ML20062K127

Requests Commission Decisions & Guidance on Results of Review of Fee Policy Required by Energy Policy Act of 1992

ML20062K127
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/14/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
SECY-93-342, NUDOCS 9312170164
Download: ML20062K127 (19)

Text

__

4-

=

(*" " 8 0Dg f.,

4 5

'd 3

a a%lqf i

s, POLICY ISSUE December 14, 1993 (Notation Vote)

SECv-93-342 f9B:

The Commission FROM:

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW NRC FEE POLICY PURPOSE u

To request Commission decisions and guidance on the results of the review of fee policy that is required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

CATEGORY:

This paper covers significant fee policy issues requiring

-Commission action.

SUMMARY

The NRC is required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) to recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund by CONTACT:

Jesse Funches, OC NOTE:

TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 492-7351 AT THE COMMISSION MEETING ON DECEMBER 21, 1993 C. James Holloway, OC l

492-4301 93\\ A D Kh' 9

L

a f

o assessing fees.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPA-92) requires that the NRC review its policy for assessment of annual fees under the OBRA-90, solicit public comment on the need for changes to this policy, and recommend changes in existing law to the Congress the NRC finds are needed to prevent the placement of an unfair burden on certain NRC licenseec.

On April 19, 1993, the NRC published a notice that requested comments on NRC fee policies.

The comment period expired August 18, 1993.

The NRC received 566 comments in response to the notice.

Analysis of the comments received on the April 19, 1993, notice, and the staff's experience during the past three years administering the fee program to comply with OBRA-90 indicate two major concerns about the fairness and equity of the fees.

The first major concern is that not all direct beneficiaries of NRC activities pay fees.

Therefore, to recover 100 percent of the budget some licensees pay for activities that do not benefit them.

The second major concern is that some licensees believe that fees for regulatory activities related to them are not commensurate with the benefits received.

In addition, the staff has identified a concern that is not related to the equity and fairness issues.

This concern is the amount of effort required to implement the current fee process.

The staff concludes that legislation is necessary to minimize these concerns.

Accordingly, the staff recommends that the commission pursue the following legislative changes:

1.

Modify OBRA-90 to remove from the fee base costs for international activities, Agreement State oversight, the exempted fees for nonprofit educational institutions, and the amount of the fee reduction for small entities.

This would minimize the major concern associated with NRC licensees paying for activities that do not benefit them.

1 (This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $25 million or about 5 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered through fees.)

2.

Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate from the fee base a portion of the cost of generic regulatory activities that supports NRC and Agreement States material licensees.

This would i

eliminate the concern that NRC material licensees' fees, which support the regulation of both NRC 'and Agreement State licensees, are not commensurate with benefits received.

(This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $15 i

million or about 3 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered through fees.)

2

3.

Modify the AEA to permit NRC to asse3s application and other fees (about $6 million) for specific services to all Federal agencies, so that other NRC licensees do not have to pay for the cost of these services that do not benefit them.1 4.

Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate the requirement that NRC assess Part 170 fees so as to reduce the resources required to assess and collect fees.

(If this option is adopted, the NRC could avoid spending roughly 10 FTEs and about $200,000 in contractual support for fees.)

The staff believes that if the Commission and Congress implement these recommendations, most of-the concerns about. fairness and equity of the fee schedules would be corrected.

If these recommendations are implemented, this would require the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund.

Based on Commission decisions and guidance, the staff will convert this paper to a report that will be sent to the Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget.

The staff does not plan to include draft legislation with the report to Congress.

Specific implementing legislation would be developed in coordination with OMB after the report is sent to Congress.

Given the likelihood of a Congressional hearing.on fees in February 1994, the staff recommends that the decisions and guidance on this paper be made in a timeframe that would permit the Commission to submit the report to Congress by the end of January 1994.

The proposed fee rule for FY 1994 would implement the Commission policy decisions and other guidance resulting from this paper.

Because the NRC should publish a proposed rule during the first quarter of calendar year 1994 to seek public comment on the recommended changes to the fee regulations, the staff recommends that the Commission make an exception to its normal rulemaking process by delegating to the EDO the authority to issue the proposed and final rules for FY 1994, as was done in FY 1992 and FY 1993.

Additionally, the FY 1994 rule cannot reflect any proposed legislative changes because they will not be enacted in time.

BAQKGROUND:

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as 1This change would still be necessary if the requirement to assess Part 170 fees is eliminated, since the staff would want to assess an application fee to those agencies applying for new licenses who would not pay annual fees.

3

amended, requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Department of Energy (DOE)-administered Huolear Waste Fund (NWF) for FYs 1991 through 1998 by assessing fees to NRC applicants and licensees.

Two types of fees are required to recover NRC's budget authority.

First, license and insp9ction fees, established by 10 CFR Part 170 under the authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA) and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amsnded, recover the NRC's costs of providing individually identifiable services to specific applicants and licensees.

The services provided by the NRC for which these fees are ansessed are reviewing applications for the issuance of new licensos or approvals, amending or renewing licenses or approvals, and inspecting licenses.

Second, annual fees, established by 1C CFR Part 171 undar the authority of OBRA-90, recover generic and other regulatory costs not recovered through 10 CFR Part 170 fees.

Since OBRA-90 was enacted, the NRC has published four final fee rules after evaluating over 1,000 public comments.

On July 10, 1991, the NRC published the first rule that established fees to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1991 budget.

In addition to establishing the FY 1991 fees, the final rule implemented Commission fee policy decisions and established the underlying basis and method for determining the hourly rate and fees.

The Commission policy decisions and the fee methodology used for FY 1991 were also used in the final rules to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1992 and FY 1993 budget authority.

The FY 1993 rule also included the results of the biennial review required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO)

Act of 1990.

The purpose of that review was to ensure that fees and other charges imposed by the NRC reflect costs incurred in providing those services.

The review resulted in significant fee increases for some materials licensees.

In April 1992, the NRC published a limited change to 10 CFR Part 171 to address licensee concerns about the unfair burden of fees on extremely small licensees.

This change adjusted the maximum annual fee of $1,800 that was assessed licensees that qualify as a small entity under the NRC's size standards.

A lower-tier small entity fee of $400 per licensed category was established for small businesses and nonprofit organizations with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 and small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000.

The FY 1991 rule was challenged in Federal court by several parties.

The U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rendered its decision on March 16, 1993.

In summary, the court supported the basic fee methodology, but it remanded two issues for the Commission to reconsider.

One of the issues related to annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.

In response to the court decision, the Commission revoked the 4

O e

exemption from annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.

On September 29, 1993, in response to a petition for reconsideration, the NRC published a proposed rule seeking public comment on the reinstatement of this exemption.

The comment period expired October 29, 1993, and the staff expects the final rule concerning this matter to be submitted to the Commission in December 1993.

The second remanded: issue was the method of assessing fees for low-level waste-(LLW) activities.

In response to the court decision, the allocation method was changed in the final FY 1993 rule published July 20, 1993.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPA-92) directed the NRC to review its policy for assessment of annual charges under OBRA-90, solicit public comment on the need for changes to this policy, and recommend to the Congress any changes needed in existing law to prevent placing an unfair burden on NRC licensees.

Consistent with these requirements, the NRC requested public comment on its fee policy in a Federal Register notice published on April 19, 1993 (Enclosure 1).

The 90-day comment period expired July 19, 1993, and was extended an additional 30 days to August 18, 1993.

Although EPA-92 required only public comments on the annual fees assessed by the NRC under.10 CFR Part 171, the NRC also requested comments on 10 CFR Part 170 fee policies because of the interrelationship of 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 fees.

By the close of the comment period, 566 comments were received from individual licensees or their representatives as follows:

Reactors 26 Fuel Facilities 11 Educational 46 Medical 20 Industrial 450 2 Federal Agencies 5

State Agencies 8

566 A listing of the commenters by group is included as Enclosure 2.

Copies of the individual comments can be obtained from the office of the Secretary or the Public Document Room.

20f the 450 comments received from industrial licensees, 405 were form letters supporting comments submitted by Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc., opposing increased annual fees assessed to gauge users.

5

A DISCUSSION:

This policy paper is based on the staff's experience in responding to the comments, letters, and telephone calls received during the past three years of implementing OBRA-90; a court' case involving annual fees; two petitions for'rulemaking involving annual fees; and the comments received on the EPA-92 notice.

This paper also considers the Office of the Inspector General review of fees that was submitted to the Commission on October 26, 1993.

The staff has made the following two assumptions to establish the scope for this fee policy review:

1.

The public policy question of how to raise revenues (taxes versus fees) will only be addressed to the extent that changes to exi: ting law are necessary to make the fees more fair and equitable.

This assumption is consistent with past Commission positions.

2.

The amount of the budget necessary for NRC to perform its safety mission will not be addressed.

The following areas that are fee related will not be addressed in this paper because these items are being presented to the Commission for review and decision separately:

The merits of whether to exempt nonprofit educational institutions from fees.

(This paper, however, addresses how these costs should be treated, assuming the exemption is reinstated.)

Utilization of cost-center concepts in financial management.

(This paper will note areas where the cost-center concept will help resolve a fee concern.)

The merits of whether the NRC small entity size standards should be changed.

(The staff is evaluating whether the small entity size standards should be changed based on the results of a survey of NRC licensees and the recent proposed rule published in the Federal Register by the Small Business Administration that would amend the Small Business' Size Standards).

The decisions and the Federal Register notice on the petitions for rulemaking from the American Mining Congress (AMC) and the American College of Nuclear Physicians and the Society of Nuclear Medicine (ACNP/SNM).

(The issues raised by the petitioners are 6

among those addressed here and in the final rule on the exemption for nonprofit educational institutions.)8 Proposed FY 1994 fees are not included in this paper.

These fees will be based on decisions the Commission makes about policy discussed in this paper.

The staff recommends that the EDO be permitted to issue the proposed and final rules without further Commission review as was done in FY 1992 and FY 1993.

Maior Concerns Essentially, OBRA-90 requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the DOE-administered NWF, in a fair and equitable manner.

To accomplish this, OBRA-90 provides that the NRC shall continue to collect IOAA fees to recover the Commission's cost of providing any service or thing of value to a person regulated by the NRC and shall establish a schedule of annual charges, fairly and equitably allocating the aggregato amount of the charges among licensees.

To the-maximum extent practicable, the charges shall reasonably reflect the cost of providing services to licensees or classes of licensees.

The NRC has met the first objective of OBRA-90, collecting approximately 100 percent of its budget authority.

For FY 1991, the NRC recovered 98 percent of its budget, for FY 1992, 99 percent of its budget and for FY 1993, 98 percent of its budget.

Despite this success, many NRC licensees, as well as members of Congress, hatte expressed concerns about the fairness and equity of the fees.

These major concerns evolve from the inability of the NRC to meet the principle summarized by one commenter; namely, that if the NRC is to be funded through user fees rather than taxes, then "each dirtet beneficiary of NRC's activities -- not merely its 'licensecs' -- should contribute to an extent commensurate with the benefits it receives."

This principle cannot be met for two reasons.

First, not all

'Both petitioners identified several adverse impacts which they claim have affected their members.

AMC, for example, suggests that NRC implement a system (e.g., a licensee review board) giving NRC licensees some control over their fees.

They have also suggested that facilities no longer generating revenue be exempted from fees.

ACNP/SNM suggest that NRC provide an exemption for medical services similar to that provided for nonprofit educational institutions.

They also suggest a sliding scale for fees based on income.

7

direct beneficiaries of NRC activities pay fees because of legislative constraints and. Commission policy.

Second, fees are based on the agency's costs to perform its regulatory responsibilities, rather than on the licensee's perception of benefits received.

This leads some licensees to conclude that the fees for regulatory activities related to them are not commensurate with the benefits they receive.

Another major concern, not directly related to the issue of fairness and equity, is the efficiency of the fee process.

This concern was also addressed in the OIG memorandum to the Commission, dated October 26, 1993.

Given the Administration's directive to reduce FTEs and costs in the future, the staff is concerned that unless efficiencies can be achieved through modification of the fee process, methods, and policies, many fee related activities cannot be performed in a timely manner.

The following sections discuss these three major concerns, and possible methods of resolving these concerns.

Following the discussion of the three major concerns, other fee concerns and proposed solutions are also evaluated.

Maior Concern:

Not All Direct Beneficiaries of NRC Activities Pay Fees The first major concern has been consistently identified by licensees during the past three years.

This concern arises because costs for some NRC activities are not assessed to the beneficiaries of the activities because of legislative constraints and Commission policy.

Thus, to recover 100 percent of the budget, these costs must necessarily be assessed to licensees that do not directly benefit from those activities.

For this reason, the legislative requirement to collect 100 percent of the budget authority through fees inherently places an unfair burden on licensees.

As one commenter stated, assessing fees fairly and equitably is difficult:

"through a system that exempts or excludes certain entities and at the same time must accomplish 100%

budget recovery.

Given that there are certain regulatory activities whose costs cannot be recovered fairly through user fees, it is clear that 100%

recovery is at the root of the user fee allocation problems that the NRC seeks to address through this fee policy review."

Many other comments expressed this same concern.

This concern was also noted by the Senate Appropriations Committee, which 8

recently stated in its report on FY 1994 Appropriations for Energy and Water Development:

"The Committee believes that the Commission should ensure that these international costs are not collected through domestic licensees."

S. Rpt. 103-147, at 188.

Two types of activities are not assessed to the direct beneficiary, but rather to other NRC licensees.

They are activities that either (1) cannot be attributed to or associated with an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees or (2) can be attributed to NRC licensees or applicants but are not charged to them owing to statutory constraints or Commission policy decisions.

Under OBRA-90, annual fees can only be charged to licensees.

Therefore, costs of activities that cannot be attributed.to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees must be assessed to licensees that do not directly benefit from them.

