988, proposed revision to 10 CFR 170,- other comments received from applicants and licensees since the inception of the June 1984 revision, and to supporting information provided by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
14
~~
s+e+W eA B
s
\\ /7 yl.[Nw,
/[t#,p #,
IMAGE EVALUATION 4
//o/
f//
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 k//
/
l.0 E m Eu E
Lu m im l,l
- bN l.8 I.25 1.4 1.6 i
4 150mm 6"
d*%
/;f4%
sg<>g,>4
+>gp(b y
=-
77777 ob i
4<-
///
p
+.
i l
i-i By letter dated July 19, 1988, Lixi, Inc. commented on the June 27, 1988, proposed rule that 10 CFR 170 should be revised'to create a new category for diagnostic devices.
Lixi believes doctors should be charged the same for medical use of the Lixi Imaging Scope as industrial users.
At this time, it is not i
practical to make a separate category for each manufactured item.
The fee Cate-gories in 10 CFR 170.31 are based on the use of the material rather than spe-cific types of products or equipment.
In addition, in using the average-cost' instead of the full-cost method for materials license fees, variations will j
exist between licenses grouped within a single category.
HowcVer, in developing the current fee categories, every effort was made to group licenses in the most logical and equitable manner, i
Many licenses which authorize human use of diagnostic devices also authorize other medical uses of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material.
These li-censes are currently subject to fee Category 7C.
If a separate category existed for disgnostic devices-only, these licenses could be subject to the fees in the new category in addition to the fees in Category 7C.
For these reasons, applications for human use of the Lixi-Imaging Scope and other diagnostic devices will continue to be subject to fee Category 7C and in-dustrial uses of the Lixi Imaging Scope will continue to be subject to fee Cate-gory 3P.
Fee Category 10B is changed from full-cost to flat fees.
This change is based on an analysis of the actual staff-hours expended for the review and ap-proval of the part 71 quality assurance programs.
Fee Category 12, Special Projects, is revised to provide that the maximum fee for review of a topical report and any amendments, revisions or supplements to topical reports shall not exceed $50,000.
t V.
Environmental Impact:
Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed rule revision is the type of ac-tion described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
Therefore, neither 15
-an environmental impact statement nor an environmental impact assessment has
'been prepared for this proposed revision.
VI Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This rule contains no information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
VII.
Regulatory Analysis The proposed revision was developed pursuant to Title V of the Independent Of fices Appropriation Act of 1952 (!0AA) (32 U.S.C 9701) and the Commission's fee guidelines.
These guidelines took into account guidance provided by the U.S.
Supreme Court on. March 4, 1974, in its decision of National Cable Television Association. Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974) and Federal Power Com-mission v. New England Power Company, 415 U.S. 345 (1974).
In these decisions, the Court held that the 10AA authorizes an agency to charge fees for special benefits rendered to identifiable persons measured by the "value to the recipient" of the agency service.
The meaning of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 was further clarified on December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
National Cable Television Associ-ation v. Federal Comrmications Commission, 554 F. 2d 1094 (1976); National Asso-L ciations of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1118 I
(1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109 (1976) and Canital Cities Communication, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1135 (1976).
These decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop fee guidelines that are still used for cost L
recovery and fee development purposes.
l l'
The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, when the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Mississippi Power and Light Co.
- v. U.S. Nuclear Reoulatory Commission, 601 F.2d 223 (1979, cert denied 44 U.S.
1102 (1980), that-(1) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had the authority to re-cover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries; (2) the NRC could properly assess a fee for the costs of providing routine inspections 16 L
necessary to ensure a licensee's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and with l
applicable regulations; (3) the NRC could charge for costs incurred in conduct-ing environmental reviews required by NEPA; (4) the NRC properly included in the fee schedule the costs of uncontested hearings and of administrative and tech-nical. support services; (5) the NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license to operate a low-level radioactive waste burial site; and (6) the NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.
The NRC does not believe that the increase in fees that would result from
. the adoption of this rule would result in significant economic impact on most materials licensees.
The increase in the annual cost that would be imposed on these licensees would not be signific, ant in terms of their gross annual receipts.
Thisrulerevisionwillnothavesign]ficantimpactonstateandlocalgovern-ments and geographical regions; on health, safet; and the environment or create i
substantial costs to licensees, the NRC, or other Federal agencies, The fore-s I
going discussion contitutes the regulatory analysis for the final rule.
I VIII.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification 1
l 1
In the notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 1, 1989.(54 FR 49736),
j the Commission determined in its Regulatory Flexibility Certification that, based upon the available information, this rule was not expected to have a sig-nficant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Small Business Act or the Small Business Administration regulations issued pursuant to the Act (13 CFR Part 121).
The Commission did, however, invite any licensee who considered itself to be a small entity to provide addi-tional information by responding to four general questions on how the regulation could be modified to take into account th? differing needs of small entities.
l In keeping with its normal practice, the Commission mailed the proposed rule l
document to each of its more than 8,000 licensees.
Also the Commission held public meetings in three regions to discuss the proposed rule, i
The Commission received 28 comments on the proposed rule, representing less than one-half percent of all NRC licensees.
Of the 28 comments, none mentioned the i
17
Regulatory Flexibility issue directly although several commenters expressed con-cern over the substantial increases in the fees assessed for specific categories of licenses.
A total of seven comments are believed to have come from small entities based upon a review of information contained in their comments.
Two of these comments were from hospitals, one from an industrial radiographer, one from a well log-ger, one from an engineering consultant, and two from other small research and development and manufacturing licensees.
Although several of these commenters
_. expressed concern over the percentage rate of increase in the fees which would be assessed for certain categories of licenses, these commenters neither indi-cated that the increased fees would significantly affect their ability to do business nor provided the NRC with the information needed for NRC to make that j
determination.
The fees assessed by the NRC for each category of license are intended to reflect the level of effort required by the NRC to conduct the necessary licensing and inspection actions for that category.
To this extent, the NRC has attempted to " tier" the costs imposed on its licensees to the l
level of effort that is required for the NRC to ensure that licensed activi-ties are conducted in a manner that adequately protects public health and safety.
Based upon the number of comments received on the proposed rule, and fee FdoM attendees of the public meetings as well as an analysis of these comments, the Commission certifies that this ' rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The increase in the annual. cost imposed on most of these licensees is not significant in terms of their gross annual receipts.
