ML20125E223
| ML20125E223 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1992 |
| From: | Scroggins R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | Bernero R, Norry P, Rothschild T NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125E155 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR32691, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AE20-2-010, AE20-2-10, NUDOCS 9212160253 | |
| Download: ML20125E223 (274) | |
Text
___ _______ - - - .
kmAf0g
+ gig t
y
n I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
//d jQog
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20056
't, e s,,s / ...
UUN 3 01992 i MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director, NMSS Harold R. Denton, Director, IP Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM i Trip Rothschild, Deputy Assistant i
General Counsel for Legal Counsel Special Projects and Legislation, OGC I FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
SUBJECT:
FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 10 CFR PABTS 170 AND 171 -- 100% FEE RECOVERY FOR FY 1992 Enclosed, for your concurrence, is a final rule for the fees to be assessed to r3 cover 100 percent of the NRC budget authority for FY 1992. This rule has been reviewed by your staff and their comments resolved.
.Please note that in order to meet the time schedule for this paper, we are providing each addressea a separate concurrence copy of the paper. Please provide your concurrence as quickly as possible, but not later than noon, Wednesday, July 1, 1992.
If you have any questions, please contact Jesse Fuliches.on X27351 or Jim Holloway on X24301. Thank you for your continued cooperation on the NRC fee program.
l Ronald M.-Sctoggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
Enclosure:
As stated 9212160253 921113 Pb POR PR
-170 57FR32691 .PDR
)
l
~
- l s trouq$**, f $d-A 3 o UNITED STATES
!' i
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20886 [/15g
/
,s., ,,,,,/ .-
c_ -~
'JUN 3 01992 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director, NMSS-Harold R. Denton, Director, IP Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM Trip Rothschild, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel Special Projects and Legislation, OGC FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
SUBJECT:
FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 -- 100% FEE RECOVERY FOR FY 1992 Enclosed, for your concurrence, is a final rule for the fees to be assessed to recover 100 percent of the NRC budget authority for FY 1992. This rule has been reviewed by your staff and their comments resolved.
Please note that in order to meet the time schedule for this paper, we are providing each addressee a separate concurrence
_l copy of the paper. Please provide your concurrence as quickly as possible, but not later than noon, Wednesday, July 1, 1992.
If you have any questions, please contact Jesse Funches on X27351 or Jim Holloway on X24301. Thank you for your continued cooperation on the NRC fee program.
/>
Ronald M..Scrog ins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
Enclosure:
I As stated
+ p@c d Auu
% m (n HM 4v hu1J , &
E rzrg .
Y l' '
6fX4HB /$Y JN' 6 DISTRIBUTION AND CONCURRENCE FOR:
J 10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 RIN:
[7590 '1]
100?. FEE RECOVERY, FY 1992 3150 AE20 - REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES * '
l OISTRIBUTION:
TRothschild, OC R/F, OC S/F, JHo'loway, JFunches, RMBernero, PGNorry, HRDenton, RMScroggins, GJackson. 0 Weiss JMTaylor, E00 R/F, JTurdici, LHiller, 00andois, l
l 1
OFFICE :OC [ :OC
[ : 11 Sp :ADM NAME : kloway :JF M es : Bhr$ero : PGliorry DATE : 6gj92 :6/ /92 Ih]p/92\ :7/ /92 OFFICE :IP :OdC :OC :EDO NAME :HRDenton :TRothschild :RMScrogg 1.ns :JMTaylor DATE /92
- 7/ :7/ /92 :7/ /92
/92) :7/ ,
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY VO'%g pg g g ) ) 4 0$_ $
. M A a fe.5
k2 3 6 -3.
l i
% ? Co,,urr%ex ,
DISTRIBUTION AND CONCURRENCE FOR:
(7590-01]10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 RIN: 3150-AE20 -- REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES:
100% FEE RECOVERY, FY 1992 DISTRIBUTION: OC R/F, OC S/F, JHolloway, JFunches, RMBernero, PGNorry, HRDenton, TRothschild, RMScroggins, JMTaylor, ED0 R/F, JTurdici, LHiller, 00andois,
, GJackson, DWeiss l
OFFICE :OC :OC :NMSS :ADM NAME :JHolloway :JFunches :RMBernero :PGNorry DATE :6/ /92 :6/ /92 :7/ /92 :7/ /92 OFFICE :IP ($' :OGC :OC :EDO NAME on :TRothschild :RMScroggins :JMTaylor
- HR[
DATE :7/ /92 :7/ :7/
I
- 7/l /92 i
/92 /92 l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY bl on c. 2<a vi m .
NO CH AW4 55
h[$Q-}
" (* " %:,,, CCC cs,. , ,,
- 3 o UNITED STATES : e i* i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
" 'A
. ! WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 7 f g f q .,
UUN 3 01992 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director,11 MSS Harold R. Denton, Director, IP Patricia G. Ilorry, Director, ADM Trip Rothschild, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel Special projects and Legislation. OGC FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
SUBJECT:
FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 -- 100% FEE RECOVERY FOR FY 1992 Enclosed, for your concurrence, is a final rule for the fees to be assessed to recover 100 percent of the NRC budget authority for FY 1992. This rule has been reviewed by your-staff and their comments resolved.