These activities include:

certain international activities; oversight of the Agreement State program.

generic activities (e.g., research and rulemaking) for classes that do not currently have NRC licenses (i.e, LLW); and For FY 1993, the fees for the above activities were equivalent to

$21.4 million, of which $18.2 million was assessed to reactor licensees and $3.2 million to other licensees. power Specific details on these costs are at Enclosure 3.

The NRC budget includes certain international activities that are not directly related to NRC applicants or licensees.

These activities are performed because of their benefit to U.S.

national interests.

The NRC is required to perform some of these activities by the AEA and, therefore, must budget for them.

Examples of international activities that are not directly related to NRC applicants and licensees are:

statutorily required consultaticns with Executive Branch agencies on export activities within their jurisdiction; assistance to ccuntries or international organizations that provide little, if any, benefit to NRC's regulatory programs; and support of international safeguards activities related to nuclear non-proliferation.

'In this paper, the dollar amounts used are the amount of the FY 1993 fees that would be assessed for the activities.

9

The NRC performs activities necessary to oversee and administer the Agreement States program.

These activities include reviewing and approving new agreements, performing periodic program reviews to determine their adequacy and compatibility, developing guidance, and providing technical assistance (e.g.,-inspection assistance) and training to the Agreement States.

Because neither the Agreement States nor their licensees are NRC licensees, they cannot be charged annual fees under OBRA-90.

The NRC can assess 10 CFR Part 170 fees for specific services (e.g.,

review of requests for an agreement, periodic reviews of the programs, training and technical assistance) rendered to an Agreement State.

However, the NRC has chosen not to do so for policy reasons.

There are no existing LLW disposal facilities licensed by the NRC.

Therefore, the NRC generic LLW regulatory activities do not directly support an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees.

However, some NRC licensees, as well as some Agreement State licensees, will realize an indirect benefit from these NRC LLW expenditures because they will eventually dispose of LLW at sites that are expected to be licensed in the future.

The second type of activities for which costs are not assessed to the direct beneficiary involves specific NRC costs that can be attributed to either NRC licensees or other organizations but are not assessed to them because of legislative constraints or Commission policy decisions.

The following licensees are not assessed certain fees or pay reduced fees:

most Federal agencies are not assessed Part 170

fees, nonprofit educational institutions are not assessed any fees, and small entities are assessed reduced annual fees.

For FY 1993 these activities involved fees equivalent to $18.2 million, of which $16.9 million was assessed to power reactors and $1.3 million to other licensees as shown in Enclosure 3.

The first major category of costs covers those activities for which the NRC is unable, on the basis of existing law, to charge a fee to specific applicants or licensees even though they receive an identifiable service from the NRC.

These activities include licensing reviews and inspections for Federal agencies (other than the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United 10

States Enrichment Corporation).3 The IOAA prohibits the NRC from assessing 10 CFR Part 170 fees to Federal agencies for the costs of these activities.

These activities include reviews of (DOD) DOE Haval reactor projects; licensing reviews and inspections of Federal nuclear materials users, such as Veterans Administration hospitals, Army irradiators, and NASA radiographers; safety and environmental reviews of the DOE West Valley Demonstration Project; review of DOE actions under the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA); and reviews of advanced reactor designs submitted by DOE.

In addition, EPA-92 exempts from Part 171 annual fees certain Federally owned research reactors used primarily for educational training and academic research purposes.

In addition to certain licensees being exempted by law, two groups of licensees are either exempted or pay reduced fees based on prior Commission fee policy decisions.

Nonprofit educational institutions are exem Part 171 annual fees.pted from 10 CFR Part 170 fees and 10 CFR The Conmission has also reduced annual fees for those licensees who can qualify as a small entity.

These reduced fees are consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requirement that agencies consider the impact of their actions on small entities.

To address the fairness and equity concerns related to licensees paying fees for activities not benefitting them, either:

(1) the laws and NRC fee policy must be changed to assess all beneficiaries of NRC activities fees that are commensurate with the cost of those NRC activities; or (2) the requirement to collect 100 percent of the budget by fees must be relaxed.

Reactor licensees, who currently pay fees for most of the activities discussed above, have proposed another alternative.

They suggest that these costs be distributed among all NRC licensees.

Although this would " reduce the unfairness" to reactor licensees, it would shift some " unfair" costs to 5Section 161w. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the NRC to impose fees under 10 CFR Part 170 on a Federal agency that applies for or is issued a license for a utilization facility designed to produce electrical or heat energy (e.g.,

licensing reviews and inspections of TVA's nuclear power plants) or which operates any facility regulated under sections 1701 or 1702 of the Atomic Energy Act (the enrichment facilities of the United States Enrichment Corporation).

'On September 29, 1993, the Commission published a proposed rule seeking public comment on a proposal to restore the generic exemption from annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.

This paper assumes that the Commission will adopt this proposal in a final rule.

11

materials licensees.

Given the impact that existing fees are having on materials licensees, the staff does not consider this as a desirable alternative.

Further, the conference report accompanying OBRA-90 stated that these types of costs may be recovered from such licensees as the Commission determines can fairly, equitably and practicably contribute to their payment..

While appearing to be fairer, the staff believes that assessing fees to all the licensees and organizations that do'not currently pay fees would create problems in some instances.

In particular, the staff believes the Commission should not reverse its policy of reduced fees for small entities.

To do so would recreate the concerns about unfair burdens and inequities that the Commission rectified by earlier policy decisions and rulemaking.

The policy issue regarding the nonprofit educational exemption is being addressed in a separate paper.

Over the past several years, the staff considered various means to recover NRC's costs for international activities which serve broad U.S.

national interests, but found no viable fair way to do so.

Further, it would not be practical to assess fees to foreign organizations, foreign governments, or to the State Department to whom some of the support is provided.

For example, assessment of such fees might create foreign policy tensions that could complicate U.S.

goals such as foreign reactor safety and nuclear non-proliferation.

The Agreement States are the direct beneficiary of NRC oversight and direct technical assistance and some of these costs could legally be recovered under 10 CFR Part 170.

However, the staff believes that, absent legislation, assessment'of fees to Agreement States for this oversight would create strong opposition similar to that which occurred over the nonprofit educational issue.

Agreement States and their representatives commented that Section 274(g) of the AEA requires the NRC to cooperate with the States in the formulation of standards that may well entail regulatory development costs.

They indicate that the 29 Agreement States expend over $13 million annually and have over 200 professional staff in their radiation control programs for radioactive materials.

This, they say, contributes substantially to the protection of the public health and safety and provides a cadre of qualified personnel for assisting the NRC and other Federal agencies.

The Organization of Agreement States indicated that they would be adamantly opposed to charging fees to Agreement States.

One Agreement State commented that any attempt to recover generic costs from Agreement States or their licensees would be " cumbersome and ill advised."

Another State indicated that if the NRC attempted to assess fees to Agreement State licensees, a number of States would probably return their authority to the NRC, thus defeating the purpose of the Agreement State Program.

Regarding Federal agencies, however, the staff believes that 12

4 Federal agencies should pay Part 170 fees for their license reviews and inspections in the same manner as commercial licensees and State or local government agencies.

There is no compelling justification for asking the private sector to pay for NRC licensing and inspection of other Federal agencies.

Note that Federal agencies already pay annual fees and TVA and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation pay Part 170 licensing and inspection fees.

The staff believes that the current policy and practice of assessing a surcharge to licensees to recover the costs associated with LLW'is the right approach.

It is not unfair because these costs indirectly support existing classes of licensees.

Any LLW site that is licensed would provide facilities for the disposal of LLW from reactors, fuel facilities, and some materials licensees.

To rssolve the concerns about some beneficiaries of services not paying fees, commenters also overwhelmingly endorsed legislative change that would reduce the amount of the fees to be cellected by the costs of those activities that cannot be attributed to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees and would asses. 10 CFR Part 170 fees to Federal agencies.

In summary, the staff agrees with the commenters and proposes that the Commission minimize the concerns about fairness and equity resulting from some beneficiaries of NRC activities not paying fees by--

Proposing that OBRA-90 be modified to remove from the fee base costs (about $25 million in FY 1993 fees) for international activities, Agreement State oversight and direct technical assistance, nonprofit educational institutions, and the small entity subsidy.

Proposing that the AEA be modified to permit the NRC to assess Part 170 fees (about $6 million) to all Federal agencies.'

Continuing to assess fees (about $9 million in FY 1993) to NRC licensees for generic activities for classes (i.e., LLW) that do not currently have licenses.

7Although the legislation would permit recovery of costs for all licensing reviews and inspections performed for Federal agencies, an alternative proposed later in this paper would only require that licensing application review costs be recovered.

13 1

The staff notes that these recommendations would reduce the fee revenues available to the Congress and Administration to offset the NRC budget.

This could affect the viability of this recommendation.

If modification to the existing legislation is not a viable option, then the current approach of assessing these costs to NRC licensees (with the majority going to power reactors) with its inherent problems of fairness and equity should be continued, except that the Commission should then seriously consider seeking legislation that would require assessment of fees to Agreement States.

Haior Concern Fees Not Commensurate with Benefits Received The second major concern is that some licensees believe that the benefits received are not commensurate with the NRC. fees they are assessed.

This issue is of most concern to materialc licensees, especially with regard to their annual fees.

The decreasing number of materials licensees demonstrate their belief that the fees are unfair and inequitable.

While the number of licenses remained stable before FY 1991, the number of licenses decreased ty about 2,000 (from about 9,100 licenses to about 7,100) during FJ 1991, the first year of 100-percent fee recovery.

Some licensees consolidated licenses, others turned in unused licenses, and some terminated licensed activities.

For FY 1992, the number of materials licenses decreased by about 300 to 6,800 and that number, by about 300 during FY 1993.

The overall decrease in the number of materials licenses has resulted in increases in the annual fees to the remaining licensees.

This concern is also reflected in comments that fees comprise a large percentage of the cost of procuring and operating a licensed product.

For example, small gauge users have commented that the FY 1993 annual fee of $2,100 equals about half the purchase price of a new gauge.

Others have indicated that the NRC budget, and therefore fees, are higher than what they believe is necessary.

Therefore, commenters suggested that the Commission must, as its licensees have already done in their increasingly competitive markets, build cost-effectiveness into its regulatory strategy.

On the basis of NRC's three years of experience administering the annual fees for the materials program and the comments received on the fee policy notice, the staff concludes'that materials licensees perceive their annual fees to be inequitable and unfair for the following three reasons:

(1)

The NRC materials regulatory program is necessary for NRC licensees and supports both NRC and Agreement State licensees.

However, only NRC licensees pay the annual l

fees.

14

(2)

From the licenseen' perspective, the NRC has assessed large increases in fees without added value, and (3)

Licensees measure the value of the license in economic terms, not NRC regulatory costs.

There is truth to the claim that the fees are not commensurate with benefits because the NRC material regulatory program supports both NRC and Agreement state licensees, yet only NRC licensees pay fees to recover the cost of these activities.

The NRC performs generic regulatory activities for nuclear materials users and uranium recovery licensees.

These activities include conducting-research, developing regulations and guidance, and evaluating operational events.

These generic activities provide the basis for the NRC to regulate its approximately 7,000 materials and uranium recovery licensees.

Because many Agreement States adopt NRC regulations, these NRC activities also provide the regulatory basis for the 29 Agreement States.to regulate their 16,000 saterials licensees.

Under OBRA-90, the NRC cannot charge an Agreement State or its licensees an annual fee because they are not NRC licensees.

Therefore, only about 30 percent (7,000 NRC licensees of the total population of 23,000) of all licensees.can be assessed annual charges to recover the cost of generic activities supporting both NRC and Agreement State licensees.

As a result, part of the costs (about $15 million in FY 1993 fees) for these generic regulatory activities that are included in the annual fees for ERC materials and uranium recovery licensees could be considered an unfair burden on NRC licensees.

NRC licensees also believe that NRC fees place them at an unfair competitive advantage with licensees in Agreement States.

For example, one commenter stated that the fee legislation:

" creates a market place in which approximately 17,000 competitors have an unfair advantage when it comes to competing in the national market place.

It is unfair to require certain NRC licensees to carry the burden for activities conducted for government agencies, foreign governments, treaty commitments, or other NRC licensees who, because of special status, are not supporting their share of the NRC's costs.

It is also unfair to place these NRC licensees at a financial disadvantage with their Agreement State competitors sisply because they are doing business in a Non-Agreement State."

15

The staff believes that licensees' perception of unfairness as it relates to activities that support both NRC and Agreement State licensees will continue and grow worse as more states become Agreement States.

The potential exists for additional Agreement States to be approved by NRC in the near future.

Both Pennsylvania-and Massachusetts have filed letters of intent with the NRC and Oklahoma and Ohio are seriously considering agreements.

This would' shrink the existing materials license fee base further and result in higher annual fees-for the remaining NRC materials licensees.

If these four states were to become Agreement States, the NRC would lose approximately 2,000 licenses and the annual fee for the remaining 4,500 - 5,000 materials licensees would increase by about 30 percent.

To alleviate this concern, either (1) some of the costs under discussion should be assessed to Agreement States or (2) the requirement to recover 100 percent of the budget should be relaxed.

Significant problems with assessing fees to Agreement States were previously discussed.

The materials licensees and Agreement States present valid arguments for not paying fees for the costs involved in this issue.

The staff believes the best means to address the issue is to exclude certain of these regulatory costs from the fee base.

With respect to reason (2), that licensees view the increases in annual fees during the past three years as unfair because they received no additional benefits, the staff reviewed the changes in annual fees for various categories of materials licenses, p

l which are given in the following table, l

l l

l 16 l'

l

l Annual Fees Categories of FY 1990 Materials Ligenses and Before FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 Broad Scope 0

$7,800

$11,150

$18,420 Manufacturing Large Irradiators 0

10,800 16,550 22,020 Broad Scope R&D 0

6,300 9,150 14,320 Well Loggers 0

7,000 10,450 11,420 Broad Scope 0

9,900 13,950 28,020 Medical other Medical 0

3,500 4,750 5,220 Small Gauge Users 0

1,500 2,250 2,120 In FY 1991, materials licensess were assessed annual fees for the first time.