There is no annual recordkeeping burden-imposed by the final rule.
IX.
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for it because these amendments do not require the modification of or addition to sys-tems, structures, components or design of a facility or the design approval or 18
4 manufacturing license for a facility or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 170 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source Material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under-the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 533, the NRC is proposing to adopt the follow-ing amendments to 10 CFR Part 170.
PART 170--FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER REGU SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED 1.
The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
2.
In S 170.3, remove the paragraph designations for the definitions, arrange the definitions in alphabetical order, and add definitions of " Indian organiza-tion" and " Indian tribe" to read as follows:
L S 170.3 Definitions.
- *aa=
" Indian organization" means any commercial group, association, partnership, or corporation wholly owned or controlled by an Indiaa tribe.
" Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized i
group or community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided
~
by the Secretary of the Interior because of their status as Indians, i
=aa
19 1
3.
In S 170.11, paragraph (a)(3) is removed and reserved; paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) are revised and paragraph (a)(11) is added to read-as follows:
6 170.11-Exemptions (a)* * *
(3)[ Reserved)
(4) A construction permit or license applied for by, or issued to, a non-profit educational institution for a production or utilization facility, other
~._ than a power reactor, or for the possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear. material.
This exemption does not apply to those
~
byproduct, source or special nuclear material licenses which authorize (i) human use; (ii) remunerated services to other persons;-(iii) distribution of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material or products containing by-product material, source material, or special nuclear material; and (iv) activi-ties performed under a Government agency contract.
(5) A construction permit, license, certificate of compliance, or other approval applied for by, or issued-to, a Government agency, except for a utili-zation facility designed to produce electrical or heat energy pursuant to Seca tion 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
(11) A -license for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material or other approval applied for by or issued to an Indian tribe or an Indian organization conducting licensed activities on tribal lands.
- 4. In S 170.12, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (h) are revised to read as follows:
S 170.12 Payment of fees.
20
(a) Application fees.
Each application for which a fee is prescribed shall be accompanied by a remittance in the full amount of the fee.- Applications for which no remittance is received will not be processed and may be returned'to the applicant.
All application fees will be charged irrespective of the Commission's disposition of the application or a withdrawal of the application.
(b) License fees. (1) Fees for applications for materials licenses not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.
(2) Fees for applications for permits and licenses that are subject to fees based on the full cost of the reviews are pavable upon notification by the Com-mission.
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumu' "ed costs for each appli-cation the applicant has on file for review by the C c /.ssion until the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.
(3) For early site reviews issued under 10 CFR Part 52, there is no appli-cation fee.
Fees for the review of an application for an early site permit are
~
deferred as follows:
The permit holder shall pay the applicable fees for the permit at the time an application for a construction permit or combined license referencing the early site permit is filed.
If, at the end of the initial period of the permit, no faci'lity application referencing the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit.
Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.
(c) Amendment fees and other required approvals. (1) Amendment fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.
(2) Fees for applications for license amendments, other required approvals and requests for dismantling, decommissioning and termination of licensed acti-vities that are subject to full cost recovery are payable upon notification by the Commission.
Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed, except for amendment and other approvals for early site permits which will be billed in a deferred manner consistent with that addressed in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.
-(d) Renewal fees (1) Renewal fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.
21
1.
(2) Fees for applications for renewals that are subject to the full cost of the review are payable upon notification by the Commission.
Except as noted in paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, each applicant will~ tie billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application that the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.
(3) Fees for review of an application for renewal of a standard design certification shall be deferred as follows:
The full cost of review for a renewed standard design certification must be paid by the applicant for renewal or other entity supplying the design to an applicant for a construction permit, combined license issued under Part 52, or operating license, as appropriate, in five (5) equal installments.
An installment is payable each of the first five times the renewed certification is referenced in an application for a con-struction permit, combined license, or operating license.
The applicant for renewal shall pay the installment, unless another entity is supplying the design to the _ applicant for the construction permit, combined license, or operating license, in which case the entity shall pay the installment.
If the design is
)
not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within ten years after the date of renewal of the certification, the applicant for renewal shall pay the costs for the review of the application for renewal, or remainder of those costs, at that time.
l (4) Fees for the review of an application for renewal-of an early site per-mit shall be deferred as follows:
The holder of the renewed permit shall' pay the applicable fees for the renewed permit at the time an application for a construction permit or combined license referencing the permit is filed.
If, at the end of the renewal period of the permit, no facility application refer-encing.the early site permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the permit.
l (e) Approval fees.
(1) Fees for applications for materials approvals that are not subject to full cost recovery must accompany the application when it is filed.
Fees for those applications subject to full cost reviews are payable upon notification by the Commission.
Each applicant will be billed at six month intervals until the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and the related costs.
l l
I l
22 L
(2)(i) There is no application fee for standardized design approvals or certifications issued under 10 CFR Part 52.
The full cost of review for a standardizeddesignapprovalorcertificationmustbepaidbytheholdero'f{
the design approval, the applicant for certification, or other entity supplying the design to an applicant for a construction permit, combined license issued under Part 52, or operatine, license, as appropriate, in five (5) equal install-l ments.
An installment is payable each of the first five times the approved /
certified design is referenced in an application for a construction permit, i
combined license issued under 10 CFR Part 52, or operating license, in the case
- 1. of a standard design certification, the applicant for certification shall pay the installment, unless another entity is supplying the design to the applicant i
for the construction permit, combined license, or operating license, in which case the other entity shall pay the installment.
(ii)(A) In the case of a design which has been approved but not certified and for which no application for certification is pending, if the design is 3
not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within five years af ter the i
date of the preliminary design approval (PDA) or the final design approval (FDA),
the applicant shall pay the costs, or remainder of those costs, at that time; (B) In the case of a design which has been approved and for which an appli-cation for certification is pending, no fees are due until after the certifica-
.j
-i tion is granted.
If the design is not referenced, or if all costs are not
{
recovered, within ten years af ter the date of certification, the applicant shall pay the costs, or remainder of those costs, at that time.
(C) In the case of a design for which a certification has been granted, if the design is not referenced, or if all costs are not recovered, within fifteen years after the date of the certification, the applicant shall pay the costs for i
the review of the application, or remainder of those costs, at that time.