Please note that in order to meet the time schedule for this paper, we are providing each addressee a separate concurrence copy of the paper. Please provide your concurrence as quickly as possible, but not later than noon, Wednesday, July 1, 1992.
If you have any questions, please contact Jesse Funches on X27351 or Jim Holloway on X24301. Thank you for your continued cooperation on the NRC fee program.
Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief-Financial officer / Controller
Enclosure:
As stated
= _ _ 2__ _ __ _ _ _-_ _ ___-_ __-_ _ = _-
.-o OlSTRIBUTION AND CONCURRENCE FOR:
(7590 01] 10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 RIN: 3150 AE20-- REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES; 100% FEE RECOVERY, FY-1992
~
DISTRIBUTION: OC R/F, OC S/F, JHolloway, JFunches, RMBernero, PGNorry, HRDento TRothschild, GJackson, RMScroggins, . JMiaylor. E00 R/F, JTurdici,< LHiller, 00andois, DWeiss OFFICE :OC ,
NAME
=:OC f 2NMSS - :ADM-:
- lloway :JF M esn :RMBernero :PGNorry DATE :6 g 92 _:6 /92 ':7/ :/92 : 7/;.:/92
' OFFICE :IP- :OGC -
f .:OC. : EDO' NAME :HRDenton :TR M bil'd- :RMScroggins :JMTaylor
-DATE : 7/. /92 _:7/[./92 : 7/- '/92: : 7/~ /92 .,
OFFICIAL-RECORD COPY e
k i
_..._._2.- - . _ _ . -.._.u n-- > - - -
'y$ 3 D
, MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director, NMSS Harold R. Denton, Director, IP !
Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM Trip Rothschild, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel Special Projects and Legislation, OGC l FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins
- Deputy Chief Financial
- Officer / Controller ,
SUBJECT:
FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 10 CFR i PARTS 170 AND 171 -- 100% FEE RECOVERY FOR ;
FY 1992 Enclosed, for your concurrence, is a final rule for the fees to be assessed to recover 100 percent of the NRC budget authority _
for FY 1992. This rule has been reviewed by your staff and their comments resolved.
Please note that in order to meet the time schedule for this paper, we are providing each addressee a separate concurrence copy of the paper. Please provide your. concurrence as quickly as possible, but not later than noon, Wednesday, July 1, 1992.
If you have any questions, please contact Jesse Funches on X27351 or Jim Holloway on X24301. Thank-you for your continued
- cooperation on the NRC fee program.
Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller-
Enclosure:
1 As stated DISTRIBUTION: OC R/F, OC S/F, RScroggins, JHolloway, JFunches, LHiller, DDandois-I OFFICE:-:OC-
[ 50C ':OC g :
-NAME- -
loway :JFukbes :RSchkgins~ :
DATE '6
@ 91 t
- 6/h/91 I
- 6/jo/91- :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY.
l
, _ . . , _ , _ . - _ . - - _ _ , . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ , . . - . - . . _ , . . _ _ , - - . ~ . _ . - - . . . _ _ . ~ _ . _ . _ . -
I !
- f * * *' > p pptcG 6p 6 *a"' '
y n UNITED STATES y p g, g fgj
- i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20586
,.....l .
UUN 3 01992 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director, NMSS Harold R. Denton, Director, IP l Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM Trip Rothschild, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel Special Projects and Legislation, OGC
! FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial ,
Officer / Controller '
SUBJECT:
FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 10 CFR I PARTS 170 AND 171 -- 100% FEE RECOVERY FOR '
FY 1992 Enclosed, for your concurrence,'is a final rule for the fees to be assessed to recover 100 percent of the NRC budget authority for FY ?.992. This_ rule has been reviewed by your staff and their comments resolved.
Please~ note that in order to meet the. time schedule for this paper, we a::e providing each addressee a ' separate concurrence copy of the paper. Please provide your. concurrence as quickly as possible, but not later than noon,. Wednesday, July 1, 1992.
If you have any questions, please-contact Jesse Funches-on X27351-or Jim Holloway on X24301. Thank-you for your-continued cooperation on the NRC fee program.
Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller-
Enclosure:
As stated s
i l
Y -.- . -.= ..- .
a-.-,:-. = ~ - a- : - -= H a- - - = L - -
budget. The July 10, 1991, final rule became effective August 9, 1991. In addition to establishing the FY 1991 fees, the August 9, 1991, final rule established the underlying basis and method for determining the Part 170 hourly rate and fees and the Part 171 annual fees.
This final rule includes the limited changes made to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 which were-issued as a final rule on ,,,
April 17, 19923 (57 FR 13625)j with an effective date of'May 18, 1992. The limited change to Part 170 allows the NRC to bill-quarterly for those license fees that are currently billed every
~
six months. The limited change to Part 171 adjusts the maximum annual fee assessed a materials licensee who qualifies as a small entity under the NRC's size standards. The maximum annual fee of.
