ML20058H320
| ML20058H320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/26/1993 |
| From: | David Williams NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058H305 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9312130047 | |
| Download: ML20058H320 (2) | |
Text
.
yW
{
" [ e see -
'o UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2Dliti6 0
g October 26,1993
%,,....+/
j.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Chairman l
Lctm FROM:
David C. Williams Inspector General t
i
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF FEES FOR LICENSEES In response to your letter dated June 22,1993, we have completed a review of the basis by which license fees are established. As discussed in the attached report, our review disclosed that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is unable to determine whether qualified small entities are taking advantage of the small entity fee because the agency does not possess current financial information for materials licensees. Existing j
financial information is approximately ten years old. Efforts are underway to compile the results of a recent survey of materials licensees which was conducted, in part, to update this information. The Office of the Controller has informed us that they intend to analyze the results of this survey to determine if small entities are taking advantage of this feature. Also, the Executive Director for Operations should ensure that such surveys are conducted on a more frequent basis in order to maintain " current" financial information for materials licensees. Practicality (cost versus benefit) should dictate the.
.i timing of these surveys. Aside from our report, we have some additional thoughts on the topic of NRC license fee development which we will discuss in this letter, j
The agency's license fee development process is very detailed and labor intensive. It has l
been shaped over the years by the implementation of new Federal regulations and court decisions. Substantial effort is expended in attempting to make the process equitable and the costs reasonable. However, these efforts are severely hampered by the j
requirement for NRC to recover approximately 100 percent of its annual budget through '
fee collection. If one category of licensees is exempted from paying the fees, a burden is created, in the form of higher fees, which must be borne by other licensees. As an ~
-l alternative to the current process, NRC could consider adopting an approach to fee l
development that we identified during our work.
1 i
9312130047 931108 PDR ORC NRCIC PDR
i The Chairman October 26,1993 for FY 1993). We believe that less time and effort could be devoted to determining Part 171 fees while still ensuring that these fees bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of i
providing regulatory senices, in accordance with the requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Eliminating Part 170 fees and simplifying the calculation of Part 171 fees would reduce the volume of quarterly fee billings, lessen the burden of tracking direct labor hours and contract support dollars, and significantly l
decrease the time needed to calculate annual fees.
If you have any questions or further concerns relating to this review, please contact me.
cc:
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick P
Commissioner de Planque J. Taylor, EDO H. Thompson, EDO J. Sniczek, EDO W. Parler, OGC S. Chilk, SECY D. Rathbun, OCA l
J. I',laha, EDO R. Scroggins, OC i
P. Narry, ADM J. Funches, ICC G. Cranford, IRM R. Bangart, OSP T. Murley, NRR E. Jordan, AEOD E. Beckjord, RES R. Bernero, NMSS T. Martin, RI S. Ebneter, RII J. Martin, Rill l
J. Milhoan, RIV t
B. Faulkenberry, RV
-