(f) Special Project Fees.
Fees for applications for special projects such as topical reports are based on full cost of the reviews and are payable upon notification by the Commission.
Each applicant will be. billed at six-month intervals until the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.
23
]
(h) Method of payment.
Fee payments shall be made by check, draft, money order or electronic fund transfer made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Where specific payment instructions are provided on the bills ~to ap-plicants or licenses, payment should be made accordingly, e.g., bills of $5,000 or more will normally indicate payment by electronic fund transfer.
- 5. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:
S 170.20 Average cost per professional staf f-hour.
Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, part 55 requalification and replacement examinations and tests, other required approvals and inspections under SS 170.21 and 170.31 will be calculated based upon the full costs for the review using a professional staff rate per hour equivalent to the sum of the average cost to the agency for a professional staf f member, in-ciuding salary and benefits, administrative support ana travel.
The professional staf f rate for the' NRC for FY 1990 is $92 per hour. ' Subsequent changes to this rate will be published in the Federal Register prior to the fiscal year for which a new professional staf f-hour rate is ef fective.
- 6. In S 170.21, Category J. Special Projects and Footnote 2 to the schedule are revised to read as follows:
S 170.21 Schedule of fees for production and utilization facilities,. review of standard reference design approvals, special projects, and inspections.
.=***
J. Special projects Approvals:
l 1.
Topical reports.........................
550,000 2.
Amendments, revisions and supplements to topical reports............
550,000 l
3.
All other approvals, special projects and reports except those specified in 1 and 2 above...
Full Cost l
t 24
2 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff ting and appropriate contractual support services expended.
For those applications cur-rently on file and for which fees are determined based'on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the pro-fessional rates established for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989 rule revisions, as appropriate, For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached the applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred 1
after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant.
In addition, costs which exceed $50,000 for each
- w. n are o < wra e<. R*w topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to a topical report will not ^8*~ f % -
be billed to the applicant.
Fortopicalreports,andamendments, revisions,#7((*[
and supplements to topical reports, the amount shown is the maximum that may
- M, be assessed for each report or each amendment, revision and supplement.
Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings s m< o r u. January 30,' 1989, exc ao 3
will be assessed at the applicable rateSestablished by 6 170.20.
In no event A
will the total review costs be less than $150.
i 7.
Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:
S 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services including inspections.
Applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services and holders of materials licenses shall pay fees for the following categories of services.
This schedule includes fees for health and safety, and safeguards inspections, where applicable, i
1 25
SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES (See footnotes at end of table)
\\
Category of materials licenses and type of feesl 2
, Fee,3-e 1.
Special nuclear material:
A.
Licenses for possession and use of 200 grams 7.
or more of plutonium in unsealed form or 350 grams or more of contained U-235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more of U-233 in unsealed form.
This includes applications to terminate licenses as well as licenses authorizing possession only:
License, Renewal, Amendment...................
Full Cost Inspections:
Routine..................................
Full Cost Nonroutine...............................
Full Cost B.
Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI):
License, Renewal, Amendment..................
Full Cost l
Inspections:
Routine.................................
Full Cost Nonroutine...............................
Full Cost l
C.
Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x ray fluorescence analyzers:4 26
O
'n Application - New license.....................
i
$ 400 Renewal.......................................
$ 400 Amendment.....................................
$ 300 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 370 Nonroutine...............................
$1,100 D.
All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear
~
material in unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical quantity, as defined in S 150.11 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those for Category 1A:4 Application - New license.....................
$ 550 Renewal........................................
$ 550 Amendment.....................................
$ 180 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 550 Nontoutine...............................
$ 640 2.
Source material:
A.
Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, ore buying stations, ion exchange facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material 27
m s.
(tallings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode:
~
License, Renewal, Amendment...................
Full Cost inspections:
Routine..................................
Full Cost Nontoutine...............................
Full Cost B.
Licenses for possession and use of source material'for shielding, except as provided for in 6170.11(a)(8):
Application - New license 90 Renewal.......................................
90 Amendment.....................................
90 Inspections:
Routine....
$ 230 Nonroutine...............................
5 280 C.
All other source material licenses:
Application - New license.....................
$ 630 Renewal.......................................
$ 600 Amendment.....................................
$ 360 Inspections:
Routine.................................
$ 640 Nonroutine...............................
$1,200 3.
Byproduct material:
A.
Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing 1
28
i or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution.
Application - New license.....................
$1,800 Renewal.......................................
$1,100 Amendment.....................................
$ 180 Inspections:5 Routine..................................
$1,700 Nonroutine...............................
$1,700 B.
Other licenses for possession and use of
)
byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution.
Application - New license.....................
$1,000 Renewal.......................................
51,800 Amendment.....................................
$ 440 Inspections:5 Routine..................................
S 830 Nonroutine..............................
$1,600 C.
Licenses issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radio-pharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material:
Application - New license....................
$2,700 Renewal.....................................
51,100 Amendment
$ 370 29
'L Inspections:
Routine..................................
$1,100 Nonroutine...............................
$1,500 D.
Licenses and approvals issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources or devices not involving processing of byproduct material:
Application - New license.
$ 900 Renewal.....................................
$ 400 Amendment.......................
$ 250 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 640 Nonroutine...............................
120 E.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of
\\
materials in which the source is not removed from its-shield (self-shielded units):
- l Application - New license.....................
$ 400 Renewal.......................................
$ 380 Amendment.........................'............
$ 200 Inspections:
- i Routine..................................
$ 370 Nontoutine...............................
$ 550 l
30
F.
Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation
~
purposes:
Application - New license.....................
$ 920 Renewal.......................................
$ 320
~
Amendment.....................................
$ 280 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 460 Nonroutine...............................
$1,000 G.
Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources-for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes:
Application - New licease.....................
$3,700 Renewal.......................................
$1,500 Amendment.....................................
$ 370 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 830 Nonroutine...............................
$1,100 H.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of
-Part 32 of this chapter to distribute-items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt 31
from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:
Application - New license.....................
$1,700 Renewal......................................
$ 850 i
i Amendment.....................................
$ 200 l
Inspections:
i Routine..................................
$ 550 Nontoutine.................................