$1,800 per licensed category is continued for FY'1992. However, a lower tier small entity fee of $400 per licensed category has been established for small businesses and non-profit organizations with gross receipts of less than $250,000 and small
. governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000, i
on April.29, 1992 (57 FR 18095),~the NRC published the proposed rule that presented the licensing, inspection, and annual fees necessary for the:NRC to recover approximately 100-
- percent of-its budget: authority for'FY 1992=less the appropriation received from~the NWF. The basic methodology used in the proposed rule'wasfunchanged from'that used to calculate 3
o 0
ws m r tn -e we e w w ,e,- ,-s-p~ +m wm > noe*~ w--., , - ,-A w ,e s- wo w w %. ,,v s a m -- w ~ vw ** wr- s m s ~m---~wv -
- -r*' w*vw w- w-ww-- 's,r'- - -* w w w **wv v' s
1 1
I
! the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the specific materials
}
licensing and inspection fees in Part 170, and the Part 171 l
t annual fees in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR
[ 31472).
i Because the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in j.
the July 10, 1991, final rule and because these comments were t fully addressed in that final rule, the NRC requested public j
comment only on the issue of whether the methodology adopted in FY 1991 was properly applied to the FY 1992 budget authority .
II. Responses to Comments The NRC. received nineteen public comments by the close of the comment period on May 29, 19s2 a'hd an additional ten J
commentsfbythecloseofbusinessonJune22, 1992. These comments were evaluated in the development of this final rule ,
of the. twenty-nine comments, two were from power reactor licensees or their representatives, and twenty-seven were from persons concerned with other types of licenses, including eleven comment letters from the uranium industry or their representatives.
Copies of all comment letters received are available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. .
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Many of the comments were similar in nature.
For evaluation 4
9
, y % ,...p., .,m., ,gmm., , ,.,,,._,,.m. ,
l d
purposes, these comments have been grouped, as appropriate, and addressed in the context of the narrow focus of this final rule.
i a
A. Comments Regarding Application of the Methodology.
I
- 1. Comment. A few commenters indicated that the NRC has not provided sufficient information on which to evaluate the fees j to be assessed for FY 1992. These commenters stated that the NRC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to
?
provide an explanation of how it arrived at its final determination of the annual fees, particularly as they apply to fuel cycle facilities. They also stated that the NRC did not 4
provide sufficient detail concerning the NRC budget to verify the significant changes in the proposed rule. Commenters recommend
, that NRC makc publicly available its Five Year Plan or other documents with an equivalent level of detail to provide the l information necessary to allow an effective evaluation of and permit affected licensees to provide constructive comments on the l proposed rule.
i Resnonse. The NRC believes it has provided sufficient information concerning the FY 1992 budget to allow effective evaluation and constructive comments on the proposed rule. In Part III, the Section-by-Section Analysis of the proposed rule published April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18097) the NRC provided a-detailed explanation of the FY 1992 budgeted costs for the 5
, , , , , , ,- -. -v,.
. ~ . - - _ - . - . - -- -- - . _- . - - . . . - .. -.. . . - - - - . . . - .
the NRC use the CPI or other indices for determining future adjustments to its hourly rates. -
Response. The NRC professional hourly rate is established to recover approximately 100 percent of the Congressionally approved budget, less the appropriations from the ,
NWF, as required by OBRA-90. Both the method and budgeted costs used by the NRC in the development of.the hourly rate of $123 for FY 1992 are discussed in detail in.the Part III, Section-by-Section Analysis, for $170.20 of the proposed rule (57 FR 18097).
For example,-Table II shows the direct FTEs (full time equivalents) by major program.for FY 1992 and Table'III shows the budgeted costs (salaries and benefits, adm'inistrative support, travel and other G&A contractual support) which must be recovered through fees assessed for the hours expended by the direct FTEs.
The budgeted costs have increased.$38 6 million as compared to FY 1991 levels.- This increase reflects the amount required by the l
l NRC to effectively accomplish the mission of the agency. The specific details regarding the budget for FY 1992 are documented in the NRC's publication " Budget Estimates, Fiscal Years 1992- 1' ff 1993 (NUREG-1100, Volume 7) which is available to the public.
Given the increase in the budget it is necessary to increase the-1992:. hourly rate-to-recover 100 percent of-the-budget as' required by OBRA-90. . The NRC is unable to use the CPI'or other indices in the development of the NRC hourly rate or the fees to.be assessed-under 10 CFRLParts.-170 and 171 because if the hourly rate were 7
i
.. wse , , ,,r i. n~ . - , 4, --~....o.,,.
. -..m.-..,,,,-.r~.. . . , , . . , . . , , , . .e. ,, .. ,,,, ,w.. . w e.% , --..,,r
l
~
1 .
1991 levels, increased by only three to four percent over the FY
! the NRC could not meet the requirement of OBRA-90 to recover 4
) approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority through I
a l fees.