Although the NRC explained that the annual fee was a new requirement, not an increase in existing Part 170 licensing-and inspection fees, many licensees believed that they were paying more than they had in the past with no value being added.

The annual fee increased in FY 1992 because of both an increase in the NRC's budget and about a 25 percent reduction in the number of material licensees available to pay the discretionary fixed costs recovered by annual fees.

Again, from the licensees' perspective, fees had increased with no commensurate increase in benefit or value.

One commenter stated that "the increasing fees draw attention to whether they reflect the value of the services being provided to regulated entities."

Annual fees also increased substantially for some materials licensees in FY 1993.

The reasons for these increases were the same as in FY 1992, plus the addition of large increases in inspection fees that are used as a basis to calculate annual fees for materials-licensees.

The inspection fees increased as a result of the-CFO Act requirement i

to review fees biennially.

These increases in inspection fees-appropriately shifted the amount of the annual fee among the various material licensees, resulting in relatively large increases for the more complex licenses, such as broad scope medical and research and development licenses and minor increases i

for the small and less complex material users.

Some commenters expressed a concern that the NRC budget is out of control and that fees will continue their upward spiral in the future.

They contend.that because the NRC'is required to collect 100 percent of its budget authority'and licensees are paying for.

the entire budget, a mechanism should be created, either through 17 l

the establishment of a separate office or an advisory committee, i

to (1) assess the cost-effectiveness of proposed generic programs and to eliminate potential duplication of industry-sponsored programs; (2) review agency cost trends and accounting practices; and (3) develop and propose future revisions to the fee regulations.

They also suggested that the NRC freeze fees at FY 1991 levels or limit the increases to some multiple of inflation.

The staff believes that the primary causes of the previous large, across-the-board annual fee increases are less likely to occur in the future.

License terminations in the past two years have been minimal.

Large increases in part 170 fees used to calculate the annual fee should not occur because the fees will be reviewed every two years in response to the CFO Act.

In addition, Administration efforts to streamline government are expected to result in smaller budget increases.

The use of cost-center concepts should also improve the tracing of costs to the diverse classes of material licensees.

The annual fee is not new and most licensees now understand its purpose.

However, a large fee increase could occur for a specific category of licenses because a relatively small increase in the budget could result in a large percentage increase in annual fees.

For exi2ple, a $2-million medical study, which would be unique to medical licensees, would increase the base annual fee for each of the medical licensees by about $1,000 (from $5,100 to $6,100), a 20-percent increase for most of the hospitals and physicians.

If the $2-million study were budgeted for small gauge licensees, the small gauge base annual fee would increase by about $700 (from

$2,000 to $2,700), a 35-percent increase.

The use of cost-center concepts, however, will provide a means to explain the specific increases.

Also the annual fees, as noted above, coulf ;o up if new Agreement States are added, reducing the number of NRC licensees unless the fee base is adjasted accordingly.

With respect to reason (3), the fact that licensees measure fees in terms of the economic value of the license as opposed to NRC regulatory costs, licensees continuously request that fees be based on the amount of material possessed, the frequency of use and sales generated from using the licensed material, the number of hospital beds, the size of the facilities, market competitive positions, or other indicators of the economic value to the licensee.

This issue has been addressed by the NRC in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis presented in Appendix A to the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31511-31513).

Based on that analysis, the Commission did not adopt the approach recommended by licensees because it would require licensees to submit large amounts of new data and would require additional NRC staff to 18

evaluate the data submitted and to develop and administer even more complex fee schedules..The staff continues to believe that uniformly allocating generic and other regulatory costs to the specific license to determine the amount of the annual fee is a fair, equitable, and practical way to recover its costs.

The staff believes that establishing annual fees (or " price") based on indicators of the economic value of a license is not practical, would lead to even more concern regarding the equity and fairness of NRC fees, and result in increased fee administration costs.

In summary, to minimize the concerns that fees paid are not commensurate with benefits received, the staff believes that two actions are necessary.

First, the material licensees should not be required to pay for all of the regulatory costs that support both NRC and Agreement States.

This could be accomplished through legislation to relax the 100-percent fee recovery requirement or through legislation that would allow the NRC to charge Agreement States an annual charge that they could pass along to Agreement State licensees.

The staff recommends against this latter option for the reasons discussed relating to charging Agreement States for NRC oversight by the Office of State Programs.

The NRC could also include these costs as agency overhead in calculating the hourly rate.

This would reduce the fees for materials licensees and shift most of these costs to power reactors.

This would be considered unfair by the power reactors since it would be viewed as adding costs for additional activities that do not benefit them.

The second action necessary is to minimize large, across-the-board increases in fees and to improve the explanation of specific increases for specific regulatory'needs.

To accomplish this, the NRC fee policies and methods need to be stabilized.

Although the staff believes future large across-the-board increases in fees are unlikely, large increases could occur for specific subclasses of licensees if NRC makes large budget increases for safety reasons.

Implementation of cost-center concepts will provide better tracing of the costs to the specific subclass of licensees and will provide additional information to help explain the increases.

Another option considered by the staff and strongly supported by those who commented is to place a cap on the amount of_ fee l

increases in any given year.

For example, the increase could be limited to a multiple of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The staff does not support this alternative because it may be i

perceived by some as indicating that the NRC budget should be limited to the same increases instead of being determined on the casis of resources needed to carry out the agency mission.

In summary, to minimize the concern over the fees not being commensurate with benefits received, the staff recommends the 19 l

l

following actions:

).

No longer require material licensees to pay for all NRC generic regulatory costs that support both NRC and Agreement State licensees.

Towards this end, the staff recommends that OBRA-90 be modified to exclude a portion of the generic costs for materials licenses from the fee base.

2.

Utilize cost-center concepts to provide better data on which to base and explain fees, including specific changes.

Maior Concerns streamlire Fee Effort During the past three years of implementing OBRA-90 to collect-100 percent of the NRC's annual budget authority, the staff has evaluated over 1,000 public comments on fee-related rules; and responded to several hundred requests for exemptions, dozens of letters from Congress, and thousands of telephone calls from licensees concerning the assessment of annual fees and overdue bills.

As a result, the workload necessary to implement the fee program has been extremely burdensome on the available staff.

Even with the use of contractor. assistance, the staff has struggled to meet the existing workload.

As a result, the staff specifically requested comments on how to reduce the NRC efforts necessary to implement the 100 percent fee recovery legislation.

The OIG in its October 26, 1993 review of fees for licensees also alluded to this question and concluded that:

"The agency's license fee development process is very detailed and labor intensive.

It has 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 i

and the costs reasonable".

t The OIG report went on to note that:

"NRC could significantly reduce time and effort, and L

related resources devoted to license fee development by l

adopting a fee schedule similar to that used by FERC.

The Part 170 fees could be eliminated completely or, at l

least, to the maximum extent practicable.

Secondly, the determination of the Part 171 fees could be-l simplified by eliminating / streamlining much of the j

detailed analyses performed as part of the process."

L The staff believes that in addition to efficiency, other benefits would accrue from a simpler fee process and policy.

Although not likely to result in more fairness and equity, a simpler fee 20 l

l I

1.

structure would make it easier for licensees to understand NRC fees and would lower NRC's budgeted costs and resulting fees.

Given the comments received as well as the problems encountered in implementing OBRA-90, the staff has considered several ways to reduce the staff workload.

One option is to eliminate the requirement to promulgate the fees by notice and comment rulemaking.

On the one hand, the staff would prefer to use notice and comment rulemaking only when fee legislation, fee policy, or fee methodology changes.

The staff sees limited value added to establishing fees through notice and comment when the underlying bases for the fees have not changed.

Further, the budget on which the fees are based has already been decided by OMB and Congress by the time the fees are promulgated.

On the other hand, those who commented on the EPA-92 notice strongly prefer that the NRC continue to use notice and comment rulemaking to promulgate fees.

Their primary reason for wanting to continue the notice and comment rulemaking process is that they consider this the only opportunity to express their position on the NRC budget and associated fees that they must pay.

For example, some stated that the courts have long recognized that Congress enacted the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act to "give the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process" and to enable "the agency promulgating the rule to educate itself before establishing rules and procedures which have a substantial impact to those regulated."

Others expressed the view that publication of a fee rule in final form without comment ignores the significant monetary changes in fees that have been assessed licensees in the previous year even if the methodology or policies do not_ change.

To publish the fee schedules in final form "would deny an adversely affected licensee an opportunity to voice its objection."

One licensee stated "a lack of oversight currently exists regarding NRC policy" and that providing for public comment on the basic fee methodology and policies gives the public and the regulated community a rightful voice in the-development of those policies.

As indicated by the comments, most lic'ensees feel strongly that although the policies and procedures related to fee assessment might be the same as before, this should not be used to foreclose the opportunity for new commentary or renewed' dissent.

Given these strong views, the staff proposes that the Commission retain' notice and comment rulemaking of fee schedules at this time.

This issue should be revisited if the fees become less controversial in the future.

Another option considered by the staff to streamline the fee calculations was reducing the complexity of the fee calculation by reducing the number of subclasses of fees for some major classes of licensees.

For example, seven subclasses of power 21

l reactors paid annual fees in FY 1993 that vary by only three percent (from $2,935,000 to $3,031,000).

This difference is i

relatively small and could be considered de minimus and therefore not commensurate with the effort necessary to reach an apparent level of precision.

Those who commented on the fee policy notice, however, disagree with this suggested policy change.

They indicated that OBRA-90 guidance requires that those entities who require the greatest expenditures of the NRC's resources pay the greatest annual fee; therefore, the existing policy of assessing each reactor design a charge that reflects the varying amounts of NRC resources spent on generic research and other regulatory activities unique to that design should be retained.

They believe the difference in reactor fees of $96,000 between the highest and lowest annual fee is significant enough to warrant the effort to calculate the fees using the existing method.

Fuel facility licensees also stated that with respect to a uniform annual fee for all fuel facility licensees, such a

" simplification" would ignore the significant differences between the various steps in the low-enriched fuel fabrication process and the differences between low-and high-enriched fuel as well as the differences in the NRC's budgeted safety and safeguards costs allocated to each class.

Commenters indicated that, for example, the two high-enriched uranium fuel manufacturers require much greater safety and safeguards oversight by the NRC because they possess strategic quantities of nuclear materials.

According to these commenters, if a uniform fee ~were assessed, low-enriched uranium manufacturers and uranium hexafluoride converters would be subsidizing the regulation of high-enriched uranium fuel manufacturers while receiving no tangible benefit.

This suggested policy change, they indicate, contradicts OBRA-90's mandate that fees be fairly and~ equitably allocated among licensees.

Again, the staff defers to the commenters' position but will continue to look toward ways of reducing the number of subclasses if the differences in the annual fee to be assessed is a small amount.

Another option for streamlining the fee process is to assess only an annual fee, along the lines suggested by the OIG in its October 1993 review of fees.

This option will require modifying OBRA-90 to eliminate the requirement for NRC to assess Part 170 licensing and inspection fees.

If this option' is adopted, the office of the Controller, the program offices, and the Regions could. avoid spending on the order of 10 FTEs and about $200,000 in contractual support used to collect Part 170 fees.

Under this option, the staff would include the NRC costs for inspections and licensing amendments, including materials license renewals, in a single increased annual fee.

Thus, there would no longer be Part 170 amendment or renewal or inspection fees assessed for specific services to specific licensees.

A review 22

fee would continue to be assessed for review of applications for initial licenses, such as standerd design certifications, renewal of power reactor licenses, new material licenses, etc., since these applicants would not pay an e.nnual fee.

The primary benefits from this approach are the NRC resource savings and an overall simpler fee structure.

This fee structure, however, will likely be perceived by some licensees as less fair than the current one, which assessed fees for services rendered to each licensee, because of differences in the amount of fees for inspections and amendments that licensees in the same class currently pay.

For example, che inspection hours and fees for different reactors may vary.

Also, some materials licensees may be inspected more frequently than others.

Allied Signal, in the most recent fee case,a argued that Sequoyah Fuels, another fuel facility in its license class, was a problem facility that causes NRC to incur considerably more facility-specific costs.

The staff understands the concerns associated with eliminating the Part 170 fees.

However, on balance, the staff believes that roughly 10 FTE and $200,000 in resource savings resulting from streamlining the NRC fee process to charge only an annual fee outweighs the potential unfairness that some licensees are likely to voice.

The staff also believes the concerns can be mitigated.

First, although fees assessed on a yearly. basis may vary, the differences in the average cost over longer periods of time should be reduced.

The staff can also adjust the subclasses of licensees to minimize these differences.

Second, as stated in the previous paragraph, staff would continue to charge fees for cew license applications because applicants for a new license wculd not pay an annual fee until the license is issued.

Also, licensees (e.g., decommissioning and possession only (POL) licenses) that currently do not pay an annual fee but pay Part 170 fees would have to pay an annual fee, if Part 170 fees are eliminated.

The option that would result in the most resource savings-(about 20 FTE) _ is to modify OBRA-90 to allow NRC to assess 100 percent of the budget to operating power reactors and major fuel cycle licensees only.'

This option, the staff believes, would be considered as totally unfair by the power reactors and major fuel

-facilities, because they would be.'aying fees for materials p

regulatory activities.

However, it would eliminate all of the materials licensees' concerns, including the letters and phone

' Allied-Sianal v. NRC, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

'If this option is pursued, previous legislative options to improve fairness and equity, such as deleting certain costs from the fee base, should not be pursued.

23

calls about annual fees.

Although this approach would result in significant resource savings, the staff does not believe it would be prudent to pursue this option because of the major concern related to fairness that it raises.

It would, from the power reactor perspective be more unfair than the current fee structure.