$ 550
.j I.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of l
Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items l
containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from j
the licensing requirements of Part 30 of I
this chapter, except for specific licenses i
t authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the l' censing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:
Application - New license.....................
$2,100 Renewal.......................................
$- 960 Amendment.....................................
$ 280 y
Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 370 Nontoutine...............................
$ 550 J.
_ licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require l
1 sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing l
32
redistribution of items that have been autho-rized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:
'. ~.
Application - New license.....................
$2,000 Renewal.......................................
$ 460 Amendment.....................................
$ 310 Inspections:
l Routine..................................
$ 550 Nonroutine...............................
$ 550 j
K.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities I
of byproduct material that do not require I
sealed source and/or-device review to persons l
generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific' licenses authorizing redistri-l, bution of items that have been authorized for distrib
.on to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:
Application - New license.....................
$1,500 Renewal.......................................
$ 750 Amendment....
$ 230 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 550 Nonroutine...............................
$ 550 L.
Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:
33
Application - New license.....................
$1,800-Renewal.......................................
$1,600 Amendment.....................................
$ 400 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 740 Nonroutine...............................
$ 920 M.
Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30
~
of this chapter for research and development
~
that do not authorize commercial distribution:
Application - New license.....................
5 900 Renewal.......................................
$ 900 Amendment.....................................
$ 500 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 640 Nontoutine...............................
$' 740 N.
Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except (1) licenses that authorize calibration and/or leak testing services only are subject to the fees specified in fee Category 3P.
and (2) licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee Categories 4A, 4B, and 4C:
Application - New license.....................
$1,100 Renewal.......................................
$ 640 Amendment.....................................
$ 320 Inspections:
l-Routine..................................
$ 550 l
Nonroutine.............................
$ 550 1
l 34
1 9
3 r
0.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations:
Application - New license.....................
$2,400 Renewal.......................................
$1,400 Amendment.....................................
$ 390 Inspections:5 Routine...................................
$ 920
~
Nonroutine...............................
52,000 P.
-All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4A through 90:
Application - New license.....................
$ 400 Renewal.......................................
$ 400 Amendment.....................................
$ 300 Inspections:
Routine.................................
$ 920 Nonroutine...............................
$ 920 4.
Waste disposal and processing:
A.
Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of commercial disposal by land burial by the licensee; or' licenses authorizing contingency storage of low level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for treatment or disposal by incineration, packaging of residues resulting from incineration and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material:
35
7-.
license, renewal, amendment...................-
Full Cost Inspections:
Routine..................................
Ful1~ Cost],_
Nontoutine...............................
Full Cost B.
Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or l
1 special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the i
~
material.
The licensee will dispose of the i
material by transfer to another person authorized 1
to. receive or dispose of the material:
Application - New license.....................
52,200 1
Renewal.......................................
$1,500 1
Amendment.....................................
$ 160 i
Inspections:
Routine..................................
$1,700 Nontoutine...............................
$1,300 a
C.
Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other i
i persons.
The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material:
Application - New license.....................
$1,500 Renewal.......................................
$ 740 Amendment...-..................................
$ 180 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$1,300 Nonroutine...............................
$1,700 1
36
)
5.
Well. logging:
A.
Licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct
~'
material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies:
Application - New license.....................
$2,700 Renewal.......................................
$1,600 Amendment.....................................
$ 430 l-Inspections:
Routine..................................
5 640 Nontoutine...............................
$ 640 B.
. Licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies:
License, renewal, amendment...................
Full Cost Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ 550 Nontoutine...............................
$ 830 6.
Nuclear laundries:
A.
Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material:
Application - New license.....................
$1,100 Renewal.......................................
$1,100 Amendment....................................
$ 280-Inspections:
Routine................................
$ 920 Nontoutine.............................
$1,500 l
37
t 7.-.
Human use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materiali f
A.
Licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, and
[
70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear i
material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New license.....................
$2,700 Renewal.......................................
$ 630 Amendment.....................................
$ 340 Inspections:
Routine.................................
$ 920 Nonroutine...............................
$1,500 B.
Licenses of broad scope issued to medical i
institutions or two or more physicians pursuant to Parts 30, 33, 35, 40 and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in saaled sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New license.....................
$1,800 Renewal.......................................
$1,600 Amendment....................................
$ 290
~ Inspections:
Routine..................................
$1,300 Nonroutine...............................
$1,400 l
7 C.
Other licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear 38 1'
1a 4
material, except licensrs for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New license.....................
$ 570 Renewal.......................................
$ 830 Amendment....................................
$ 340 Inspections:
Routine.................................
$ 830 I.-
Nontoutine...............................
$1,200 8.
Civil defense:
A.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct 1
material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities:
Application - New license.....................
$ 460 Renewal.......................................
$ 320 Amendment.....................................
$ 250 Inspections:
Routine
$ 550 Nontoutine...............................
$ 550 9.
Device, product or sealed source safety evaluation:
A.
Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution:
Application each device.....................
$2,600 Amendment - each device.......................
$ 920 Inspections...................................
None
~
I 39 J
x o
I' B.
Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, 1
or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of,
-and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices:
I Application each device.....................
$1,300 Amendment each device.......................
$ 460 Inspections...................................
None C.
Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution.
Application - each source.....................
$ 550 Amendment each source......................
$ 180 Inspections...................................
None D.
Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel:
Application each source.....................
$ 280 Amendment each source..............
90 Inspections...................
r 1
10.
Transportation of radioactive material:
1 i
A.
Evaluation-of casks, packages, and shipping containers:
40
l Approval, Renewal, Amendment..................
Full Cost Inspections...................................
None-j B.
Evaluation of Part 71 quality assurance programs:
~
Application - Approval........................
$ 180 Renewal.......................................
180 Amendment.....................................
180 Inspections...................................
None
~.
\\
11.
Review of standardized spent fuel facilities:
Approval, Renewal, Amendment..................
Full Cost Inspections...................................
None 4
12.'
Special projects:
Approval:
1.
Topical reports 6 t
$50,000 2.
Amendments, revisions and supplements
{
to topical reports 8
$50,000 3.
All other approvals, special reports and reports except those specified in 1 and 2 above..................................
Full Cost Inspections...................................
None 13.
A.
Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:
1 Approvals.....................................
Full Cost Amendments, revisions and supplements.........
Full Cost Reapproval....................................
Full Cost B.
Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:
41
-4
[
l y
Routine.......................................
Full Cost Nontoutine....................................
Full Cost i
C.
Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under S 72.210 of Part 72 of this chapter:
j Routine.......................................
Full Cost
{
Nontoutine....................................
Full Cost i
14.
Byproduct, source or special nuclear material 1
licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation or site restoration activities pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70 and 72:
F Approval, Renewal, Amendment......
Full Cust Inspection:
Routine..................................
Full Cost Nontoutine...............................
Full Cost 1 Types of fees - Separate charges as shown in the schedule will be assessed for' applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new licenses and approvals, amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals, safety evaluations of sealed sources and devices and inspec-tions.
The following guidelines apply to these charges:
(a) Application fees - Applications for new materials licenses and
. approvals or applications to reinstate expired licenses and approvals not subject to fees assessed at full cost must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category, except that applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source material must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category.
42
e (b)
License / approval fees - Fees for applications for new licenses and approvals subject to full cost fees (fee Categories 1A, 18, 2A, 4A, SB, 10A, 11, 12, 13A and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with 6 170.12(b), (e), and (f).
(c) Renewal /reapproval fees - Applications for renewal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except that fees for applications for renewal of licenses and approvals subject to full cost fees (fee Categories 1A, 1B, 7 2A, 4A, SB, 10A, 11, 12, 13A and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with 5 170.12(d).
(d) Amendment fees - Applications for amendments to licenses and approvals, except those subject to fees assessed at full costs, must be accompanied by the prescribed amenoment fee for each license affected.
An application for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more than one fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category af fected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply.
Ivr those licenses and approvals subject to full costs, (fee Categories 1A, 1B, 2A, 4A, SB, 10A,11,12,13Aand14)ffe'esaIdueuponnotificationbytheCommis-
~
sion in accordance with 6 170.12(c).
An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that I
would place the license or approval in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new category.
An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a lkensee's program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.
Applications to terminate licenses authorizing small materials pro-grams, when no dismantling or decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fee.
43
(e) Inspection fees Separate charges will-be assessed for each routine and nonroutine inspection performed, except that inspections resulting frnm investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and nonroutin. inspections that tesult from third party allegations will notbesubjecttofees.
If a licensee holds more than one materials license at a single location, a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the licenses will be assessed if the inspections are conducted at the same time, except in cases when the inspection fees are based on the full cost to conduct the inspection.
The fees assessed at full cost i will be determined based on the professional staff time required to con-duct the inspection multiplied by the rate established under 5 170.20 of this part, to which any applicable contractual support service costs incurred will be added.
Licenses covering more than one category will be charged a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the license.
inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with S 170.12(g).
See Footnote 5 for other inspection notes.
2 Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission pur-suant to S 2.204 of Part 2 nor for amendments resulting specifically from such Commission orders.
However, fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g,,
SS 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other such sections now or hereafter in effect) regardless of whether the approval is in the form V a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form.
In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in Categories 9A through 90.
3 Fu'il cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.
For those applica\\ ions currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of 44
4 this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 and January 30, 1989 rules, as appropriate.
For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after the ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989 will not be billed to the ewon e rse ao applicant.
Any professional staff-hours expended s4ase Janua.ry M, 1989 e
3 and/or on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the applicable rategestablished by S 170.20 of this part.
In no event will the total review costs be less than $150.
4 Licensees paying fees under Categories 1A and IB are not subject to fees under Categories 1C and 10 for sealed sources authorized in the same license except in these instances in which an application deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license.
Applicants for new licenses or renewal of existing licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed sources for use in gaug-ing devices will pay the appropriate application or renewal fee for fee Category IC only.
5 for a license authorizing shielded radiographic installations or manufacturing installations at more than one address, a separate fee will be assessed for inspection of each location, except that if the multiple installations are inspected during a single visit, a single inspection fee will be assessed.
6 The amount shown represents the maximum amount that may be assessed for each report or each amendment, revision and supplement to a report.
Costs which exceed $50,000 for each topical report, amend-ment, revision or supplement to a report will not be billed to the applicant, k e.
aereo e4 auos< emse Ren 'hs/rp ro rue arecras.
Q&ry a n irtts 4 nf I
45 i
I
7,
\\
4 j
.o;.
i
. pg Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4
th day of _
1990.
'i
'3 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.~-
I i
\\
I Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
a I
i
~l 5
4 I
I l
-4 h
I I
l 1
N i
n t
4 e
5 i
46 i
(
...,,. ~ _ -..... - -. - - -,. _,..,. ~. _., _.....,.. _...., _... _..
,.5
. r.
^'),..
t ! n "O-l-
i i
List and Summary of Connents i
Broken Down By The Following Categories 1
Group 1 Materials Licensees Group 2 State Agencies Group 3 Reactor Facilities r
t l
i
+
b
)
h
.i
?
r h
,. _ _... _.. _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ~.. _ -. _. -.. - - - - _. _., _ _. _ - _. _. - _,..
GROUP _1 List of Materials License s.Commenters and Summary of the Comments Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation Allentown Hospital American Airlines Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc Collette, Bradley Computalog Wireline Services, Inc.
l Derse & Schroeder Associates Ltd.
General Electric Nuclear Fuels Kirk, William Sam-son Inspection & Technical Services, Inc.
Seiler Instrument & Manufacturing Co., Inc.
South Jersey Hospital System Transnuclear, Inc.
l
i 6
MATERIAL COMMENTS 1.
C. W. Malody, Manager, Regulatory Compliance Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation Strongly supports the reimposition of a fee ceiling of $50,000 for topical report reviews.
Believes an open-ended fee discourages submittal of topical reports and thereby inhibits the development of U.S. fuel and reacter technology.
The development of better technology provides increased understanding of fuel and reactor design and performance.
This enables the industry and the NRC to better identify and focus resources on the issues that are potential safety concerns.
The reimposition of the ceiling should encourage more generic reviews of topi-cal items by the NRC which will allow a more efficient use of NRC resources.
The proposed ceiling of $50,000 for topical reports is appropriate.
Endorses the use of electronic fund transfers for payment of fees in excess of
$5,000.
2.