4 I 3. Comment. Several commenters indicated that the i
l imposition of the annual fees in certain instances bears no i
" reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services" and therefore the fees violate OBRA-90 in that they i have not been " fairly and equitably" allocated among licensees.
l Commenters argue, for example, that the NRC should not charge two ])
f I fees for one process covered by two licensg s or that a higher N
amount of generic safety costs should not have been allocated to high enriched uranium facilities as compared to low enriched l uranium facilities. Another commenter states that.it is not fair i
j and equitable to assesp a UF, converter a higher fee than for a
! mill license. One commenter suggests that it-is not considered h
l " practicable" to assess all licensees of a class.to compensate i
for revenue lost from other classes of licensees because of i
license terminations and that he should be provided an accounting l of the component costs for NRC generic activities, e.g.,
! rulemaking, upgrading safeguards requirements, modifying standard t
review plans, overseeing' regional programs and developing.
i l inspection programs.
~,# s 9 gva.,
e Resoonse.
i
/
v 8 l'
l
. .. ._ . _ _ , _ _ _ .. _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ - ~ ___.
4 l regulatory services to the licensees. Consistent with the law
- r ~--
and the guidance in the Conference Report, the NRC allocated its l budgeted genevic and ot regulatory costs not recovered from 10
~~-
'n Part 1"io licens fee the major classes of licensees. To l he extent practicable and where necessary for a more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees ~was furt* - Svided into . Jbclasses. For example, NRC costs for the f., ,v tes clar.s of licensees were allocated further to UF6 couver?-c HEU fuel fabrication, LEU fuel fabrication and j other lis -s .. Within a subclass, the cost was uniformly
- allocated 7 di license in the subclass cased 'on the premise i
- that there'is no significant difference inLthe generic and other l
l regulatory services provided to cach license within a subclass.
l This approach and principle were used for all classes of licertaes.
4 i
l The corts alloca*" ' .to tne licenses within the UF6 subclass are for U.e mtfety geiseric and other regulatory activities that l
are attributable to this subclass of licenstes and that-are not l rec]vered by 10 CFlt Lar c 170 licensa and insp2ction fees. These
, costs ware allocated uniformly to each of the two-licenses within
! .the UF6 subclass, based on the premise that theredis not-a
, significant difference in the generic and other regulatory t
services provided to each of.the licenses.
i The same NRC regulations, (e.g. ,- 10 : CFP. Part- 40; , - guidance 4
17 b
. - ^ r E., -., ,,w-s kyw wP4.+ m-- .- v- ,h,,,,rm. .y -% w e -.-u--y v w . . ,e,- , n-ye,,- a y w w- > y, ,,w gy .y w,- y U-w-
for each license.
- 9. Comment.
Several commenters indicated that it appeared as if uranium licensees are being billed for agency overhead that is not attributable to the regulation of the uranium mining industry.
These commenters believe that a considerable amount of the agency resources are likely dedicated to interagency work for the Department of Energy (DOE) such as NRC review of DOE's reclamation plans for Title 5 uranium mill tailings sites, and interaction with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the promulgation of regulations.
The commenters noted that these agencies are not billed for these NRC activities which are ociated with uranium recovery. The commenters disagreed with 9
NRC's position that all substantive review at DOE sites is 1
essentially completed prior to the application for a general license for that site. The commenters also disagreed with NRC's interpretation of OBRA-90 that in order to be billed for annual
(
fees one must be a licensee of the NRC. The commenters argue that the test is whether "any person" receives a service or thi ng 7
l of value from the Commission
" collection of fees from any person" and "all because 56 OBRA-90 a licenses". That ---
person, whether a licensee or c.ot, comm.nters argue, is required to pay fees to cover the NRC's cost of providing the serviceu or thing of value.
l-Pesconse.
With respect to the 10 CFR Part 170 fees 19
based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each license within a subclass. This approach and-principle were used for all classes of licensees.
The costs allocated to the licenses within the class I subclass are for the safety generic and other regulatory activities that are attributable to this subclass of licensees and that are not recovered by 10 CFR Part 170 license and inspection. fees. These costs were allocated uniformly to each of pd\I'.
l the seven licenses within the Class I subclass. Uniform all6 cation is based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the. generic and-other. regulatory services provided
~
to each of the,.seven enses. The NRC has reexamined the allocatice of costs to the Class'I uranium recovery facilities.
This reexamination has been accomplished within the framework of the Fublic Law and accompanying Conference Report,;and the' fundaraental principles used by the NRC in establishing annual
_ fees for all classes of licensees. .The NRC generic and other-regulatory costs attributable to'the Class I facilities subclass y
are more-related to the fact that aLlicense authorizing operation exists and not to whetherithe mill is active or inactive. !Thus, a uniform allocation of. costs to eachilicense.results in an-l annual fee that has-a reasonable rnlationship-td the generic and ^
\ -
other regulatory services provided.
]
24
(
,. < ,w -
e , w, -a-n-,.. .- , , - , , . - -v , .e ,.c - . . . . - ---,-<.,v s.,,,,,,, ,..,,,.,--e,-. w - s -.-n,..N,,,,.,v,.,-
approval and thus avoid the annual fee for FY 1992.