It may also be considered inconsistent with the EPA-92 request that the NRC recommend changes in existing law to prevent placing an unfair burden on NRC licensees.

In summary, the staff believes that the most appropriate way to reduce the administrative burden on staff, while retaining a reasonable degree of fairness and equity in the fee schedules, is to modify OBRA-90 so that the NRC can charge only an annual fee.

However, the staff will continue to look for opportunities to reduce the number of subclasses for annual fees.

With regard to publishing the fees without notice and comment, the staff will revisit this concept in the future if the controversy over fees subsides.

Other Concerns:

Several other specific concerns have been raised about the fairness and equity of fees.

A.

Proration of Annual Fees for Terminated Licenses currently the full annual fee is assessed to all licensees which have not filed a termination or POL request by the beginning of the fiscal year.

One commenter suggested that to be more fair and equitable the NRC should provide in its regulation a provision for prorating of the annual fee for the fiscal year in which a licensee requests an amendment to remove the license authority.

During the past three years, many materials licensees have written the NRC requesting an exemption from the fees or an extension of time (beyond October 1) to terminate the license and be relieved of the annual fee because (1) no material was ever possessed under the license; (2) the licensed material was never or infrequently used; (3) the material was in storage; or (4) they have attempted to sell the device without success.

The staff acknowledges this concern and plans to include a proration provision for termination as well as issuance of new licenses in the FY 1994 proposed rule.

B.

Annual Fees for Possession Only, Decommissioning and Egelamation Licensees Some reactors, major fuel facilities, and uranium recovery facilities are inoperative but continue to benefit from NRC regulatory activities, primarily those activities related to decommissioning or site reclamation.

For example, some powc2 reactor licensees have received a POL from NRC and are in tne 24

I process of decommissioning their facilities.

In addition, many uranium recovery licensees (mills) are no longer operating and have filed reclamation plans for approval by the NRC.

These licensees benefit from the research, rulemaking, and issue resolution that the NRC performs for decommissioning or reclamation.

Licensees believe, however, that having non-operating facilities pay annual fees is unfair because they no longer generate revenue and require very little NRC supervision.

Some cannot complete decommissioning for lack of a-place to dispose of waste.

Therefore, they conclude that they must retain a non-operating license, through no fault of their own.

Another concern is that in the uranium recovery area only a few active licenses will remain in the near future to pay for generic activities, including those related to reclamation.

The staff recommends that the Commission continue the present policy of assessing annual fees to licensees until the license is amended to authorize possession only or decommissioning.

This would be consistent with policy decisions that those who benefit from a license that authorizes operation or use of material pay annual fees.

C.

Fees For Small Entities currently, the NRC assesses two fees for licensees that qualify as small entities under the NRC's size standards.

In general, licensees with gross annual receipts of $250,000 to $3.5 million, pay a maximum annual fee of $1,800.

A second or lower-two small entity fee of $400 was established for small entities with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 and small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000.

Commenters have indicated that more variation in the fees assessed to small entitlen should be provided.

For example, one commenter indicated that NRC should " create more fee categories based on gross annual recefpts."

Some commenters argued that reducing the gap between the minimum small entity fee of $400 and the maximum fee of $1,800 would eliminate some of the competitive disadvantage experienced by those who are slightly above the established NRC thresholds.

As indicated earlier in this paper, the merits of whether the NRC small entity size standards should be changed 'is being reevaluated and would be separately presented to-the Commission for review and decision.

The staff recommends that the-issue raised by commenters be deferred until the Commission has made a decision on whether or not to revise the current small entity sizt standards, since a change in the size standards could cause the 3RC to change its small entity fees.

25

D.

Defer license review fees for advanced reactors.

The Commission changed its policy of deferring the costs for standardized reactor design reviews in the final FY 1991 rule implementing 100-percent recovery.

The Commission decided that for fairness and equity reasons, the cost of these reviews, whether for domestic or foreign applicants, should be assessed under Part 170 to those filing an application with the NRC for approval or certification of a standardized design.

The Senate Energy and Water Committee recently noted that:

"The Committee is also concerned that the NRC review fees charged to the ALWR design certification applicants are becoming overly burdensome.

The recent schedule delay will exacerbate the problem.

The.

Commission should reconsider its policy for allowing payment of those fees to be deferred until the certification is actually employed."

S. Rpt. 103-147 6t 188.

The staff believes that for the same reasons of fairness and equity that led to the reversal of the decision in FY 1991, the review fees should continue to be assessed to advanced reactor applicants.

There is no compelling jv".tificat ion for singling these classes of applications for special treatment and shifting additional costs to power reactors.

E.

Place a cap or ceiline on toDical report fees.

The issue of the establishment of a ceiling on Part 170 licensing fees for the reviews of topical reports was raised by an owners group commenting on the notice.

The group stated that some activities that require NRC review and approval are voluntarily originated by them in order to improve plant safety and performance.

The reinstatement of a fee ceiling for topical reports will encourage the continuation of this practice to assure plant safety benefits.

The group said that knowing in advance the limit on the cost of the reviews would enable them to more effectively and efficiently plan the allocation of their limited resources.

Another issue that has recently been raised concerns the' assessment of Part 170 fees for review and approval of topical reports.

That is, whether the submittal of the reports by.

utilities and owners groups should be viewed as " generic," in the broadest sense and the costs recovered through annual fees instead of Part 170 fees.

This might encourage the submittal of additional reports in the interest of efficient and effective agency operations, which would be cost beneficial to both the NRC and the industry.

26

The Commission decided in the final FY 1991 fee rule to eliminate the ceiling for topical report reviews based on the 100-percent recovery principle and Congressional guidance that each licensee or applicant pay the full costs of all identifiable regulatory services received from the NRC.

NRC costs for topical report reviews vary significantly, depending on the particular topical report reviewed, and therefore make it impractical to establish a fair and equitable ceiling or flat fee.

The staff believes the NRC should continue the present policy of assessing Part 170 fees, without a ceiling, for the review and approval of topical + reports.

Inherent in the initial decision to assess Part 170 fees, was the fact that the reports were being voluntarily submitted for review and approval and there was no compelling reason not to charge for the review and approval cost.

Although a topical report can be used by more than one licensee, this use typically benefits the organization that submits the topical report.

The staff is examining whether it is practical and cost effective to bill the members of a certain organization instead of the organization itself.

F.

Expand scope of Part 170.

Presented in the notice was the question of whether to broaden Part 170 to recover costs incurred for specific activities that

~

are now cc.lected as part of the annual fee, including Independent Investigation Teams (IITs), allegations, contested hearings, vendor inspections, orders and amendments resulting from orders, and reviews that do not result in approvals."

A majority of the commenters indicated that if Part 170 were expanded, they would support billing for orders and amendments resulting from such orders.

These actions, the comments stated, although not licensee-initiated are provided to a specific licensee and should be assessed on an individual basis.

One commenter argued that NRC should correct the situation in which a licensee who does not submit an amendment request recommended by an NRC generic letter until ordered to do so is not charged a fee, but a licensee who voluntarily submits such an amendment is subject to Part 170 fees.

With respect to the remainder of the items, most commenters believed that many activities listed in the notice do not constitute a specific-service to an identifiable licensee and that the costs should continue to be collected under Part 171.

For example, commenters claim that the cost of allegations and "This issue becomes moot if the Commission requests and the Congress enacts legislation that removes the requirement to assess Part 170 fees.

27

e contested hearings are beyond the licensee's control and should not be billed on an individual basis.

Instead, the NRC should continue to include costs for these activities in the Part 171 annual fee.

Other comments indicated that investigations of allegations and contested hearings often raise generic issues of concern to all licensees.

Therefore, saddling individual licensees with these additional costs is unfair and inequitable because they arise at NRC's direction, are not requested by a licensee and are beyond a licensee's control.

Others commented that all licensees benefit from these regulatory activities and that the costs should be recovered through the annual charge.

The staff agrees with these com:2ents and the staff plans to continue to include the costs o'? IITs, vendor inspections, contested hearings, allegations, and reviews that do not result in approvals, and so forth, in the annual fee.

The staff also recommends that we not charge for orders and amendments resulting from orders because most orders are used to impose civil penalties.

Thus, charging for orders could be perceived as additional fines to the licensee.

In some cases (e.g. requests for hearing as a result of an order), charging for orders could be perceived as penalizing a licensee for exercising its right to disagree with NRC.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

For the reasons discussed in this paper, the staff concludes that modification of existing fee legislation is necessary to minimize the major concerns about fairness, equity, and administrative burden of fees.

To this end, the staff recommends the following legislative changes:

1.

Modify OBRA-90 to remove from the fee base costs for international activities, Agreement State oversight, the exempted fees for nonprofit educational institutions, and the amount of the fee reduction for small entities.

This would minimize the major concern associated with NRC licensees paying for activities that do not benefit them.

(This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $25 million or about 5 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered through fees.)

2.

Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate from the fee base a portion of the cost of generic regulatory activities that supports NRC and Agreement States material licensees.

This would eliminate the concern that NRC material licensees fees, which supports the regulation of both NRC and Agreement State licensees, are not commensurate with benefits received.

(This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $15 million o" about 3 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered through e.s. )

28

3.

Modify the AEA to permit NRC tu assess application and other fees (about $6 million) for specific services to all Federal agencies, so that other NRC licensees do not have to the cost of these services that do not benefit them." pay for 4.

Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate the requiremant that NRC assess Part 170 fees so as to reduce the recources required to assess and collect fees.

(If this option is adopted, the NRC could avoid spending about 10 FTEs and about $200,000 for fees.)

If legislation to relax the 100-percent recovery requirement is not viable, the staff recommends that the current policies be continued, except the Commission should seriously consider requesting legislation that would require the assessment of fees to Agreement States so as to improve the fairness and equity of the fees for NRC materials licensees.

This is especially appropriate, given the likelihood of more States becoming Agreement States.

The Commission should note that:

The staff plans to continue current fee policies, a.

except that it will prorate the annual fee.

b.

The staff plans to develop Notices of Proposed and Final Rulemakings for FY 1994 based on Commission decisions and guidance on this paper.

The FY 1994 rule cannot reflect any proposed legislative changes because they will not be enacted in time.

c.

The staff will convert this paper, based on Commission decisions and guidance, to a report that will be sent to the Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget.

d.

The staff does not plan to include draft legislation with the report to Congress.

"This change would still be necessary if the requirement to assess Part 170 fees is eliminated, since the staff would want to assess an application fee to those agencies applying for new licensees who would not pay annual fees.

29

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed and has no legal objection to the recommendations of this paper.

J m's M.

lor e

xecutiv' Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

April 19, 1993, Federal Register Notice 2.

List of Public Comments 3.

Fees Related to Fairness and Equity Concerns Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Tuesday, January 4, 1994.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Tuesday, December 28, 1993, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.

If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and.

comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

This paper is tentatively scheduled for discussion at an Open Meeting on Tuesday, December 21, 1993.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA IP OCA OPP EDO SECY 30

.~.

. ~. - -

s

• =

Ettelosure 1 3

2111$

Federal Regleter / Vol. 58 No. 73 / Monday, April 19. 1993 / Proposed Rules' NUCLEAR REOULATORY sumptaueNTARY sdPOfudATI0ft:

couuiss ON

Background

10 CFM Porto 170 and 171 Pubhc Lew 101-60s. the Omnibiss Budget saa--diad== Act of1990 (OBRA-00) Noveenbar 5,1990. requires

,,,, p m that the NRC mouver a analy 100 NRC Fee Poney; Moquest for PubNe Percent ofits budget ty less se Comment amount appropriated from the l

Department of Energy (DOE)

ActncV: Nuclear Regulatory n,1=lal==ed Nuclear Weste Fund Commission.

(NWF) for FYs 1991 through 1995 by 4'

ACTicer: Request for pubMc cosnesset.

asser fees. The NRC assesses two type of to acever its budset suunaAny:The Nuclear Regulatory authority. Flast. license and w@n Coniminalaa (NRC) is solicittag public fees, amenkIrahant in 10 CFR 170 comment on the need for chaegue to its - under the authority of the t

)(31:

fee policy and associated legisistion.

Of5ces App)ropriation Act This action responds to recent U.S.C. 9701 recover the NRC's costs of legislation that requirse NRC to review providing individually identi5able its policy for assessment of annual fees, services to specisc applicants and solicit public comunent on the need for - liconeses. The services provided by the changes to this po

,and m==ad NRC for which these fees are assessed 4

to the Congress the

. s existing

_ are generally for the review of law the NRC Bads are needed to prevent applications for and the issuance of Law the placessent of as unfair burden as lioeness or approvals, amendments to NRC bconsees.The NRCis peesenting licenses or approvals, and laspedons of various options, ahernatives, and lle=amant activities. Second, annual fees.

questions for consideration and established in to CFR part 171 under -

comment concerning poteadal the authority of OBRA-00, recover legislative chassee as well as pesandel generic and other regulatory costs not poucy changesihat would require recovered through to CFR part 170 fees; amendments to NRC's fee.

S uent to smactnesnt of OBRA-The NRC is also announcing'the recolpt 90,the publiebed thrw Analin of and ;-M= aa==== on a petition ' rules aAer evaluation of public for rulem7aking submitted by the coenments On 10.1991 (Se FR Asnerican Mining (PRM 170-- 314721. the NRC e Analrule..

4) that requests that conduct e in the Federal which e

J rulemaking to evaluate its fee policy.

established the to CFR part 170 -

" '""**t I'"

%g asved

&is as weH es to 10 part 171 mand '

date will be considered if it is practical bee to be menced k mcowr to do so, but the Commission is able to j

• PP

Y1

'I"* U im budesit. In [das m Whahing ensure only that -===ts received ou or before this date will be considered.

the FY 1981 fees, the Anal rule.