Kenneth M. Baab. Vice President Allentown Hospital - Lehigh Valley Hospital Center Objects to some of the fee changes particularly the licensing fees for tele-therapy where the renewal fee has increased from $350 to $630 and the amendment fee has more than doubled from $120 to $340.
Also questions the large differ-ential between routine inspections ($920) and non-routine inspections ($1,500) for teletherapy licenses, ith respect to other categories authorizing human use of byproduct material ategory 70), questions why the renewal fee ($830) is higher than the initial ap cation ($570) for a new license and why the non-routine inspection fee is so high at $1,200 compared to the routine inspection fee of $830.
1 Strongly recommends reconsideration of the high fees, particularly for non profit j
licensees who provide services for the good of the public.
3.
A. A. Hale, Vice President, Engineering American Airlines Maintenance & Engineering Center Some reasonable limits must be established to prevent excessive inspections in
_ the area of radiography.
Under the current regulations, a licensee can be
~
charged for any number of routine inspections in a given year.
The previous regulations allowed only one routine inspection of radiography operations per year.
American Airlines received two routine inspections during 1989--one in February and a second in August.
At the first inspection, two inspectors from Region IV spent approximately one hour on the premises for which American Air-lines was billed $530.
Feels it is unacceptable to be charged an inspection fee anytime an inspector chooses to visit the facility.
Some restraints must be established.
4.
Michael T. Ryan, Executive Director, Regulatory Affairs Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
It would be prudent for the Commission to eliminate review fees for waste form topical reports thereby encouraging their submittal.
This would permit the Commission to gain the collective base of information and experience about waste processing programs from waste processing vendors and service companies.
Agrees that a cost ceiling for topical report reviews is necessary if the Commission continues to assess topical report fees and continues the waste form process.
However, $50,000 per topical report is too much and certainly
$50,000 for amendments, revisions and supplements is exorbitant.
The previous ceiling of $20,000 snould be reestablished with Commission wide requirements on what is acceptable as one topical report.
The footnotes in 10 CFR 170.21 should be changed to state that review fees will be determined based on the 2
)
fee schedule at the time the topical report is submitted.
In this way, Chem Nuclear would not be financially burdened because of long review times and schedules, NRC staf' eferences for topical report scope and subdivision or changing requirement > during the review process.
~
Another area of concern is the review fees for cask topical reports.
- Again, review fees should be capped at $20,000 per topical report and the fees deter-mined based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the application is filed.
5.
Bradley Collette RTNM As a citizen of the U.S. with Indian heritage, does not support the proposed exemption in 170.11(a)(11) that Indian tribes and Indian organizations be exempt from payment of fees.
Concerned that such an exemption will shift a greater cost burden on those inetitutions/ organizations that are not exempt.
If ser-vices are being providad by the NRC to any organization, then fees should be asseraco to that organization for reimbursement of those services.
6.
Jeff D. Meekins, Safety Manager Computaloo Wireline Services, Inc.
The proposed license and inspection fee increases should be dropped concerning the well logging industry.
The current license and inspection fees are adequate.
The proposed fee increases place a hardship on smaller wireline service companies and cannot be passed on to the customer which is the oilfield service industry, a competitive bid market.
Fee increases by NRC will likely trigger fee increases by the Agreement States.
Public meetings held by the NRC to discuss fees should be announced at least 30 days in advance and notice should be sent specifically to the Radiation Safety Of ficer of each company.
l l
3
i i
Enclosure a i
7.
Richard Lechnir, Radiation Protection Officer i
Derse & Schroeder Associates, Ltd.
)
e,-
The proposedifnendment fee increase of 333% for Category 3M (Research and Development) seems quite high.
To charge $520 to simply add or subtract the j
name of a supervisory person to a license appears to be exorbitant.
]
8.
T. Preston Winslow, Manager, Licensing & Nuclear Materials Management General Electric Nuclear Fuels and Components Manufacturing Requests that applications fees in the less than $500 range be eliminated.
Specifically, the $150 application fee which is required to be filed for those cases based on full cost does not appear to serve any useful purpose and adds an unnecessary administrative cost for initiatir 3, processing and tracking to both the NRC and the licensee.
Licensees are required to pay invoices within a specified time frame with specifically stated penalties for those who do not comply.
Suggests the word " contained" be deleted in Category 1A,10 CFR 170.31 because it is confusing to state that uranium 235 is " contained" in an
" unsealed form."
9.
William F. Kirk, Engineering Consultant It is ludicrous to require bill payment in excess of $5,000 by wire transfer when NRC cannot promptly bill for the required fees.
For many companies, wire transfer is not the practice and requires special actions and expenditure of personnel hours, licensees should be able to bill the NRC for this special service, should it be requested.
The professional staff yearly salary is excessive particularly when it is based on only 1744 hours0.0202 days <br />0.484 hours <br />0.00288 weeks <br />6.63592e-4 months <br /> from 2080 available.
4
10.
S. H. Hopkins, Corporate Radiatior. Safety Officer 1
Sam-son Inspection & Technical Services, Inc.
Requests that the proposed revisions be rescinded because the proposed increases are unfair to small business entities since in private industry it is impossible to escalate prices for goods and/or services on a percentage basis as intended in the proposed rate changes.
The increases far surpass any indices, Federal, local or otherwise that we are aware of.
11.
Andrew G. Leahy, Radiation Safety Officer Seiler Instrument & Manufacturing Co.
Inc.
The amount of the proposed increases particularly Category 38 (Manufacturing) is alarming.
The proposed increases would drastically affect our bids since we are a small business concern mainly involved with competitive bidding of fixed price contracts with the Department of Defense.
If the increases become effective, the competitiveness of individual bids would be adversely affected and our competitive pricing to the Department of Defense would have to be adjusted to absorb the increased cost.
Questions why an application for renewal for category 3B would cost $800 more than a new license application.
12.
Thomas J. Lonergan, Executive Vice President South Jersey Hospital System The proposed increases for small radioisotope programs for human use of byproduct material are excessive and unjustified.
The proposed renewal and amendment fees for Category 7C (Doctors / Hospitals) appear excessive compared to staff effort likely to be required in the review of most license reneral and amendment applica-tions.
Have difficulty comprehending that 46% more effort is needed to review a license renewal application than for a new license application.