Resnonse. In the proposed rule, the Commission indicated that during the one month period from the publication of the FY 1991 final rule on July 10, 1991, to August 9, 1991, the effective date of the rule, many licensees filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject to the FY 1991 annual fees. Many other licensees have either called or written j g, Lv.t Yp C P/,
to the NRC since the final rule became effectivej requesting
?/ "
further clarification and information concerning the annual fees assessed. The NRC is' responding to these requests as quickly as possible but it was unable to respond and take appropriate action on all of the requests before the end of the fiscal year on Septamber 30, 1991. Therefore, based on the number of requests fi]ed, the Commission will exempt from the FY 1992 annual fees those licensees, and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/ storage only licenses prior to January 1, 1992. All other licensees and approval holders who held a license or approval on October 1, 1991, will be subject to the FY 1992 annual fees. This would not, however, preclude a licensee from filing a specific exemption request with respect to the FY 1992 fees after December 31, 199 japd within ninety days of the effective date of this rule as specified in 10 9 CFR 171.11. An exemption request would be handled on a case-by-case basis. As in FY 1991, tha NRC plans to continue a very high 26 l
3 .
4 i issues (56 FR 31473-31475). The NRC's approach satisfies all legal requirements.
.t f 2. Accrooriateness of NRC Budaet and Reculatory Procram.
s Comment. There were several commenters who questioned'the I
size of the NRC budget and regulatory program. Some commenters .
indicated that they would expect a decrease in the NRC budget because of the significant reduction in the number of licensees within the past year and the fact that Maine became an Agreement-
- State-during FY 1992. Other commenters do-not believe the 42-I percent increase in the budget for uranium recovery activities over the previous year _is justified _given the current size of the licensed uranium industry.
These commentersL note thaty/ there are --
i no active conventional uranium mines and mills in the United.
States and only three commercially. operating in-situ leach' facilities. They argue that'the fee of $238,'700 appears grossly
, out-of-line with the degreefof-NRC involvement for uranium-I '
recovery sites. Commenters suggest that NRC---
(1) Freeze fees at FY 1991 levels; (2) -Distribute copies of-the NRC budget to-licensees for approval or disapproval;:and L
(3) Appoint'an-outside. reviewer to evaluate the_ scope ~and.
29
. . . . . . . . _ . . , . . .._.--....-,m_ . , _ , . . . - - , ., - . . . ~ , - , . ~ . , .,----,-..,..-m
equitable, as well as contrary to the intent of Congress, to assess UF 6 converters a fee that is larger than assessed for a mill.
Another commenter stated that the methodology the NRC has applied is unjustified because it results in increased fees of over 2,000 percent over 1990 fee levels to some medical licensees while the risk to the patient remains the same.
The commenter suggests that some consideration be given to the commensurate risk to the patient before exercising such exorbitant fees on the industry which has not increased the risk of radiation exposu re to the public or to its patients.
Response.
The issues of basing fees on the amount of mater al possessed, the frequency of use of t material, and the size of the facilities, were addressed by Regulat' c1 C ommission in the __
Flexibility Analysis, which was Appendix A to the '
final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31511-31513). The Commission did not adopt that approach, and finds no basi s for altering its approach at this time.
III.
Final Action -- Changes Included in Final Rule OBRA-90 requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its FY 1992 budget authority, including the funding of its Office of the Inspector General, less the appropriations received from the NWF, by assessing license and annual fees.
32
For FY 1992, the NRC's budget authority is $512.5 million, of which approximately $20.0 million has been appropriated from the NWF. Therefore, OBRA-90 requires that the NRC collect approximately $492.5 million in FY 1 9 9 F. tnrough Part 170 licensing-and inspection fees and Part 171 annual fsas. The NRC estimates that approximately $105 million will be recove.9d in FY 1992 from the fees assessed under Part 170. This estimate represents an increase of $15 million over that estimated in the proposed rule because of one additional quarterly billing in FY 1992. This is the result of the rule change effective May 18, 19 2y hich permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly ra er than a semiannual basis. The remaining $387.5 million would be recovered through the FY 1992 Part 171 annual fees.
The Commission has not changed the basic approach, policies, and methodology-for calculating the Part 170 profsssional hourly rate, the specific materials licensing and_ inspection fees in Part 170, and the Part 171 annual fees set forth in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31472). The public was l provided an opportunity to comment fully on the basic approach, i
l policies, and methodology used in the July 10, 1991, final rule.
Those comments were fully addressed by the Commission in its
( final rule. That rule has been challenged in Federal court by j
several parties and those lawsuits are pending. Under this final rule, fees for most licenses will increase because --
33
-. .- . . .- . . - - - ~. . - . . _ - - . - . - - - -
l from the NWF. It is noted that the amount of the annual fees for several. classes of licensees has decreased from the amount shown in the proposed rule. The reason for the-decrease in annual fees v7 f( that an additional $15 million is estimated to be collected ,,
from Part 170 fees in FY 1992 because-of the change in the Part 170 rule effcctive May 18, 196^ khich permits the'NRC to bill '"'
)
licensees on a quarterly rai e than a semiannual basis.