Given the relatively long coenment mubh M b W W eioand Period. f*81uats o

as method for detennining the to CPR part comm** Peri.

g 170 hourly rete and fees, and the to CFR wie k m part 171 annual fees. Portions of the A00nasses: Submit written comrnents -

1991 rule were recently romanded to the 1 to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear RegulatorF Commission for reconsideration as e -

on. DC 20555, :

Commission. W Service Branch., reeuk of the Court's decision in Allied.

i -

ATTN: Docketing Signot v. NNC,(D.C. Cir. March 16, Hand deliver comments to: 11555

.1993). A separete Federal i

Rockville Pikg.Rockville Maryland notion addressing the leeues 20852. between 7:30 a.am. and 4:15 p.an.-

will be liehad in April,1993. -

'l Federal workdays. (T 'f - 3014 os A i 17,1gg2 (57 FR 13625). the,

1878).

is the Federal Register Copies of cosnanets received may be two tad changes to 10 CFR parts 170 examined at the NRC Pubucn""' "

and 171.The limited changes became Room at 2120 L Street. NW.

etractive May 13.13g2.The limited W=k8e. DC 20555,in the lower change to 10 CFR part 170 allowed the -

level of the Celman Buildin8-

' NRC to blu quarterly for those Bcense

. Poft PusmeER seP0fuaA1108100erfACT: C.

fees that were previously billed every James HoDowey, Jr.. OfSco of the six inonths.The limited change to 10 E

Controller. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CFR part 171 ad)usted the maximum Commission. Washington, DC 20555, annual fee of $1,s00 sessened a

Telephone 301-492-4301.

materials licanese who qualiBee as e

+.

Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 73 / Monday. April 19, 1993 / Proposed Rules 21117 small enuty under the NRC's size Policy Act and to respond to the AMC that are currently recovered as annual standards. A lower use small entity fee petiuon.

fees under 10 CFR part 171. These costs of $400 per bcensed category wu la the legisladve aree, the NRC are associated with speciSc NRC actions estabhshed for small busineuen and encouroges commenters not to address for specific applicants, licensees, or non pront organizadens with gross the pubbe policy issue of whether the obr organizations, annual receipts of leu than $250,000 Federal government should fund its and small governmental lurisdicuons activities through user fees rather than Four M Armf Comm IdnuSed B NRC with a population of less than 20.000.

auessing taxes on the general I

On July 23,1992 (57 FR 32691), b population. Instead, the NRC asks that To assist in focusing cx)mment. the NRC published a final rule in b commenters focus on this central NRC has ident16ed four broad areas Federal Register that established the quation: "Given that user fece will be where previous public comment or licensing. inspection. and annual fees assessed to NRC licensees, wbst sped 5c concern indicated timt the fees may necessary for the NRC to recover legislative or NRC policy changes am place an unfair burden on licensees. The approximately 100 percent ofits budget nuded to eliminate any unfair burdent" areas include (1) the surcharge assessed authonty for FY 1992. The basic With respect to suggested to certain licensees under 10 CFR part methodology used in the FY 1992 rule amendments to the fee policies set forth 171 and b generic regulatory costs that was unchanged from that used to in 10 CFR parts 170 and 171, comments support the Agreement States:(2) calculate the 10 CFR part 170 that request a fee reduction for one fluctuating annual fees: (3) simplifying professional hourly rate, the spedfic licensee or a class oflicensees should the development of annual fees: and (4) materials licenamg and inspection fem explicitly indicate who abould be the recovery of some costs for speci6c in 10 CFR part 170, and the to CFR part assessed the budgeted costs for the identifiable services through annual 171 annual fees in the final rule proposed fee reductions in order to fees.

pubbsbed July 10.1991 (56 FR 31472).

recover 100 percent of the NRC budget Y*'P***

authority. It should be noted that any

1. Annual Fee Surcharge and Regu/crory changes to the existing to CFR parts 170 UPPost Olh8reement States On October 24.1992, the Energy and 171 would require notice and Both the Congress and the NRC have Policy Act was enacted. Section 2903(c) public comment before the changes are recognized that the NRC budget of the Act requires the NRC to review its made.

Includes costs for required NRC policy for asseument of annual fees The NRC has had two years of activities but for which the costs cannot under section 8101(c) of the Omnibus experience in implementing the be attributed to existing NRC licensees.

Dudget Reconciliation Act of1990, requirement of OBRA-90 to recover According to the Conference Report solicit pubhc comment on the need for approximately 100 percent of b NRC accompanying OBRA-90," increasing changes to this policy, and recommand budget authority. During that time, the the amount of recovery to 100 percent changes in existing law to the Congress NRC has evaluated over 500 pubhc of the NRC's budget authonty will result the NRC finds are needed to prevent the comments on fu related rules; in the imposition of fees upon certain placement of an unfair burden on responded to several hundred requwts licensees for costs that cannot be certain NRC licensees, particularly those for exemptions,lottars from heensees, attributed to those licensees or classas of who hold licenses to operate Federally and letters from b Congress; and hcensees." The Conference Report owned research reactors used primarily responded to thousands of telephone further stated that:"The conferees for educational training and academic calls from licensees concerning the intend the NRC to fairly and equitably research purposes. The Act also assessment of annual fees. Many of recover these expenses from its exempted from fees certain Federally these comments and letters exproued licensees through the annual charge owned research reactors used primarily concern about the burden of fees.

even though these expenses cannot be for educational purposes. On February Bawd on previous public comments ettnbuted to indivHuallicensees or 4,1993, the NRC received a petition for and letters, the NRC has developed classes of licensees." Therefore, to rulemaking submitted by the American potential epticas and alternadves for implement 100 percent fee recovery, the Mining Congren (AMC). The petiden change as well as quesdons for further NRC must impese 6 cost of some was docketed as PRM-170-4 on considernuon and comment by the activities on licensees who neither February 12,1993. The petitioner pubhc. While comments may be made requested not derive direct benellt from requested that the NRC amend to CFR on any and all aspects of the NRC fee those activities. In addition, the parts 170 and 171 concerning fees for policy and the axisting laws upon Commission has made certain policy facilities, materials licenses, and othat which the fees are band,it would be decisions that result in charging fees to regulatory servicw under the Atomic particularly helpful to the NRC if the licensees for activities that do not Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The comments addressed the speciSc items provide regulatory support to those peticoner requested this action to identined in this document. This would licenseet. (Jnder OBRA-90, the costs of mitigate alleged inequittu and problems facilitate the process of analyzing and those activities can only be recovered by with the present fee system. Because the evaluating the comments in an ef!1cient asseuing annual fees to existing NRC lasues raised by the petitioner concern and timely manner. This would also licensees. To recover bse types of the same subjects as the fee policy enable the NRC to provide the Congress coats, the NRC awesses a surcharge to review required by the Energy Policy with specific recommendauons certain licensees.

Act, the NRC is announcing receipt of ccacerning an legislauve changes to the petidon and requesting public OBRA-00, an the Atomic Energy Act.

Acuvities included !n The Current comment on b issues raised in PRM.

Although the Energy Policy Act Surcharge 170-4 in this document.

requires only comments on the annual The following discuuion presents the The purpose of this notice is to solicit fees ass =ssed by the NRC under section three broad ca'egories of acuvities that public comment on the need, if any, for 6101(c) of OBRA-90 and 10 CFR part are included in N current annual fee changes to the existing NRC fee policy 171, the NRC is also seeking comments su. charge:

and associated laws in order to comply uu whether or not to broaden the scope

1. Actmties not associated with an with section 29031c) of the Energy of 10 CFR part 170 to recover some costs edsting NRClicensee or class of

21118 Federal Register / Vol 58, No. 73 / Monday, April 19, 1993 / Proposed Rules heenseen. m first maior category of reviavre and ons for Federal licensees are emnpt from be or per costs coven thom NRC act ritise that agencies other the Tennessee reduced annual ba.

cannot be attnbuted to an e isting NRC Valley Authority (TVA) and the United Nonprofit educational institutions. for hcensee or clus of bconom This Stata Enrichment Corporation.' In example, certain conpower reactor and category includes internation sl.

addition, the Energy Policy Act nuclut material users, am exempted Agreement State, generic low,wel exempted from annual fees certain from to CFR part 170 licensing and waste (LLW). and genene uranium Federally owned remarch reactors used inspection few andJO CFR part 171 enrichment activities.

primarily for educadonal training and annual fees. De Commission has also Some international activities are not academic research purposes.

reduced the annual fees for those directly tied to an individual licanae or With regard to Federal agencies, the licensees who can qualify as a small class of licensees. These activsties NRC performs licensing and inspection entity under the Commission's include some safety assistance provided activities. and conducts other reviews regulations. This action is consistent to foreign countries and some non-for which fees, except for IOAA with the requirements of the Reguistory proliferation reviews.

prohibitions, would normally be Flexibility Act of1980 that spacies in addition, the NRC's budgeted costs charyd ur der 10 CFR part 170. For consider the impact of their actions on for administering the Agreement State example. he NRC reviews DOD/ DOE small entitles.

program are attnbuted only to Naval reactor projects; issues licenses to For FY 1992. approximately 37 Agreement State bcensees. Only and conducts inspections of Federal million in NRC costs for nonprofit Agmment State bcensen benefit from this program. Because Agreement State nuclear materials users, for example, educational institutions was assessed as Veterans Administistion hospitals, a surcharge to operating power ructors licensees am not NRC licennes, they Army inadiators, and NASA and approximatsly 38 million in cannot be charged an annual fee under OBRA-90.

radiographers, and performs safety and reduced fees for small anudoa was environmental reviews of DOE Wut assessed as a surcharp to all licensees The three existing LLW dispoul facilities are hcensed by Agreement Valley and uranium mill tailings actions that are not small entides.

States. Two of bse faciliues also have as required by the West Valley NRC licenses for disposal of special Demonstradon Project Ac' and the Activitise hat Support Both NRC and nuclear material Therefore, the NRC Uranium Mill Tailing Radladon Control Agreement State Applicants and generic LLW regulatory activities do not Act WMTRCA). mspecuvely. De NRC Licenmes full support an existing NRC heenme also reviews advanced reactor designs This area covers pneric activides that submitted by DOE.

are attributed to a specinc class of NRC Nce The IOAA prohibits the NRC from heensees but also support Agreement a

wel a 8 emat g d cane assessing to CFR st 170 fees to State licenseen. These activides are Federal agencies the costs of these associated with the NRC nuclear ta fits from eu activities. N Energy Policy Act materials and uranium recovery expendituns because they will dis 7eprohibits the assessment of to CFR part regulatory program se of'LLW at sites that are expected to licensed in the future 171 annual fees m certain FedemDy The NRC performs pneric mgulamry Another area where NRC is owned research mactors und primarily activities for nuclear materials users and establishing the regulatory framework to f r educational purposes. Derefore.

uranium recovery licensees such as regulate future licensees is uranium under OBRA -90. the NRC must assess conducting research, developing snrichment. Although an application annual fees to obr beansees to recover reguladons and guidance, and has been filed for an ennchment facility. the costs of these acuvities in order.tr evduating opeational events. Rese C mP y with the 100 percent recovery pueric acides provide the basis for l

the license has not been issued and.'

therefore, there is no uranium requ rement.

NRC to regulate its approximately 7,000 enrichment licensee that may be For FY 1992. approximately $4 materials and uranium recovery assessed an annual fee for bse genene milli n was included in the surcharge licensees, as well as for the twenty nine activities. Under OBRA-90. annual fees I f OPersung power reactors for this Agreement States to regulate their can only be charged to licensees, not to category of NRC activities.

16.000 materials limnaeos. However, license applicants.

3. AcriWhes reloting to opplicants and under OBRA-90, the NRC cannot charge For FY 1992, approximately $14 heesisees etinently mmptfrom 20 CFR b Agrument State licensees an annual million was included in the power Polts J 70 and 171 fees or assessed fee to recover a portion of the coat of ructor surcharge for this category:

reduced annualfeesfor small entities them acuvities because they are not opproximately 54 million was assessed based on current Commission policy.

NRC licensees. Therefore, only about 30 as a surcharge to classes of nonreactor The third etajor category of costs covers percent (7,000 NRC licenmes of the total licensees that pnerets low Iml waste; those activides for which speciSc populadon of 24.000) of the licensees and $3 million for administering the ePplicants ur licensees recmive NRC can be assessed an annual charge to Agruement State program was included services and could be assessed fees.

recover b cost of generic activides that in the NRC professional hourly rate and However, as a result of existing support both NRC and Agmement State essessed to all licensees.

Commission fee exemption and fee licenseen. NRC licensees have indicated

2. Specific oppheonts and licensees or reduction policy decisions, certain that this creates an unfair burden and classes of heensees that ore not subject compeutive disadvantap for km. This tofee assessment underIOAA orother

'5=caa 188* *N ^ oane ransy Aes means that about 70 percent of the law. The second major category of costs

• "*"******'"8*""$"C"'

Beceric regulatory costs (about 323 covers those activities for which the MII* M bu'"us'uas million) that are included in the annual NRC is unabla, on the basis of existing to prodwm eksemcal or heat snargr (e.g InomasAns fees for NRC materials and uranium law, to charp a fee to specific

"" *ad la*Pam*** o'N8 aucS**'

recovery licensees could be considered P **$*'_"*"C" *"7 p% %

as an unfair burden, h

applicants or licensees even though they g

receive an identifiable service from the Aci nsw.ancha.ini facmon at me unmd sw Legulotne options, no NRC has NRC. These activities involve l' censing tw% c.,po,.uont identified the following legislative

Pa+aral Register / Vol 58. No. 73 / Monday, April 19, 1993 / Proposed Rules 21119 options to address the issues discussed these inmeses. Ucensees have N NRC is seeking comment on ways abs $odify OBRA-90 to eliminate the complained that it is unfair for the NRC to aim lify the rocess of establishing 1

to mens such large inosasse because annua fus an simplifying the method costs of certain acuvides from the b they do not have sufScoot warning to for determining annual fees for base so that the NRC 1,s mquired to adjust prices and contracts to recover openting power reactors and fuel collect approximately 100 percent ofits b increams.

fabrication licensees without causing an bud et, less appropriations from b unfair burden.

