ML20046C400

Responds to D Nickles 930617 Constituent Ltr from Kb Braboy, of Davis Co,Expressing Concern Re NRC Fee Structure for FY93

ML20046C400
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/08/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Nickles D SENATE
References
FRN-58FR21116, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9308100266
Download: ML20046C400 (5)

Text

o g *," "%

UNITED STATES p&j (ik jtj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

gi g

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Nv j July 8, 1993 The Honorable Don Nickles United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-3602

Dear Senator Nickles:

I am responding to your referral of June 17, 1993, transmitting correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Keith B. Braboy, of the Davis Company of Seminole, Oklahoma. Mr. Davis' letter concerns NRC's proposed fee structure for FY 1993.

As you are aware, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (0 BRA-90) requires that the Commission recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Department of Energy (DOE) administered Nuclear Waste Fund, for Fiscal Years 1991 through 1995 by assessing license and annual fees.

The Commission was required to collect approximately $445 million for FY 1991; approximately $493 million for FY 1992; and approximately $519 million for FY 1993. These budgeted amounts, which were appropriated, represent those resources necessary for NRC to perform its safety mission.

To recover the budget, the NRC assesses licensing and inspection fees under 10 CFR Part 170 and annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171.

Fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 170 include license application fees, license amendment fees, license renewal fees, and inspection fees. Annual fees are to recover NRC's generic and other costs that are not recovered as identifiable services to specific licensees and applicants under 10 CFR Part 170. The annual fees allocate the generic costs that are attributable to a given class of licensee to that class. On April 23, 1993, the NRC published for comment a proposed rule that establish s both types of fees for FY 1993.

The proposed regulations continue previous provisions that reduce the impact of fees on small entities.

For licensees with gross receipts between $250,000 and $3,500,000, a maximum annual fee of $1,800 has been established. A lower-tier small entity fee of $400 has been established for small businesses and non-profit organizations with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 and for small governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 20,000.

For example, under the proposed rule the annual fee for a well logger licensee with gross income between $250,000 and $3,500,000 would be reduced by $9,420 (from $11,220 to $1,800), and the annual fee for a well logger licensee with gross income less than $250,000 would be reduced by $10,820 (from $11,220 to

$400). The Commission recognizes that this process does not eliminate all economic impacts, but strikes a balance between the requirements of the Public Law to collect 100 percent of the budget by recovering costs and the Regulatory Flexibility Act to consider the impact on small entities.

The proposed FY 1993 10 CFR Part 170 fees for specific services to I

identifiable applicants and licensees are higher than last year's fees.

The i

increases for FY 1993 result primarily from the requirement of the Chief i

hh 9308100266 930708 "h

[

u e11,s w

t The Honorable Don Nickles Financial Officers Act to conduct a biennial review of fees and other charges to ensure that the fees and charges reflect the cost of the services.

The NRC biennial review indicated that the NRC needed to modify the average number of j

hours on which the current -licensing and inspection flat fees are based in order to recover the cost of providing the licensing and inspection services.

To determine the licensing and inspection flat fees for materials licensees and applicants, the NRC used historical data to determine the average number of p:vfessional hours required to perform a licensing action or inspection for i

each license category. These revised average hours were multiplied by the i

proposed professional hourly rate for FY 1993.

The relatively large increases are necessary to update the average number of professional hours used in previous fee schedules.

During the past years, the NRC's inspection program has changed significantly.

In some program areas, for example, NRC management guidance has emphasized that inspections be more thorough and in-depth so as to improve health and safety. A small entity reduction has not been provided for those fees for services since the licensees already receive size reductions each year for annual fees as discussed in the previous paragraph.

The Commission published a Federal Register Notice on April 19, 1993, that solicits public comment on changes to NRC's fee policy and associated leaislation.

This action responds to Section 2903(c) of the Energy Policy Act i

of 1992, which requires the NRC to review its policy for assessment of annual charges under Section 6101(c) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, solicit public comment on the need for changes to such policy, and recommend to the Congress such changes in existing law as the NRC finds are needed to prevent the placement of an unfair burden on certain NRC licensees.

In addition to publication in the Federal Register, the Notice was sent to all licensees. The comment period expires on July 19, 1993.

Licensees and interested parties are encouraged to submit comments in accordance with the Notice.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely, W(

x

,es M. T lor xecutive Director for Operations I

l

DON NICKLES comims-

-/

OKLAMOMA APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET ENERGY AND NATURAL 11nitcd $tates $cnatt WASHlNGTON, DC 20S10-3602 June 17,1993 Respectfully referred to Nuclear Reculatory Commission for such consideration as the communication herewith subniitted may warrant, and for a report thereon,in duolicate to accompany return of enclosure.

By direction of DON NICKLES U.S. Senator Please reply to Lee Morris of my staff.

1820 LtBERTY TOWER 3310 M:D CONTINENT TOWER FEDERAL BUILDING, ROOM 115 1916 LAKE ROAD 100 N. BROADWAY 409 SOUTH BOSTON STH & E AVENUE PONCA CITY. OK 74604 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 TULSA,OK 74103-4007 LAWTON. OK 73501 (405)767 1270

]

(405)231-4941 (918)581-7651 (405)367-9878

r O 4053823094 DAVIS COMPANY OP1743 13:30

-P01 j.

s, hb M

2 0. 3ne>@d J& 6MMwo7MIR9 0dS)JM 0!z9 1

FACSDulE TRAEESSION nranne DATE /Nr,/Z/97{,,,

TDfE:

FAI f:2E-ZW.docf VAI TDs 5?rD U )1lf W h b l /Ls

@HPANT ll k }exePa Pason suomc n1: /dc A /.

