ML20046C500
| ML20046C500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/01/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Boren D SENATE |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR21116, FRN-58FR21662, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9308110084 | |
| Download: ML20046C500 (4) | |
Text
_
4 o f"%e, UNITED STATES
[ $j.kd j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "f
WASHINGTON, D.C,20SE0001
/
? #
%s c
July 1, 1993 The Honorable David L. Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Boren:
I am responding to your note received June 4,1993, transmitting copies of two letters from your constituent, Mr. Robert Johnston, President, Associated Wire Line Services, Inc., regarding NRC's fee structure.
Mr. Johnston's comments on the proposed FY 1993 rule will be taken into consideration in developing the final fee rule for FY 1993 which we expect to have finalized mid-summer.
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.
Inspection hours include time to prepare for an inspection, the on-site time to conduct the inspection, documentation time to write up the inspection report, time to travel to and from the inspection and Regional time for normal and escalated enforcement. 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.
The current fees are "high" relative to the fees that were assessed prior to the requirement to recover 100% of the new budget authority.
Prior to 100%
fee recovery, materials licensees such as Associated Wire Line Services, Inc.,
only paid for specific services (new licenses, license renewals, license amendments, and inspections).
With 100% fee recovery, these licensees are now required to pay for all the NRC activities necessary to regulate them. This includes research, rulemakings, event evaluation, etc.
The increases for FY 1993 that are referred to in Mr. Johnston's letter result primarily from the requirement of the Chief Financial Officers Act to conduct 1
a biennial review of fees and other charges. The NRC has completed its review of license and inspection fees assessed by the agency.
The biennial review indicates that the NRC needs to modify the average' number of hours on which 1
AI 3
I g81gos49307o3 170 SBFR21116 PDR L
m
a i
' The Honorable David L. Boren 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 i
licensing and inspection flat fees for materials licensees and applicants, the NRC used historical data to determine the average number of professional hours required to perform a licensing action or inspection for each license category.
These revised average hours were then multiplied by the proposed professional hourly rate for FY 1993.
The primary reason for these relatively large increases is change to the inspection program.
In some program areas, for example, NRC has increased inspection hours because we have found increased instances of violations which-t have public health and safety impact.
The Commission published a Federal Register Notice on April 19, 1993 that solicits public comment on changes to NRC's fee policy and associated-legislation.
This action responds to Section 2903(c) of the Energy Policy Act 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,
,/'
am s M. Tay or E cutive U rector for Operations I
c 4
4 4
b 3(TriicD M[cics McTIC1c Respectrully referred to:
Mr. Dennis Rathbun Director office of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Comision Washington, DC 20594 PLMSE RESPOND TO ATTENTION OF:
Morris R.
Goff Secause of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquirics and ec==unicatiens, your censideraticc of the attached is requested. Your findi=gs and views, in duplicate for=, along with return of the encleture, sill be appreciated by
- /
/
i 1
/
\\
s David L.
- Boren, U.S.S.
- 'l ASSOCIATED WillE LINE SEllVICES, INC.
- ;7n.g}
n a sox m m oye gog n g o73, HEALDTCff, OKLAHOMA ~3438 Mau 17. 1995 The Honorable U.S. Senator Davsd Baren J53 Russelt Of fice Bwilding Washington, V.C. 20510 SUBJECTt Fee liteteases By IIte Nuclear Regulatoru Commossron Veat SLtt ricase find tite attacited copy of my lettet to tite Nuclear Regualtety Con ~u.ssran regarding proposed fee increases (NRC Regulations 10 CFR patt 170. 31, Ca.tagoru SA). Titese fee increa.ses range from 3% to 3181.
For exarole an btspection fee for otLt business would istcrease from $860.00 to $3,600.00 per inspe.ction.
We people in tite oil indu.stru Itave I am in tite well logging business.
TFle NRC Ltcense I use pertains to well logging, basi-suffeted enougit!
Loggtng cally tracer studies in water floods, \\secondaru recovertfl.
corrpantes cannot pass titi.s anotlter cost increase from "regate, tors" in It is simpty not af fordable.
tile farm of "fec.s" to our customsts.
Tite attitude in Wasitington seems to be autt-bushtess histead of pro-TitLs es tJte reason major oil companies are setting t!telt domestle properties, latjing aff people and moving jobs and equipnent business.
otttside of our United States witere bushtess attitudes of otitet ccentttre a.1e cettet and more htticing. Congress needs to take a more het:ful attitude towa.1d business and stop passhtg laws tJtat are altti-busbtess and job desttuctive.