Nuc ur Waste Fund (NWF) and the Legislative Option d

P on budgoted costs for other acdytties that To minimize the potential of larE*

would be specified by the NRC. With increases in annual fees, one opuon To simplify the procou one option is respect to this alternative the NRCis would be to modify OBRA-90 to limit to modify OBRA-90 so fee schedulea pasucularly interested in receiving b annual b ineman for uch c; ass of can be published without solicating public comment on the following licensees. Any cost not recovered as a Public comment, provided the baue fee question: Should ODRA-90 be modified result of this limitadon would be methodology and policies remain to amon all specified activities excluded from b b base. If this unchangodlem the previous year.

identified in the four items abon fmm legislauve option is punued. abould the Poucy Gangw h b besef 1f all four activideo are increase be limited to the increase as excluded, approximately set million, reflected by the Consumer Price Index One option to addrus the different annual fees for various classes of band on the FY 1992 budget, would be or some othat fLxad percentage, for remond from b fee ban.

examP e 25 Percenty perating power reactors and fuel l

2. Modify OBRA-90 to permit the facility beensees is to modify 10 CFR NRC to essess annual fees to III. Simplifying the Development of 171 to aseess one uniform annual b for organtutions other than NRC licensees Annual fees all operating power reactors and one and approval holden that benefit from unif rm annual fee f r all fuel facilities, OBRA-90 requires that annual fees be esta shed by mismabgamfas.

W hpnMapfw 6 M uo t

ti e i u,i co d t

b NRC charging generic regulato the NRC must publish a repond rule The authority for NRC's assessment of fu comments, evaluate e comments-plicants. "Dus wou the 10 CFR part 170 licensing, approval, costs to NRC akrst applicant for a new and issue a final rule each year, enn and inspecuan bs by the NRC is the mean that b clan oflicense could be required to pay though b basic h methodology and IOAA. The 10 CFR put U0 few am for all NRC ro$uladon development and Policy am unchanged from the pmvious asmseed for specine wrvices rendered nsecch costs to put a regulatory year. This rwults in extre staff affort and by the NRC to identifiable applicants program in place to regulate an entire delay in wtablishing the annual be for and licensees. Two Supreme Court cases class of licensees.

8 Pardeular year, and four Circuit Court decisions relaung

3. Modify the Atomic Energy Act to In addition, b NRC hee received to the Federal Communicadons permit the NRC to assess to CFR pan comments indicating that the annual Commission (FCC) and the Federal 170 fess to Federal agencies, other than fees for operating power reactor Power Commission (FPC) Ms assessed those that already are subject to such licensees and bl cycle licensees under b suthority of the IOAA, as well assessments, for identifiable services should be simplified. ney point out

.s a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case such as reviews, approvals and that annual few for the opmting power relating to IOAA type NRC fees, han inspections where direct reconry for reactor clase ofliconeses are determined provided addiuonal guidance to the these costs is currently prohibited by in three ways. Fint, within the NRC in fee naament under to CFR IOAA. This would ruult in operating power reactor class, a part 170 The past and current to CFR appmximately 54 million in additient; distinction is mede between the four part 170 he were established based on fus being collected from Federal vendor groups, that is. Babcock &

thwe court decisions.

agencies.

Wilcox. Combustion Engineering.

Based on the courts' guidance, NRC Pohey changes. Policy changes to Constal Electric, and Westinghouse.

IOAA type he have been structund address the concerns with the surcharg, Second, within each vender smup, a and are assessed for b review of include the elimination of exemptions distinction is made by b of applications for and b issuance of (1) currently contained in to CFR parts 170 containment. for example, new licecase:(2) amendments and and 171. This would include, for Electric Mark 1. II and IH. Wird, a renewals to existing licensea:(3) example, elimination of the exemption distinction is made bened on location of appmvals, such as topical reports; and for nonprofit educational institutions.

the reactor, that is: whether or not it is, (4) for inspections. Under 6 curmnt to located east or west of the Rocky CFR part 170 fee policy, an application II. Fluctuoting Annual Fees Mountains. As a result, the amount of must be filed for a new license, an The amount of the annual be the be for any one vendor with a amendment, renewal. or approval; or an iluctuates depending on the amount of specific containment type could vary inspection must be conducted by the the budget and the number oflicensees significantly imm year to year leading NRC in order for a 10 CFR part 170 h evallable to pay b relatinly fixed one commenter to conclude that the to be assessed.

generic and ohr regulatory costs.

" variability of b dificence is gnater The courts' dedsfons on which the Changes in the budget and the number than b attempted refinement"(56 FR current to CFR part 170 he an based of licensees can cause relatinly large 31479: July 10,1991). Similarly, for the were issued before the OBRA-90 changes in the amounts of 6 annual class of fuel cycle facilities a distinction requirement to recover 100 percent of Ms. For example, the FY 1992 annual is made between high enriched fuel the NRC's budget authority through fees.

W for some licxusees increased by 50 fabrication, low enriched fuel Because there an instancas whm NRC percent due to these factors. Because of fabrication. UF. conversion facilities performs specific services for the timing of Congressional approval of and other fuel facility licensees. NRC's identifiable applicants, licensees, or the NRC's budget, it is not possible to safety and safeguards budgeted costs are other organintions that do not meet gin licansees much advancs notice of separately allocated to these classes.

existing policy for assessing to CFR part

21120 Federal Ragiatar / Vol. S8, No. 73 / Monday. April 19,1993 / r%-:+:-d %1*a 170 faes, the costs of these hi vices are

4. Site Decnmmha!oning Management incident to a voluntary act bectum the recovered through to CFR part 171 Plan (SDMP) annual Ms assessed to all heensees in licenm does not requmt it. Similarly, a particular clau. If the costs of these NRC performa reviews and conducts amadments asuking imm orders an types of activities were recovered undef inspecucas with to thom not a====ad to CFR part 170 fue 10 CFR part 170. the annual b would companies identifi in the Site becaum such amendments am not Sled be decreased.

ensure 6 clean.g Management Plan to voluntarily by the Ansee but an Sled

{

Decomaunionin up of the sites.

as a requirement of the order. N j

The NRC is seeiung comments on the Currently.10 CFR part 170 fees are not budgeted costs of bee acdvibes are option of breedenmg the scope of to anos. sed because the compen'es an not acovmd thmugh annual fees to su CFR part 170 to recover costs incurred NRC applicants or licensees. b heensees.

for specine actions for identifiable budgeted costs for bse reviews and recipients because of the inspections are recovered from fuel

7. Contested Hearings interrelationship of 10 CFR parts 170 facilides and materials licensees Contuted hearings an conducted by and 171 in recovering 100 percent of the, through annual fees.

b NRC on specific applications, NRC budget authority. Some of thes*

usually at the request ofintervenors.

cctivities are identified and listed

5. Reviews nat Do Not Result in below. m listing provided is not Formal NRC Approvals N Commluion previously decided not to charge he for contested hearings intended to be ail inclusive.

The NRC performs reviews that do not becaum a hearing gives the pubhc an g

g g;

opportunity to intervene or participate

1. Incident investigation Teams (UTs) approvals. For example, the NRC staff in The purpose of the agency's incident reviews b asults of the Individual doj*

d *

2 FR 22 9 7

investigation program as to invetigata Plant Exams (D'E) submittals requested 2,1977). b Mgeted costs an significant opersuonal events involving by a generic letter and prepares a draA recovered through annual be assessed power reactors and other facilities in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the to su ucensees of a pardalst clan.

systematic and technically sound findings. to CFR part 170 fees are not Pohey Changes minner. Cause of 6 events are auessed because the IPE review does ditermined so the NRC can take not result in a letter of approval or an One option to address b actiens for corrective actions. An incident amendment to the technical appucants, beenma, or obr investigstjon team investigates events of specifications or ucena. NRC also organizations identified above is to a potentially major significance.

conducts Probabilistic Risk Analysis modify to CFR part 170 to recover the Curmntly the costs of these (FRA) reviews of specific reactors, costs incurred for spedfic actions from investigations are recovered through These reviews have rwulted in the the idanunable acipients.

annual fees.

generation of a SER. % SER pmvides American Minir>g Congress Petition a general description of the staff's

2. Vendor Inspections conclusloca on the strengths and (Pf % 170 4) weaknmaos of the PRA with more NRC conducts inspections of specific conclusions on areas identified W American Mirdng Congnsa suppliers of nuclear components, by NRC as subject to potential tirand"g (AMC), which filed a petition for meterials, and services in response to aedon. such as changes in the technical rulemaking on February 4,1993,is a specific hardware failuns regulatory spedfications.10 CFR part 170 he are national trade association of mining and concerns. or allegadons to determine not auessed becauw the review does mineral prnreasing companies that wh ther these suppliers an in not result in a letter of approval or an compliance with applicable NRC and amendment to the technical includes owners and operators of industry requirements. Currently part spedfications or licena. Another uranium mills, min tailings sites, and m situ uranium production facilities who 170 fus are not assessed for bse example is NRC's aview of financial an NRC heensees. Members of the AMC inspections because vendors are not assuranceMam="4saloning funding who um bypmduct radioactive applicants or licensees of the l

P ans or medical quality management Commission.The costs of these Programs. NRC review of such materials must be licanmd by either the inspections an recovered through submittals does not nault in an NRC or an Agrooment State. Because the issues raised by the tion concern the annual be awessed to power reactors.

'PProval or license amendment.

same subject as the rgy Policy Act 1 Allegations Therefore, no 10 CFR part 170 fee la fee requirement, the NRC is also currently assessed. To recover 100 requesting public comment on the NRC conducts investigations of percent of the budget authority, the inues raised in PRM-170-4 in this allegations of wrongdoing by NRC budgeted costs for be reviews an document.

licensees and others within its recovered through annual fees.

regulatory jurisdiction NRC also

8. Orders to 1icenna and Amendments Adverse lampacts on the Petitioner conducts inspections of allegations Resulting From Nee Spedfic Orders b AMC has submitted this petition maa nv third parties regarding specific for rulemandng on behalf ofits members hcense a. Not all allegauons an NM lasues orders to licensees and that hold NRC tirannaa because it substantiated b Commluion reviews and approves amendments to believes they have been advormly henna resulting from b specinc afected by the current license fee rule, pt viously dedded it would not charge orders. Under curant pohey (cantained %

tioner states that many ofits to CFR part 170 fees for inspections in footno'.e 1 to $ 170.21 and footnote 2 rwulting from third party allegations (49 to $ 170.31) 10 CFR part 170 fees are Class I uranium recovery sites that have rnem who hold NRClicenses are FR 21298:May 21.1984). The budgeted not assessed for the orders or ceased operations and are walung for costs for these investigations are amendments reeutting from the orders NRC approval of reclamation plans, or recovered from each class oflicensee because the NRC on its own initiative.

are on standby. b petitioner believes through annual fees.

lasues an order.The order is not it unfair that these facilities must

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 73 / Monday. April 19, 1993 / Proposed Rules 21121 continue to pay the NRC an annual fee e ramumahle r=fhMp to the beneSt b Depetment of Enugy (DOE)is becaum by no longer penwate revenue provided by NRC oversight and improperly receiving NRC ovnsight and and require very little NRC supervision. regulation.,

review of its mill tailing site reclamation The petitioner also amerts that some of

t. De Petit 2oner suggests the activities without being charged fees by these facillues have been awaiting NRC implementation of a system that allows the NRC. Furthermore. NRC attention to approval of final raamation plans for NRC licensees to have some control ovw DOE sites pmvents odoquate NRC as long as six or seven yurs, but in h fees they are assessed. According to the resources to be committed to address meantsme must continue to pay the NRC petitioner, no rational riiationship private sector licanaing matters, an annual foe.

exists between the fees charged b the resulting in exorbitant costs to certain The Petitioner's Concern' NRC licensees who must continue to n

AH y

The petitioner's primary concern is should be estabushed that reviews the Pay the NRC fees for many years while that a system that allows an egency to NRC fu system annually, monitors NRC awaiting NRC action, recover iOO percent ofits costs invites inspection activities to prevent The Petitioner's Conclusion regulatory abuse as there are no regulatory abuse, and proposes revisions safeguards present to ensure that fees to the fee system to eliminate The petitioner has identified several are collected in relation to the amount inequitable tmatment oflicansees.

significant advwse impacts which it of necessary NRC ovwsight and

2. The petitioner suggets that the claims have affected its membus as a mgulation. The petitioner states that.

NRC develop a consistent method for result of the current NRC fee system under the current fee system, the NRC applying charges.The petitionw which provida for inequitable is not accountable to anyone and has no behove that the NRC should supply treatment oflicensees and the potential oversight or quality control for licensees with a cost sheet that for regulatory abuse. The petitioner inspection efforts. There are no limits dwabs charges for vuious type of believes that the fees imposed by the on how often inspections occur no services and a speciac response interval NRC unfairly burden its uranium provisions for licensees to object to schedule that prescribes dudlines for mcove'7 aduum bt han caud f

costs, and no easurance for expeditious all NRC regulatory services. This would service by the NRC.

eliminate inequities that may occur operation and are awaiting NRC The petitioner claims the NRC is when the procasaing of simple approval of reclamation plans,in some violaung the " fundamental principle of amendment requests takes some NRC cases for rnany ymis. The peudoner law" that a masonable miauonship must staff members longer than others to requests that the NRC consider its exist between the cost to licensees of a complete. The peutioner also suggests Proposals to amend the rules in 10 CFR regulatory program and the benent that the NRC establish time limits for Parts 170 and 171, derived from the regulatory services.

processing, such as 30 days for simple I.ist of SubW The petitioner believes the 67 percent license amendment requests, and increase in fees for Class I facilities over publish the response times for various 10 CFR Part 170 the prior year is excessive in ngulatory services in a table that would comparison with the 6 percent increase be distributed to licensees.