Second, S 171.16, Category 2.A.(2), is amended to divide Class I facilities in the uranium recovery class of licensees into two classes. The additional category (Class II) would recognize those licensees who do not generate uranium nill tailings.
l Third, S 171.11 is amended to require that licensees who wish to be considered for an exemption from the annual fees. file their respective exemption requests within ninety-(90) days from the effective dateaof the rule establishing the annual fees. As in FY 1991, the NRC plans to-continue-a very high threshold of-eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes itsLintent to grant exemptions sparingly.
- The NRC notes that during'the one-month period from the f publication of the FY 1991 finalirule-on July 10, . 1991, to the effective.date of the rule on AugustL9, 1991, many-licensees-l filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject-l-
36
. s..-m-m -me- + ,.' -w.-w , e-- ,-e-t-ve--m,tv--,-- t-t++ +% v-. =+--7e-e w e in w' -e w -+e-* r ,*= w we 5 * -nvrv-
' *ger ,' wgw v v~g w- w-pg e we- , g- w w
J
$1.9 million to fuel facilities; and
$1.9 million to other materials licensees.
In addition, approximately $6.2 million must be collected as a result of continuing the $1,800 maximum fee for small entities and the lower tier small entity fee of $400 for certain licensees. In order for the Commission to recover 100 percent of its budget authority in accordance with OBRA-90, the Commission will recover $5.4 million of the S6.2 million from operating power reactors and the remaining S.8 million from large entities that are not reactor licensees.
This distribution results in an additional charge (surcharge) of approximately $272,000 per operating power reactor; $155,100 for each HEU, LEU, and UF 6 fuel facility; j $38,800 for each other fuel facility license and waste disposal license in Category 4A; $1,600foreachmaterialslicense[ina category that generates a significant amount of low level waste;
( and $150 for other materials license)(s. When added to the base l annual fee of approximately $2.8 million per reactor, this will i
result in an annual fee of approximately $3.1 million per l operating power reactor. The total fuel facility annual fee l
would be between approximately 50.1 million and $2.3 million.
l l
The total annual fee for materials licenses would vary depending l on the fee category (ies) assigned to the license.
40 t
, .\ --
--.e
l
[
For example, an industrial radiography licensee (Category 3.0.) will pay revised license and inspection fees as follows:
Current nmcom ~
Tvoe of Fees Fees Increase %ctr,I992
~FY' Fees Application $3,000 7% $3,200 Renewal 1,800 7% 1,900 Amendment -490 7% 520 Routine Inspection 1,200 7% 1,300 Nonroutine Inspection 2,500 7% 2,700 The increase is applicable to fee categories 1.C and 1.D; 2.B and 2.C; 3.A through 3.P; 4.B through 9.D, 10.B and 16. The increased fees are assessed for applications filed or inspections conducted on or after the effective date of this rule. Based on experience in implementing the import and export license fees assessed under fee Category 15, the' Commission is amending the existing fee categories to provide for more equitable flat fees by expanding the number of fee categories.
For those licensing, inspection, and review fees assessed
.that are based on full-cost recovery (cost for professional staff hours plus any contractual services), the revised hourly rate of
$123, as shown in. 5 170.20,' applies to those professional staff hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule.
Part 171 Section 171.5 Definitions.
48
costs for materials licensees, including Goverament agencies licensed by the NRC. These fees are necessary to recover the FY 1992 generic costs totalling $48.4 million applicable to fuel facilities, uranium recovery facilities, holders of transportation cortificates and QA program approvals, and other materials licensees, including holders of sealed source and device registrations. It is noted that the amount of the annual
. pes 3 fees for some classes of licenses has decreased from the amount shown in the proposed rule. The decrease is the result of the additional collections which are estimated from part 170 fees because of rule change effective May 18, 1992 hich permits the ~~.
NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis.
Tables VI and VII show the NRC program elements and resources that are attributable to fuel facilities ard materials users, respectively. The costs attributable to the uranium recovery class of licensees are those associated with uranium recovery licensing and inspection. For the uranium recovery class of licenses, the currant Category 2.A.(2) for Class I facilities is further divided into Class I and Class II facilities. Class II facilities are those solution mining licensees, primarily in-situ and heap leach facilities, which do not generate uranium mill tTilings. The NRC has reexamined the uniform allocation of costs to Class I facilities in the current rule to determine whetner there is a significant difference between the regulatory services provided to operating in-situ facilities that do not generate mill tailings as compared to 64
l 1
UE6 Conversion Allied Signal Corp. $-- $381 $381 Sequoyah Fuels Corp. --
381 _ 311 Subtotal $-- $762 $762 Other fuel facilities (9 facilities at $72,000 --
$648 $648 each)
Total $3,046 $6,802 $9,848 The allocation of the costs attributable to uraniru recovery is also based on the conferees' guidance that 3icensees who require the greatest expenditure of NRC resources should pay the greatest annual fee. It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the $2.0 million for uranium recovery is attributable to uranium mills (Class I facilities). Approximately 20 percent of the $2.0 million for uranium recovery is attributable to those solution mining licensees who do not generate uranium mill i
tailings (Class II facilities). lk-The remaining 20 percent would
-be allocated to the other uranium recovery facilities (e.g.
extraction of metals and rare earths). The resulting annual fees for each class of licensee are:
1 Class I facilities $167,500 Class II facilities $73,200 Cther facilities $58,800 For spent fuel storage licenses, the generic costs of
$172,000 has been spread uniformly to those licensees who hold 69 w u e re ->n^.
l l
l 1
l Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 !
Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $860 E. Licenses for construction and operation of ,
a uranium enrichment facility.
Application . . . . . . . . . . . . $125,000 License, Renewal, Amendment . . . Full Cost 9
Inspection:
A Routine . . . . .. . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . .. . . . . Full Cost
- 2. Source material:
t i
A. Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, t
L refining uranium mill concentrates to i
uranium hexafluoride, ore buying stations, ion exchange facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for i
i extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery 89-
.. - . . - .. .-. . ~ - - - - - . . . . - - . ... . .- .. -. -. .
i i
l-
- 10. In S 171.16, the introductory text of paragraph (c) and paragraphs (c)(4), (d), and-(e) are revised to. read as follows: '
i 6 171.16 Annual Fees: Materiala Licensees. Holders of CertifipAtes of Comoliance. Holders of Scaled Source-and Device
{ Recistrations. Holders of Ouality Assurance Procram Ancrovals~and Government aqencies licensed by the NRC.
i * * *
- e..
(c) A licensee who is requirec to pay _an annual fee under this section may qualify as a small entity. -
If a-licensee-qualifies as a small entity and provides the Commission with the proper certification, the licenseo may pay reduced annual fees for FY 1992 based on gross annual. receipts, op for amall governmental jurisdictions, population dens!ty, as follows:
Small Businesses and Small Maximum Annual' Fee Not-For-Profij; Oraanizations 'Per Licensg.gl._Gatecory (Gross Annual Receiots)
$250,000 to $3.5 million $1,800 Less than $250,000' $400
- Private Practice Physicians
- (Gross Annual Receiots) j- $250;000'to-$1.0.million. $1,800 l
- l. Less'than $250,000L $400 Small Governmental Jurisdict[o_ng 7
' f'
- (Population).
h6h#udY" _
l- 20,000_tol50,000 $1,800. ,pf N' ;
- l. n- ;
l- ' Less than 20,000 $400 f-l i
119 i
r t-r ur % 4 =r e - AP 1=v *--e - s w1w w -, we + et -*-'sw+-e
surcharge consists of the following:
(1) Tn recover-costs relating to LLW disposal generic activities, an additional charge of $155,100 has been added to fee Categories 1.A.(1) and 2. A. (1) ; an additional charge of f
$38,800 has been added to fee categories 1.AI(2) and 4[A'.; an additional charge of $1,600 has been added to-fee Categories
- 1. , 1. ,, 2.C., 3 A., 3.B., 3. ., 3. .,'3.N., 3.I., dB., 4.C ,
5 . E'. , 6. ., and 7IB.; and an additional charge-of $36,0 0 1.27 n
been added to fee Category 17.
(2) To recoup those costs not recovered from small i/9 entities, an additional charge of $,L60- has been added to each fee
/ V v s -
Category, except Categories 1[. . 10.A., , 11.,' 12., 13.A., 14., 15.,
m 165,(,l'/,2, and II. Licensees who . qualify as small entities under L
the provisions - of S -174.16 (c) and--who submit a co~mpleted NRC Form '
/ [O 526 are not subject to the $ W additional charge.
- 11. In Section 171.19,_ paragraph (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
4i 171.19 Payment.
(b) For FY 1992 through_FY 1995, the Commission will adjust the fourth quarterly bill 1for operating power reactors and certain materials licensees.to recover the full amount of the revised annual fee. All other licensees, or holders of a-141
(56 FR 31472).
This final rule established the methodology to be used in identifying the fees to be assessed and determined the fees that were assessed and collected in FY 1991 .
Consistent with the Conference Committee Report accompanying OBRA-90 , the NRC fairly and equitably allocated its budget costs This .
resulted in the assessment of annual fees for all classes of licensees, i ncluding those classes of licensees with a substantial number of small entities. Using the same methodology established in the FY 1991 rulemaking, the NRC published a c:2proposed rule on April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18095), that established the fees to be assessed for FY 1992.
/
f ,
II.
IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES The comments received on the proposed FY 1991 fee rule revisions and the small entity certifications received in response to the final Int 1991 fee rule indicate that NRC licensees qualifying as small entities under the NRC' s size standards are primarily those licensed under the NRC's materi as l program. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the economic impact of the annual fees on materials licensees .
The Commission's fee regulations result in substantial fees being charged to those individuals, organizations, and companies that are licensed under the NRC materials program .
Of these materials licensees, the NRC estimates that about 25 percent
'approximately 2,000 licensees) qualify as small entities.
ih refore, in recognition of this substantial number of small 145 '
-,p m 3 , gy -. +w'- *. w+
p a no (USE BLACK FELT TIP PEN OR BOLD DALL POINT PEN ONLY) y,. uq'o, UNITED STATES y j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-. ! j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
/ MARYLAND NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MNBB FACSBIILE COVER FEES FAX NO: (301) 492-71.97 FEES PHONE NO: (301) .