I M // e _.

oram nmmcx_tA/ /).b _dLI L (%

V OIMONis:

- -..... ~..

~

= - _......

ITUTAL ND{BER OF PAGES (Including tMs sheet)

n you avn nor mre m Comer man or ruas, mmer m mm seeme IT TELEPHONE NWGER (405) 382-0479.

E - + ; *. -

4053823094 05-17-93 02:30PM.P001 #49

4 e 4653823094 DAVIS COMPANY 05/17/93 13:30 P02 7-GUtkD' h'S & W J2t G. Le me Amm4(M oma?M63'

. $x)stes-oq9 May 17, 1993 Honorable Don Nickles United States Senate Washington, D.C.

I RE: Assistance to prevent NRC fee increases.

Dear Senator Nickles;

'Ihe following letter has been cent to Mr. Selin at the NRC office. The fee increases that the NRC is proposing, most definitely, vill be catastrophic to independant well loggers.

Ve vould appreciate your involvement and consnents to Mr. Selin; on our behalf. All concents must be received by May 24, 1993.

Ve appreciate the governments afforts to become self-sufficient, but, it cannot be done by imposing outrageous fees on a few folks who are trying to make an honest living.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance I am Sincerely yours E ith B. Brabch Office and Cred'

.anager i

i l

i i

F -

• 3 *;

4053e23094 os-t?-93 cc:2aru eco: e4e

i ty 4053823094 DAVIS COMPANY 05/17/93 13:31 P03

-/

j g,

2 0 (Aw A296' Jonaw.fe. tWJomaMN??_.....

1

, ggg.opy liay 17, 1993 ATTN: Ivan Selin, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 RE: Comments on proposed revisions to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.

Dear MR. Selin; In 1990 the Omnibus Budget Act was brought to life. Since that time it has been a thorn in every Well Logging companics side. I certainly understand the need and importance of every part of governmnnt being scif-sufficient; but I must take issue vjth the methods that have been introduced to attain this goal.

1986 is a year that will stand out in many peoples mind, because of the tragedy that struck the oilfield. 500,000 jobs have been lost due to the downturn in explorotion and production. Fear and uncertainty have run rampant since that time. Thriving companies have been reduced to near extinction because of plummeting prices, high insurance costs and, of course, the increase in fees by the NRC. In 1982 when this company was formed a new licenso fee was $460.00; today, as I prepare to renew this license the cost will be

$2,100.00. Well Loggers would be ecstatic if we could increase our prices by 350% over a lot year period.

The 1990 Omnibus Budget Act brought about never-before-seen annual fees.

These fees alone resulted in an approximate 70% reduction in NRC Licensees.

The outrageous increase in licensing fees, you are considering now, do nothing more than benefit the Riajor (publicly held) vell logging companies because it allows the NRC to circumvent exemptions granted for small entities to alleviate those annual fees. To pur it simply, independant well logging companics cannot afford to pay increased fees. According to our companies records, the fees that were adopted in 1990 arc a failure. We are not able to pass the increased cost on to our customers, so in turn, when we do. nuclear logging, we do it for free. 'Ihis makes our customers very happy but bill collectors are frowning on this practice.

The rig count is below 700 nationally. The major oil companics are selling U.S. properties and making investments outside the continental United States at a pace that is unlike anything we have seen before: the public record will validate this statement, I might add that the major service companica are right on the heels of the major oil companies as they relocate people and equipment outside our nation, r

(1)

@C52O O O 5 o p*

R=94%

4053823094 05-17-93 02:3dPM P003 #4B

' S 4053823094 DAVIS CDMPANY 05/17/93 13:31 PO4 4

i h& $

&&d&-

ON

.2 G. b e1498 shenwh GUrhoma?46%9 pr).s92.oty l

i In closing Mr. Selin, T. bring to your attention the extrette decline in licensees in three short years. I assure you that additional increases in fees will cause even fewer people to apply for new or renewal licenses. Surely the reduction in licensees allows you the oppurtunity to reduce costs or staff that could prevent these fees from infli'cting more damage.to an industry that is already staggered by regulations previously imposed.

I am sending you this letter with confidence, knowing that you will give this matter much thought.

Sincerely i

1 1

K th B. Braboy Office and Credit Manager cc: President Bill Clinton Senator David I., Boren Senator Don Nickles Representative Mike Synar Reprocentativo Glenn English Representative Dave McCurdy Representative James Inhofe Representative Bill Brewster Representative Ernest Istook f

(2)

R=93%

4053823094 05-17-93 02:30PM P004 #48

f i

CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE BYSTEX DOCUMINT PRZPARATION CHECKLIST j

i This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of Qs/As) sent for +

ing into the CCs.

^

1.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUXENT(S)

I<-

'l l

d 2.

TYPE OF-D N Corrsepondenser Estringsw(ge/AMt 3.

DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (WRC Only)

Non-Sensitive i

4.

CCNGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCCXMITTEES (if applicable)

Congressional Committee Subcommittee 5.

SUBJECT CODES (a)

(b)

(C) 6.

SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b)

Scan.

(c)

Atlachments (4)

Rakey (e)

Other 7.

SYSTEM LOG DATES (a)

[r$ I!

Date OCA sent document to CCS

s. j (b)

Date CCS rossivess document (c)

Date returned to OCA for additional information i

J (d)

Data resubmitted by-CCA to CCS

~

(a)

Data entered into CCS by

~

(f)

Date OCA notified that document is in CCS a.

CCxxENT:

050O "u v