Byproduct material. Import and in the annual NRC appropriation.The 3.The p>utioner suggets that the export licenses. Intergovernmental petiuoner believes that fee increases NRC provide a more complete and relations.Non payment penalues, should be consistent with the NRC detailed accounting of b services it Nuclur matwials. Nuctur power plants pracuce of using the consumer price provides. Curantly.6 NRC lists only and reactors. Source material. Special index for annual adjustment of surety the hours spent and the hourly rate on nudoar material.

bonds. The petitioner believes the bills sent to licensees. In addition to annual fee is exorbitant for Class I simply listing the time spent and the 10 CFR Part 171 urardum recovery sites, especially those hourly rate, the petitioner believes that Annual charges. Byproduct material, that have ceased operations and have NRC charges should be itsmired to also Holders of certi5 cates, registradons, been waiting for several years br NRC indude a desciption of the work approvals, latergovunmental relations, royal of reclamation plana.

Performed the name(s) of the ophhe petitioner also state that the individual (s) who rformed the work.

g,

113,, pocj ma e{aQu,c er Power plants and 3123 hourly charge for regulatory and 6 dates on w ch the work was services is excessive for NRC staff afforts performed.

macton, Source material. Special and notes that such an amount is 4.The petitioner sugguts that the nudoar material, equivelent to the rate charged by a NRC shminate factors that contribute to The authority citation for this senior consultant at a nationally the inequitable treatment of licensees. ' document is: Sec. 2903(c). Public Law recognized consulting arm.

D* Petitioner believes that fees should 102-486.106 Stat. 3125.

The Petitioner's Proposals

[I'III*'M*'7""d'hi813'hd'Y I

t vn d mq v

tle o P The petitioner requests that to CFR NRC supervision, such as for uranium parts 170 and 171 be amended to fuel cyde sitm that have ceased For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

alleviate the inequitable impacts of operation and are waiting for NRC Saimmel f. Chilk.

NRC-impond fees on its members, approval of reclamation plans.

Secretaryof the Commission.

specifically for Class I uranium mcovery According to the petitioner, the intent of (FR Doc. Sheo65 FUed 4-t6-S3; e 45 aml sites that have ceased operation and Congress in enacting the Omnibus somcaos w await NRC approval of reclamation Budget Raconciliation Act of 1990 was plans. The pettuoner also suB8mts he that non-power reactor facilities should 6 NRC implement certain standards be exampt for 6 moet part from annual for servjces provided.no petitions fem because by comprise less than offers the following specific suggestions three percent of the NRC's regulatory for ensuring that the fee schedule bears costs. The petitioner also believes that

- Enclosure 2 Comments - Reactor Licensees and Their Reoresentatives 1.

Aerotest

_(149) 2.

Arizona Public Service Co.

(534) 3.

B&W Owners Group

.(528) 4.

Carolina Power'& Light Co.

(527) 5.

Centerior Energy (524) 6.

Commonwealth Edison (473) 7.

Duke Power Co.

(523) 8.

Duquesne Light Co.

(520) 9.

Entergy (488) 10.

Florida Power & Light Company (519) 11.

General Atomics (151) (532) 12.

Georgia Power (493) 13.

Karl W.

Gross, Reactor Operator (460) 14.

Northeast Utilities (526) 15.

NUMARC (475) 16.

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

(522) 17.

Philadelphia Electric Co.

(529) 18.

Southern California Edison Co.

(508)-

19.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.

(444) 20.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (494) 21.

TU Electric (463) 22.

Union Electric (141)

. :2 3.

Virginia Power (535) 24.

Washington Public Power Supply System (480)

25. -Winston & Strawn (509) 1

a Comments - Fuel Facility Licensees and Their Reoresentatives 1.

ABB-Combustion Engineering (518) 2.

Allied Signal (495) 3.

American Mining Congress (496) (554) 4.

B&W Fuel Company.

(474) 5.

Hunton & Williams (552) 6.

Louisiana Energy

. (489) 7.

Rio Algom Mining Corporation (505) 8.

Siemens Power Corporation (512)

'9.

U.S.

Council for Energy Awareness (510) 10.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation (492).

e i

2

e Comments - Educational Licensees and Their Renresentatives 1.

American Council on Education (541) 2.

American Society for Engineering Education

-(557) 3.

Central Michigan University (555)'

7 4.

Christopher Plavney (483) (516) 5.

Cornell University (490) 6.

Eastern Michigan University (507) 7.

Fermin M.

Perez (542) 8.

Georgia State University (1) 9.

John R. Anderson (560) 10.

Margaret R. Kunselman (461) 11.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (481) (547)

(566)

12. -Mount Holyoke College (533) 13.

National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR)

(546) 14.

National Science Foundation (521) 15.

North Carolina State University (543)

.j l

i

)

~

)

1 i

1 i

16.

Ohio State University (464) (466)

(472)'(544)

(545) 17.

Oregon State University (558) 18.

Penn State University (465).

19.

Princeton University (457) 20.

Purdue University (430) 21.

Saint John's University (538) 22.

Saint Mary's College (559) 23.

Simmons College (564) 24.

Smith College (530) 25.

South Dakota State University (549) 26.

University of California-Irvine (548) 27.

University of Cincinnati (553) 28.

University of Delaware (138) 29.

University of Florida (556) 30.

University of Illinois (504) 31.

University of Massachusetts (459) 32.

University of Miami (531) 33.

University of Michigan (561) 34.

University of Missouri (Rolla)

(550) 35.

University of Texas (537) 36.

University of Wisconsin (551) 37.

Washington & Lee University (539) 38.

Washington State University (536) 39.

Xavier University.

(563)'

I I

4 l

l l'

.^

Comments - Medical Licensees and Their _ Representatives J

1.

American Association of Clinical (434)

Endocrinologists 2.

American College of Nuclear hysicians (511) 3.

American College of Radiology (517) 4.

Association of Independent Research Institutes (497) 5.

Colorado Hospital Assn.

(503) 6.

Dean W.

Broga, Ph.D.

(486) 7.

Elias C.

Dow, M.D.

(449) 8.

HCA Jo.inston-Willis Hospital (471) 9.

Hospital Association of Pennsylvania (485) 10.

Hospital Pavia (62) 11.

Hot Springs County Memorial Hospital (478)

l 12.

John R.

Sinkey, M.D.

(453) 13.

Lahey Clinical Medical Center (421) 14.

Medical College of Wisc',nsin (2) 15.

Metabolism Associates (67) 16.

New England Medical Cester (514) 17.

Northern Virginia Endecrinologists (4) 18.

Richard B.

Guttler, M.D.

(439) 19.

Stan A.

Huber Consultants, Inc.

(5) 20.

St. John's Mercy Medical Center (441) 5

4 Licensees - Industrial

1. AGG Rok Materials (98)

2. Air Transport Assn.

(515) 3.

Apgee Corporation (484)

4. Applied Geoscience & Engineering (433)

5. Applied Radiant Energy Corporation (540) 6.

Atchison Casting (452) 7.

Berthold Systems, Inc.

(501)

8. Bowen & Lawson (60) (422) 9.

Braun Intertec (491)

10. City of Toledo, Ohio (442)

11. Consol Inc.

(143)

12. Duratek (455)

13. Earthtec Inc.

(562)

14. Ebasco (477)

15. Froehling & Robertson (429)

16. Frontier Logging Corporation (75)

17. Glovier & Associates, Inc.

(6)

18. Glover Construction Co.,

Inc.

(146)

19. Grinnell Corporation (450)

20. Homestake Engineering (454)

21. Intermountain Testing Co.

(502)

22. International Hydronics (59)-

23. IRRITEC (500)

24. Isomedix (435) 25.EJ. H.

Shears' Sons, Inc.

(123)

26. John R. Mercier, H.

P.

(458)

27. Mcdonald-Maan Associates (144) l

28. Merillat (7)

29. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (482) 3 0.- National Asphalt Pavement Assoc.

(150) l

31. Novagen (424) l

32. Okanogan County Dept. of Public Works (476)

33. Pashelinsky Smelting & Refining Corp.

(61) 1 6

l l

1

34. Passaic Valley Water Commission (451)

35. Radiation Monitoring Devices, Inc.

(427)

36. Springfield Water Department (436)

37. Stocker & Yale, Inc.

(487)

38. Teledyne Engineering Services (565)

39. TERRA Engineering & Construction Corp.

(3)

40. Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc.

(8) (467)

41. Vecellio & Grogan, Inc.

(145)

42. Wilson Engineering (423)

43. Yankee Engineering & Testing, Inc.

(425)

COMMENTS REFERENCING TROXLER ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. FORM LETTER (COMMENT NUMBER 8) DATED 5/19/93

44. Ackenheil & Associates (139)

45. Ackenheil Engineers, Inc.

(363)

46. Adams Construction Co.

(16) (53)

47. Ajax Paving Industries (448)

48. Allied Construction Technologies, Inc.

(315)

49. Allied Corporation,-Inc.

(63)

50. Allied Testing Labs, Inc.

(394)

51. Ambric Engineering, Inc.

(158) (358)

52. Ambric Testing & Engineering Associates of VA (152)

53. Ambric Testing & Engineering Associates of PA (157)

54. Ambric Testing Assoc. of New Jersey, Inc.

'(216)

55. American Engineering & Testing, Inc.

.(446)

56. Anco Testing Laboratories, Inc.-

.(101) (250)

57. Anderson Engineering, Inc.

(302) 58.'APAC-Virginia, Inc.

(251)

59. ARTCO Contracting, Inc.

(382)

60. Ashco, Inc.-

(192)

61. Asphalt Materials Inc.

(190)

62. Asphalt Road & Materials Co.,

Inc.

(22) 7

4

63. Asphalt Paving, Inc.

(364)

64. Atec Associates, Inc.

(187) (296)

65. Banner Associates, Inc.

(44)

66. Bardon Trimount, Inc.

(389)

67. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc.

(54)

68. Barrientos & Associates, Inc.

(140)

69. BBC & M Engineering, Inc.

'(219)

70. Beaver Excavating Co.

(15)

71. Becher-Hoppe $ngineers (409)

72. Beery &' Assoc., Inc.

(329)

73. Bellezza Company, Inc.

(212)

74. Bernardin, Lochmueller & Assoc. Inc.

(213)

75. Berrien County Road Commission (202)

76. Betteroads Asphalt Corporation (262)

77. Blacktop Products Co.

(56)

78. Blair Bros., Inc.

(330)

79. Blazosky Associates, Inc.

(29)

80. Blue Rock Industries (206)

81. Borings Soils & Testing, Co.

(255) (256)

82. Boss Engineering (347)

83. Bowen Construction Co.

(19)

84. Bowen Engineers & Survey (199)

85. Bowers & Assoc.

(227)

86. Bowser Morner, Inc.-

(271)

87. Braken Construction Co.

(97)-

88. Bridge Construction Corp.

(121)

89. Brooks Construction Co.,

Inc.

(203)

90. Bruschi Brothers, Inc.

(311)

91. Bucher,-Willis & Ratliff

_(130)

92. Buckley - Lages, Inc.

(26). ( 81)'

93. Burgess & Niple (72) (295) 94.-Byrne Sand'& Gravel Co.,

Inc.

(384)

95. Campbell Paris Engineers (307)

96. Capital Consultants, Inc.

(156)

97. Canonie Environmental (31) (83) 8

=

=

98. Carl Kelly Paving (279) 99.

C.

C.

Mangum, Inc.

(248) 100. Central Paving Co.

(301) 101. Charleston Construction Co.

(11) 102. Chester Bros. Consturction Co.

(412) (437) 103. CHMP, Inc.

(134) 104. City of Bryan, Ohio (416) 105. City of Detroit, Michigan (287) 106. City of Flint, Michigan (162) 107. City of Goshen, Indiana (249) 108. City of Kettering, Ohio (392) 109. City of Newport News, VA (185) 110. City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (291) 111. City of West Bend, Indiana (169) 112. Civil Engineering Services (207) 113. Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

(177) 114. CMC Engineering (222) 115. Cole Associates (186) 116. Commercial Asphalt Co.

(9) 117. Commonwealth of Virginia (377) 118. Compton Construction Co. Inc.

_(88) 119. Con-Spec, Inc.

(274) 120. Construction Design Consultants (338) 121. Construction Engineering Consultants, Inc.

(359) 122. Construction Services Assoc.

(181) 123. Construction Testing Services, Inc.

(242) 124. County of Fairfax, VA (232) 125. County of Henrico,. Virginia (166) 126. County of St. Clair (215) 127.

C.

T.

Consultants, Inc.

_(278) 128. CTI & Assoc., Inc.

(155) 129. CTL of Virginia, Inc.

(104) 130. Cumberland G eotechnical (99) 131. Cuyahoga Cotnty Engineers Testing Lab (118) 132. D'Appolonia (161)'

i i

1 133. David Blackmore & Assoc., Inc.

(383) 134. Dell Contractors (167) 135. Donaldson Mine Company (375) 136. Donegal Construction Corp.

(297) 137. EACCO Construction Co.

(173) 138. Earth Engineering, Inc.

(373) 139. Ebasco (418) 140. Earth, Inc.

(195) 141. Earth Exploration, Inc.

(336) 142. Ebony Construction Co.,

Inc.

(349) 143. EDP Consultants, Inc.

(95) 144.

E.

L.

Conwell & Co.

(30) (90) 145. Elkhart County Highway Department (180) 146. Empire Construction & Materials, Inc.

(267) 147. EMSI Engineering, Inc.

(170) 148. Engineering & Testing Consultants, Inc.

(419) 149. Engineering Mechanics, Inc.

(312) (388) 150. Engineering & Testing Services, Inc.

(351) (380) 151. English Construction Co.,

Inc.

(93) 152. Erdman, Anthony Assoc., Inc.

(293) 153. Esmer & Assoc., Inc.

(354) 154.

E. T.

& L. Construction Corp.

(324) 155.