Would seem more reasonable for a license renewal fee to be less than or comparable to the 5
i new application fee.
In view of the limited budgets at most medical institutions, concerned that the proposed 192% increase in license amendment fees may discour-age licensees from making program changes to improve safety.
Commission should reconsider the unreasonably high fee structure it proposes to implement.
13.
Bill R. Teer, Senior Vice President Transnuclear, Inc.
Supports completely the re-establishment of a fee ceiling for the review of topical reports.
ToassureequityforallorganizationsgicQveorwillbe submitting topical reports, proposes that the new $50,000 be made retroactive e
to January 30, 1989, the date that ceilings were removed.
This would be fair to those who submitted topical reports prior to that date with the expectations that they would know the exact cost of the NRC review, but were then required to pay full costs, l
6
I GROUP 2 State Agencies Coments Alabama - Department of Public Health Arkansas - Department o' Public Health Illinois - Department et Nuclear Safety Iowa - Bureau of Radiological Health Kansas - Department of Health and Environment
i 4
State Agency Comments
~-
1.
Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Division of Radiation Control State of Alabama-Department of Public Health Suggests that the Commission amend its regulations to recover the cost of in-specting general licensees.
Points out that amending regulations would not g
require that general licensees be inspected but as problems arise such as that with static eliminators, both the NRC and the Agreement States could recover part of its costs for inspecting these licensees.
Suggests the time available for reciprncity (180 days) be reduced.
This would place the licensees in the NRC jurisdiction in a more competitive economic posi-tion with Agreement State licensees.
At the present time, an Agreement State licensee who may not be paying a fee for his license can operate six months in competition with the NRC licensee who has to pay both a license and inspection fee.
2.
Greta J. Dicus, Director, Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Department of Health t
Supports the proposed revision since it appears to strengthen the fee schedule for a large number of licensees and for the categories of licensees regulated by the Agreement States.
All users of radioactive materials should share the costs of ensuring that these materials are used correctly and that the public health and safety and the environment are protected.
Exemptions to fees are necessary and those suggested in the proposed rule appear i
to be appropriate.
Cautions that any proposed exemption continue to be carefully 7
considered.
Concurs that the exemption proposed in 170.11(a)(4) be limited to non profit educational institutions.
3.
Terry R. Lash, Director, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety State of Illinois Encourages and supports the NRC's proposal to increase the revenues collected from its licensees that use radioactive materials.
Proposal is long overdue.
However, proposed fees do not go far enough because the new structure does not appear to recover 45% of the NRC's costs as required by law.
Believes that NRC should adopt a fee structure and propose regular increases that will assure full cost recovery within a few years.
d NRC proposed fee might result in about a 64% increase in revenues based on the increase in professional hourly charges from $58 to $95.
Assuming the proposed rule becomes effective in 1990, the 64% increase is an annual average increase of 6.4% (FY1981-1990) barely keeping pace with inflation.
Such an increase will result in recovery of only about 30% of costs for those materials licenses that are similar to those regulated by Illinois.
This is still well below the 45%
recovery rate specified by Congress.
Quh t Af 4 Section VI of proposed notice states that, proposed rule will not have a signifi-3 cant economic impact on state and local governments.
Submits that the proposed rule does have a significant impact on Illinois.
NRC's current policies and procedures for establishing license fees set undesirable precedents.
The fail-ute to recover even the Congressionally mandated amount on an equitable basis makes it more difficult for states like Illinois to attempt to recover larger portions of its costs from licensees.
To the extent that NRC shifts its fees to reactor licensees, Illinois citizens bear a disproportionate share of these costs because of the relatively large number of reactor licenses in the state.
Have commented previously that the NRC proposals do not conform to the provisions of COBRA in that charges are to be " reasonably related to the regulatory services provided by the Commission and shall fairly reflect the cost to the Commission 8
)
i of providing such services." Illinois does not believe the proposed rule meets that test.
j l
NRC's general statement of policy published on June 4, 1987, establishes a criterion for funding of Agreement Statement Programs.
It states in part that
" Principal operating funds should be from sources which provide continuity and reliability, i.e. general tax, license fees, etc." A sound license fee system is important in meeting that criterion and actions by the NRC which impede this objective are undesirable.
Urges Commission to reconsider its proposed rule with the aim of substantially increasing the materials license fees in order to obtain the Congressionally mandated 45% of costs in the short ters and then revising them annually until full cost recovery is achieved within a few years.
4.
Bruce W. Hokel, Supervisor, Radioactive Materials Program Donald A. Flater, Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health State of Iowa Commission should strongly consider eliminating the fee exemption policy so that all possessors of radioactive material are treated equally.
Those licensees currently fee exempt such as governmental entities should not be treated any different from a private facility regarding assessment of fees.
Have determined that 25 percent of potential fees is lost due to exemption policy.
L The routine inspection fee (5950) for perteble gauges is too high.
Even the current fee of $530 is high.
These inspections take no more than one hour to perform and for a small operator this is totally unreasonable.
The NRC should consider establishing a separate fee category for portable gauges and lower the fee to $200.
Another license category that may deserve this consideration is gas chromatographs since the inspection time is also very short in comparison to other types of licenses.
9 1
i
5.
Gerald W. Allen, Public Health Physicist State of Kansas Agrees that the proposed fees will not likely have a direct impact on the Kansas program since their fee system is based on a different calculation method.
Points out that by assessing fees for decommissioning activities involving radio-active material (proposed Category 14) on a full cost basis, it is difficult to compare the NRC fee with that assessed by Kansas or other states.
NRC should indicate what items of cost are used to determine the full cost fee.
10
GROUP,3 List of Reactor Facility Licenses and Licensee Representatives and Summary of Coments BWR Owners Group Combustion Engineering Combustion Engineering Owners Group Duke Power Company Gulf States Utilities Company Northeast Utilities Nuclear Management and Resources Council Omaha Public Power District Philadelphia Electric Company University of Wisconsin J
l l
Reactor Facilities 1.
Stephen D. Floyd, Chairman BWR Owners' Group Endorses the proposed change establishing a ceiling of $50,000 for topical report reviews.
Establishing a ceiling on the cost of the NRC review will encourage the owners group to continue initiating activities with plant specific benefits.