I respectfultij request a Congressional investigation of tite NRC's time and fee allocation basis to justify sucFt uttteal increases in fees.
We appreciate tite fine job you are dobtg and Itape to stear from ucu ht tite flttute regardtng tite above mattet.
Shtcetely, J.?
%;.. -. s s
Rob'ett Jolinston, President Associated Wete Line Services, Inc.
RJlli Enclosure 1
I
=_
_1
4 ASSOCljTED IYillE 1,lH SEllflCES, IE.
P. c. 00X 1187 PHONE 817 7 3 5052 WlCHITA FALLS. TEXA9 */ 6 3 01 May 17. 1993 Mt. Ivan Sefan, Chaotman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commaston Wash.ington D.C. 20555 SUBTECT: Comments On P.toposed Revrsions To 10 CRF Parts 170 5 171 Dea.1 Sti:
Unce again die bttstness people a t, faced utith tite task of supportutg over-s4:e gove.inment agencres.
The ois.bidu.sity of witicht we are a part has lost more than a statf n<.llron jobs i s the Lzst decade and contbtues to loose more.
The unrea.souuble f ees, Ltcertses & etc. diat is being imposed an our indus-tty is d.tsving investors aut of die Hncted State.s to cotutttre.s willt a pro-buantess envitonmertt iststead of one witit an antL-businus atLLtude ZJtat altt oue~ size gavernment itas develaped.
Regulatory ageneles have become aitti-busine.ss instead of pro-bussness, and have grown completely out of ptoportiotts. To cover. tite needs of the,se agencies, the fee sttueture.s fo1 NRC and other agencies Itave proven by our records to be a dismal failure.
I challenge the NRC's methodology at deter-muting cost allocatioits. 1he.unposing af annual fees gencrated due to die Omnibus Bu.dget Act of * '90 has resulted in a 701, reduction of NRC Licensees.
independent well logge. companies sxmply cannot af ford tite ou.ttageous sn-i eteases in Licettbrng ntuice fees, tptsmarily inspection fees), from
$860.00 to $3,600.00 per inspectron.
Increa.ses do notiting more than benefit the major (publicly held) Well logging compan:les because.Lt allows tJte NRC to circumvettt exemptions granted for small cutttties to atteviate the annual f ees. Well logging companies cannot recover the.v cos.ts by pa.ssing them on to dieLi customets.
The national rig count ts at an all time low of 700 from a high of 4,500.
Major oit companies are selling domestic properties at a nevet before. level.
1he major od and serv.t.ce compantes are.tetocatb19.theit equxpment and per-sonnel outside ou.1 United Sta.tes.
i
~
~ _..
i Pqe 2 i
s We respectfuity oppose tite.se fee. Lnetetthes teltielt istetectse tir.e istspection f. tom i
$860.00 to $3,600.00 per htspection, since it is evidestt titat it is desLgned
'h to ettcumvent tite small erttity 2-tie <1 System exempttosts fo.1 annual fees, (pa.t.: 171.I6), and favou majo,1 service compartie.s a:Ltit a (11ge capita.C. ba,se, and telli delttoy smaLE. compartte.s.
Respeetfally,,
$ ([ ;./
Af. m_ b 7
Robert Joltatston Presiderst and RSO CC:
U.S. Senator PitLE. Gramm U.S. Reptesentattue Siil SatpaLuts 1
e o
b a
4 J
l l
l
.1
1 A
CCINGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEX DOCUMINT PREPARATION CHECKLIST This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of Q3/As) sent for
- ing into the CCS.
\\
63
/I fM/-
NY 1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF COCUXENT(5)
' < ~
\\ /
2.
TYPE OF'D N Y
Correspondeneex Estringer(Qs/As)-
3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL 8ensitive (NRC Only)
Non-Sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCCXXITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee Subcommittee i
5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(c) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b)
Scan.
(c)
Attachments (d)
Rekey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES f "I,/ ! >
t.
///
Date OCA sent document to CCS (a)
(b)
Data CCS receiveszdocument (c)
Data returned to OCA for additional information (d)
Date resubmitted by-OCA to CCS
~
(e)
Data entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.
CCMMENTS 05000'.
.