E.

V.

Williams Co.,

Inc.

(132) (260) 156. Farlow Environmental Engineers, Inc.

(86)' (362) 157. Fenwick Enterprises, Inc.

(253) 158. Flexible Pavements, Inc.

(114) 159. Flexible Pavements Council of W.Va.

(360) 160. Foster Grading Co.

(244) 161. Foxfire Consultants, Inc.

-(28)

.162. Frank Bros., Inc..

(117) 163. Gannett Fleming, Inc.

(172) 164. Gaunt & Son Asphalt, Inc.

(320) 165. GEI Consultants (411) 166. General Engineering Company, Inc.

(366) 167. Gennaro Pavers, Inc.

(74) 10

, ~

168. George Harms Construction Co.,

Inc.

(269) (381) 169. George & Lynch, Inc.

(264)'

170. Geo-Science Engineering Co.,

Inc.

(125) 171. Geotechnical Group, Inc.

(66) 172. Gectecnics, Inc.

(32:1) 173. Geotech Inc.

(148) 174. Geo-Test, Ltd.

(178) 175. Gerken Materials, Inc.

(17)I 176. Gilmore & Asso'c. Inc.

(355) 177. Gla;gow, Inc.

(76) 178.

G.

M. T.

Inc.

(408) 179. Gohmann Asphalt & Construction Co.

(37) 180. Golder Assoc., Inc.

(397) 181. Gosling Czubak Assoc.

(209) 182. Goyle Engineering, Inc.

(78) 183. Grannas Bros. Contracting Co.,

Inc.

(289) 184. Grindle & Bender (68) 185. Gust K. Newberg Construction Co.

(321) 186. Haines and Kibblehouse, Inc.

(228) 187. Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

(374) 188. Hallei Testing Labs (137) 189. Hs '.cn & Assoc.

(396) 190. Ha.u * :L Asphalt & Paving, Inc.

(71) 191. Han.4'r Testing & Engineering, Inc.

(378) 192. Harms Inc.

(116) 193. Hatcher-Sayre, Inc.

(395) 194. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (304) (305) 195. Heffner Construction Co.

(106)

'96.

Hempt Bros., Inc.

(280) 19'i. Hennessey Engineers, Inc.

(401) 198. Herbert and Assoc., Ltd.

(350) 199. Herzog. contracting Corp.

(335) 200. Highway Materials, Inc.-

(58)

.201. Hills Materials Company

'(13) 202. H&D Inc.

(40) 11 m

m.

203. H. 5. Schneider Construction, Inc.

(339) 204. Hobet Mining Inc.

(225) 205. Hornor. Brothers Engineers (18) (82) 206. HRI Inc.

(184) (346) 207. Hunt Engineers, Inc.

(348) 208. Huntington Asphalt Corporation (352) 209. Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

(233) 210. Indianapolis Airport Authority (406) 211. Independent Materials Testing Labs, Inc.

(85) 212. Inspectorate (220) 213. Interstate Construction Corp.

(333) 214. Isabella County Road Commission (160) 215. James D. Cummins Co.,

Inc.

(198) 216. Jeff Zell Consultants

63) 217. Jersey Technology Labs, Inc.

(322) 218. J. H.

Rudolph & Co.,

Inc.

(128) (129) 219. J&L Engineering, Inc.

(27) 220. John E.

Munsey (445)-

221. John T.

Boyd Company (188) 222. Johnson Soils Engineering Co.

(122) 223. Julian & Wilmarth, Inc.

(34) 224. Kent County Michigan Bd. of Public Works (240) 225. Kent County Road Commissi (224) 225. Keystone Landfill, Inc.

(420) 227. Keystone Lime Co.,

Inc.

(398) (399) 228. Key Tech (261) 229. KFC Airport, Inc.

(102) 230. Killam Associates (231) (410)

?31. Klug Bros., Inc.

(371)

E32. K & M Construction Co.

(393) 233. Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc.

(309) 234. Koester Contracting Corp.

(96) 235. Kokosing Materials, Inc.

(230) 236. K & S Testing & Engineering, Inc.

.(285) 237. Kupper & Co.

(133) 12

238. Lawhorne Brothers (32) 239. L-C Associates, Inc.

(110) 240. Lee Highway Paving Corp.

(282) 241.. Lee-Simpson Assoc., Inc.

(235) 242. Limestone Products Corp.

(313)1 243. Livingston County Road Comm.

(254).

244.

L. Robert Kimball & Assoc., Inc.

(196) 245. MAC Construction Co.

(298) (299) 246. Macallum Testi'ng Labs, Inc.

(283) 247. Mackin Engineering Co.

(36)'

248. Macomb County Road Commission (332) i 249. Management Engineering Corporation (179) 250. Marvin-Moberly Construction Co.

(100) 251. Marvin V.

Templeton & Sons, Inc (35) 252. Mashuda Corp.

(193) (276)

(277) 253. Mason-de Verteuil Geotechncial Services (41) (252) 254. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (52) 255. Mayer Bros. Construction Co.

(415) 256. M-B Contracting Co.,

Inc.

(14) 7 257. McCallum Testing-Laboratories, Inc.

(45) 258. McTish, Kunkel & Assoc.

(300)

'259. Mead & Hunt, Inc.

(175) 260. Mega Contractors, Inc.

(57) 261. Melick-Tully & Associates, Inc.

(153)'

262. Meshberger Brothers Stone Corp.

( 194) 263. Midland County Road Commission (316) 264. Midwest Environmental Consultants, Inc.

(405) 265. Midwestern Consulting, Inc.

(387) 266. Miller Associates (403) 267. Miller Bros. Construction, Inc.

(165) 268. Miller-Mason Paving (303) 269. Moore Brothers Company, Inc.

(77) 270.. Moore & Bruggink (218) 271. Morrison-Maierle (131) 13 i

.1 g

272. Morley and Assoc., Inc.

(428) 273. M.

S. Consultants, Inc.

(310) 274. Mt. Pleasant Central Asphalt Paving Co.

(126) 275. Muskegon County Road Comm.

(243) 276. New Prince Concrete Construction Co.

.(226) (308) 277. Nordlund & Assoc., Inc.

(204) 278. Northwoods, Inc.

(286) 279. Northeastern Road Improvement Co.

(247) 280. Norwood Asphalt Products (92) 281. NTH Consultants, Ltd.

(265) 282. Nowak & Fraus Corp.

(413) 283. Ohio Valley Electric Corp.

(356) 284. Ohio Valley Paving Corp.

(353) 285. OHM Remediation Services Corp.

(379) 286. Old Forge Testi.

No.

(46) 287. Oldover Corp.

(361) 288. OMM Engineering (176) 289. Orders Construction Co.

(87) 290. Orders & Haynes Paving Co.

(197) 291. Oscoda County Road Commission (211) 292. Ottawa County Road Commission (221) 293. Pavers, Inc.

(317) 294.

P.C.

Goodloe & Son, Inc.

(39) (79) 295. Penn-Carrington Engineering Group (154) 396. Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Assoc.

(111) 297. Pennsylvania Testing Labs (105) 298. Phend & Brown, Inc.

(214) 299. Pike Industries, Inc.

(168) 300. Port Engineering Assoc., Inc.

(245) 301. Potomac Construction Co.

(272) 302. Professional Engineering. Assoc., Inc.

(200) 303. Professional Service Industries of MA

.(376) 304. Professional Service Industries of PA (400) 305. PSI Energy (127) 306. Quality Environmental Services, Inc.

(229)-

14 i

1

V 307. Ranger Fuel Corp.

(294) 308. RBS Inc.

(38) 309. REA Construction (107) 310. Rieth-Riley Construction Co.,

Inc.

(135) 171)

(

(367) 311. Rissler & McMurry, Co.

(112) 312. Robert A. Kinsley, Inc.

(266) 313. Rock Road Companies, Inc.

(259) 314. Rogers Group, Inc.

(65) 315. Regional Services Corp.

(147) 316. R. H. Armstrong, Inc.

(33) 317. Richard H. Howe (275) 318. Road Commission, Oakland County, Michigan (386) 319. Rogers Group, Inc.

(318) 320. Roncari Industries (43) 321. Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc.

(263) 322. Roy N.

Ford Co.,

Inc.

(73) 323. R.

S.

Scott Associates, Inc.

(47) 324. Rust Environmental & Infrastructure (223) 325.

S.

A.-Charnas, Inc.

(113) 326. Saginaw Asphalt Paving Co.

(103) 327. SAI Consulting Engineers, Inc.

(24G) 328. Samtest, Inc.

(326) 329. Sanilac County Road Commission (345) 330. Sarver Paving Co.

(20) 331. Schloss Paving Co.

(417) 332. Schnabel Engineering Assoc.

(119).

333. SCI Consultants, Inc.

(370) 334. Scott Civil Engineering Co.

(443) 335. Scott Construction.Co.

(189) '~

336. Scott-Consulting Engineers (80)-

337.

S.

E. Johnson /Stoneco, Inc.

(237) 338. Seneca Petroleum Co.,

Inc.

(124) 339. Shelly Company (234) 15

340. Shilts, Graves & Associates, Inc.

(51) (70) 341. Site Engineers, Inc.

(201) (217)

(325) 342. Slusser Bros. Trucking & Excavating Co. Inc. (120) 343. Soil Consultants, Inc.

(281) 344. Soil Testing, Inc.

(94) 345. Soils & Engineering Services, Inc.

(136) 346. Soils & Materials Engineers, Inc.

(258) 347. Sumat Engineering (238) 348. South Atlantic Coal Co.

(241) 349. South State, Inc.

(268) 350. Southern West Virginia Paving, Inc.

(319) 351.

S. R.

Draper Paving Co.,

Inc.

(257) 352. Stack Engineering (407) 353. Stafford Consultants (10) 354. Standard Testing and Engineering Co.

(42) 355. Stavola Company (391) 356. STS Consultants Ltd.

(369) 357. Stuart M.

Perry, Inc.

(290) 358. STV Sanders & Thomas (284) 359. Summit Testing & Inspection Co.

(343) 360. Summers Construction Co.,

Inc.

(327) (342) 361. Superior Asphalt Company (341) 362.

S. W.

Cole Engineering, Inc.

(344) 363. Swecker Engineering & Surveying (12) 364. Sweetland Engineering (273) 365. T. A. Houston & Assoc.

(174) 366. Technical Testing, Inc.

(142) l 367. Terry Eagle Coal Co.

_(438) j 368. Testing Engineers & Consultants, Inc.

(159) 369. Testwell Craig Labs of CT.,

Inc.

(208) (239) 370. Tibbetts Engineering Corp.

(365) l 371. Tikon Maine, Inc.

(191) 372.

T. J.

L'ampbell Construction Co.

(64) 373. Trap Rock Industries, Inc.

(23) 16

374. Triad Engineering (50) (84)

(337) 375. T. R. Valentine & Assoc., Inc.

(108) 376. Valley Asphalt Company (314) (390) 377. Valley Asphalt Corporation (55) 378. Valley Forge LEboratories, Inc.

(447) 379. Valley Sanitation Co.,

Inc.

(164) 380. Vanderburgh County Engineering (334) 381. Vantage Paving, Inc.

(49) (109) 382. Vermont Testing (236) 383. VHB Associates (404) 384. Viking Coal Company, Inc.

(25) 385. Watts Contractors, Inc.

(69) 386. Wehran Engineering (288) 387. Weldon Asphalt Co.

(182) 388. West Penn Asphalt Paving Co.,

Inc.

(292) 389. West Virginia Division of Highways (183) 390. West Virginia Testing, Inc.

(205) 391. Whitman & Howard (328) 392. Whitworth-Muench Co.

(414) 393. Widmer Engineering, Inc.

(357) 394. Wightman Environmental, Inc.

(368) 395. Wilbur Smith Associates (372) 396. William F._Loftus Assoc.

(331) 397. William Beaudoin & Sons, Inc.

(48) 398. William A. Green Assoc.

(340) '525) 399. Wine Construction Inc.

(402) 400. Whitta Construction Co.

(21) 401. Windsor Service, Inc.

'(24) 402. Wolverine Engineers (431) 403. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (270) (385) 404. Wyandet Dolomite Assoc.

(89) (91) 405. Wyoming Sand & Stone Co.

(201) 406. Zannino Engineering (115) (306) 17

Federal Acencies 1.

Department of Army (506) 2.

Department of. Energy

-(498) (499) 3.

Department of Veterans Affairs (456) 4.

U.S.

Department of Agriculture (432) 9 18.

-t 4

m

^

State Acencies and Their ReDresentatives 1.

Minnesota Department of Health (440) 2.

' Organization of Agreement States (468) 3.

State of Colorado (513) 4.

State of Florida (469) 5.

State of Hawaii (426) 6.

State of Illinois (462) 7.

State of Washington

. (470)-

8.

Texas Radiation Advisory Board (479) i I

I

.1 1

e i

19

s, 1 :

FY 1993 Fees Related To Fairness and Equity Concerns

($ In Millions)

Current Allocation Total Power Reactors Other Licensees Activities Not Related to an Existina NRC Licensee-

. International.

$8.4

$8.4 Low-Level Waste 9.2 6.7 2.5 Agreement State oversight 3.8 3.1

~

0.7 Subtotal

$21.4

$18.2

$3.2 Activities Not' Assessed

'To' Direct Beneficiary Due to Leaislative or Policy Constraints Part'170 Exemption for DOE and Other' Federal Agencies 5.7 5.2

.5 Non-Profit Educational Exemption 7.1 7.1 Small Entity 5.4 4.6 0.8 Subtotal

$18.2

$16.9

$1.3 Share of NRC Reaulatory Activities-that also support Aareement State Licensees 15.0V 15.0 Total

$54.6

$35.1

$19.5 F epresents.70 percent of the cost for generic regulatory activities.(e.g.,-

R rulemaking, research, program development, and operating experience. evaluations) that-support both NRC and Agreement State material licensees.

1

.