The proposed ceiling places a reasonable limit on the cost of review-ing these activities and knowing the cost in advance enables the owners group to more effectively plan allocation of its resources.
2.
A. E. Scherer, & r,or Nuclear Licensing Combustion Engineer bo Company Favors the proposed ceiling for topical report review fees and recommends its adoption.
Continues to believe that there is benefit to the public and the NRC in avoiding unnecessary repetitive, plant-specific reviews whenever possible.
Notes that to be consistent with Part 52 footnote 4 to Part 170.21 needs revi-sion to indicate a deferral period of 15 years for a certified design.
3.
Edward C. Sterling, Chairman f
Combustion Engineerino Owners Group Strongly favors the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 170, especially reestablishing a ceiling for topical report reviews and agrees that this action will encourage the submittal of topical reports.
Has long believed that the NRC and the public benefit when NRC reviews generic reports.
Points out that since early 1989, the absence of a review fee ceiling has hampered the submittal of topical reports.
Based on pending requests for exemption to various topical report fees, owners 11
~
L o
group believes that the proposed revisions to Part 170 should include provisions to retroactively apply the review fee ceiling to the beginning of 1989.
4.
Hal B. Tucker
~
Duke Power Company i
Feels that the Commission should not limit the means of payment to electronic funds transfer only.
At times, electronic funds tranfer is not available or desired to be used.
5.
J. E. Booker, Manager, River Bend Nuclear Group Gulf States Utilities Company Concurs with the proposed rule with the exception of the amendment requesting that bills in excess of $5,000 be paid by electronic fund transfer.
Feels that electronic transfers are not justified for sums less than $100,000.
The rule should be revised to specify payment by electronic fund transfer for bills in excess of 100,000, b
6.
E. J. Mroczka, Senior Vice President Northeast Utilities On behalf of Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company agrees that proposed fee ceiling on topical reports establishes an equitable balance between the need to encourage submittal of reports and the need to assess fees for reviewing them.
The efficiency associated with topical reports for both the industry and the NRC is appropriately reflected in the establishment of the ceiling.
Notes that most direct impact of proposed rule on Part 50 licensees would be the increase in cost per NRC professional staff hour from $86 to $95.
- However, because NRC will recover 45 percent of its budget through Part 170 and Part 171 fees regardless of the specific hourly rate assigned, this increase should not 12
significantly affect the Part 50 licensees' total fee obligation.
In fact, to the extent the proposed revision will increase the fee responsibility of materials licensees under Part 170, licensees under Part 50 should notice a slight downward adjustment with respect to their Part 171 fee obligation.
Connecticut Yankee and Northeast Nuclear routinely utilize the electronic fund transfer payment method and endorse this aspect of the proposed revision.
7.
Joe F. Colvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Nuclear Management and Resources Council Fully supports the NRC's proposed revisions.
Believes that the public interest and the interests of the NRC and the industry, are better served by encouraging the submittal of topical reports.
The NRC's proposal to reimpose a fee ceiling for review of topical reports removes the uncertainty and potentially unlimited cost associated with the review of these reports.
The action should achieve the goal of encouraging the submittal of future topical reports.
Also supports the adoption of the method that the NRC intends to use to calcu-late the cost per professional staff hour.
However, the FY 1990 rate of $95 is 10.5 percent higher than the rate for FY 89 of $86.
Since this increase is twice the rate of inflation, the Commission should reconsider this increase and provide the basis for the change.
Suggests publication of the annual revisions to this rate, if any, prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
This will enable i
licensees to use the rate information to budget for licensing support and other regulatory activities involving NRC staff time.
Requests that 170.12, 2(ii)(c) be amended to correct the inconsistency that exists with 10 CFR 52.55 which provides a 15 year validity of design certifications, 13
8.
K. J. Morris, Division Manager, Nuclear Operations i
j Omaha Public Power District Each invoice in excess of $5,000 that is to be paid by electronic fund transfer should be accompanied by specific payment instructions.
This will allow for the proper disbursement of OPPD's license fees and assure that OPPO will be in compliance with the code.
, _ 9.
G. A. Hunger, Jr., Director, Licensing Section Philadelphia Electric Company Agrees with the proposed revisions, endorses the NRC's efforts and supports promulgation of a final rule.
Fully supports the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) positions and comments regarding the proposed rule.
10.
R. J. Cashwell, Reactor Director University of Wisconsin The proposed wording of the rule in 170.11(a)(4) is difficult to comprehend.
Part III of the Section-by-Section Analysis contains much clearer wording.
A possible interpretation of the proposed change is that sponsored research at a university research reactor would result in a loss of exemption from licensing fees.
Further, it also appears possible to interpret that any radiation treat-ment fees at a research reactor would result in loss of exemption.
14
/)D 2 5
- 2-.
4 h5EUSEu nua1.i I70
- Zf (59F2 497M)
~
M
/
- a. E ortlandGenerad ElechicW
' 'uYbc" P
4 Davd W. Cockfield Vice Presdent. Nuclear 110 FEB 20 PC15 Ql*Ci P tlCRtTARY 1
U February 16Y ENhjkkiW3CI Trojan Nuclear Plant j
Docket 50-344 License NPF-1
)
l Secretary of the Comission Attn Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington DC 20555
Dear Sir:
h et of Proposed Rule for Fees (54 FR 49763)
On December 1,1989, the Comission published for coment (54 FR 49763) its proposed mie [ Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 170 (10 CFR 170)) on various revisions to the fee schedule.
Portland General Electric Company (PCR) has reviewed the proposed mie and suggests that the impact on licensees of removal of the exemption in 10 CFR 170.11(a)(3) regarding fees for byproduct, source, or specisi nuclear meterial be clarified.
Because it was not clear in the Federal Register what impact removal of this exemption would have, PCE contacted the NRC Deputy Controller's Office (the listed point of contact in the proposed rule).
It was determined that the exemption removal did not affect PCE's current operating license for the Trojan Nuclear plant, which grants us pemission to receive, possess, and use source, byproduct, or special nuclear material nor would it require any new fee payments by PCE.
Sincerely, et Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. David Stewart-Smith i
State of Oregon Q,y4hg $
Department of Energy l
Mr. R. C. Barr j
NRC Resident Inspector Trojr.n Nuclear Plant f
'21 S W Sa: mon $Peet 4: nano C egon 97204
--