492-7225 TO:
NAME b0% . u e,W FAX NO. 3D [ ^ b/ h h AGENCY E DO .--
ADDRESS UY PHCNE NO._60 4 - d / 8 FROM:
NAME hL b(f d % ^' PHONE NO._ Y h k ' M 7 [O c3 RANCH ')' 4 5 NO. PAGES INCL. COVER L_
MESSAGE:
L O ;bS, o N'i o l i f> etw4#
1 1
l
) ' Anoroved for Publication
- The Commission delegated to the
- EDO (10 CFR Part 1.31(c)) the authority to
! develop End promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5-U.S.C. 551(4))-subject to the limitations in NRC Management Directive 9.17, Organization and i Functions, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, Paragraphs 0213, l l 038, 039 and 0310. !
The enclosed final rule amends 10 CFR Parts-170 and 171. - These amendments are i- necessary to implement the requirements of Public Law 101-508 to recover 100
- i. percent of the FY 1992-budget authority through license and annual fees.
i -
The final rule.is consistent with previous Commission fee policy decisions and j does not constitute a significant question of policy, nor does it amend i- regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8 or 9 Subpart C concerning matters j of policy. I, therefore, find that this rule is within the scope of my i rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
I l
I Date James M. Taylor-i Executive 01 rector for 0perations h
i
?
I I
I f
I i
l-i lL n
- - , . . . , - _ , . , _ . . _ . , ~ , _ . . . , _ - - _ . ~ , , , _ , _ . . . , . . - . , , _ . , ~ . . . . .
] Aporoved for Publication The Commission delegated to the E00 (10 CFR Part 1.31(c)) the authority to develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) subject
- to the limitations in NRC Management Directive 9.17, Organization and Functions, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, Paragraphs 0213, 038, 039 and 0310.
The enclosed final rule amends 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171. These amendments are necessary to implement the requirements of Public Law 101-508 to recover 100
- percent of the FY 1992 budget authority through license and annual fees.
The final rule is consistent with previous Commission fee policy decisions and does not constitute a significant question of policy, nor does it amend regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8 or 9 Subpart C concerning matters
- of policy. I, therefore, find that this rule is within the scope of my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
}
Date ~ James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations l
l l ..
?
MEMORANDUM FOR: James H. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
SUBJECT:
FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 100% FEE REC 0VERY, FY 1992 4
Enclosed for your signature is the Final Notice of Rulemaking (Enclosure 1) that would atend the fee regulations to recover approximately 100 percent of' the FY 1992 budget less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund. These final amendments implement previous Commissico policy decisions regarding license and annual fees. That is, the final rule does not change the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in FY 1991 for determining the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the Part 170 materials licensing' and inspection flat fees and the Part 171 annual- fees.
Nineteen public comments were received by the close of the comment period on :
May 29, 1992. An additional ten comments which were received by the close of business on June 22, 1992, have been evaluated for a total of twenty-nine comments. These comments have been summarized in Enclosure 2.
Of the twenty-nine csmments, twenty-seven were from persons concerned with
,ther than rawer reactors, including eleven from the uranium industry, and two were from power reactor licensees or their representatives. Many of-the comments were similar in nature. The comments fall into two major areas. The first area involm questions relating to the NRC budget increase for ' 1992 which has resulted in higher fees for licensees particularly in light of the significant number of licensees who'either terminated or combined their license iL FY 1991. The other area includts comments relating to the methodology ~used for calculating fees and the hourly rate. The comments are addressed in the final rule,Section II, Response to Comments.
There were also four groups of comments that were not within the scope of the proposed rule, and therefore, were not evaluated for the purposes of issuing the final Fule. Briefly, they are: 1) the' legality of. the fees to be assessed-
,. . . . .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - ~
I i
i by the NRC; 2) the appropriateness of the NRC budget and regulatory program;
- 3) the impact of the fees on licensees; and 4) the annual fee should be based l on the amount of material, or the size' of the licensee's operation. These
! types of comments were addressed in the final rule published July 10 1991.
Based on an evaluation of the comments, no changes to the proposed rule are being recommended.
! However, most of the annual fees in the final rule are lower than those shown in the proposed rule because of the rule change effective May 18, 1992, which permits the NRC to bill licensees for Part 170
)
fees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis.
The final amendments to Part 170 (1) amend 5 170.20 to change the cost per l
4 professional staff-hour from $115 per hour.to $123 per hour; (2) increase all i
flat fees for radioisotope programs- by seven percent based on the increased hourly rate; (3) further refine the existing fee categories' for export and j import licenses; and (4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational 4-institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption requests.
i The final amendments to Part 171 (1) increase- the amount of the annual fee
' assessed to operating reactors, fuel cycle licensees and materials licensees; (2) further refine the uranium recovery class of licensees by dividing Class 1 facilities into two classes to be~ consistent with exemption decisions that -
recognize those licensees who do not generate: uranium mill tailings; (3) amend
{ the exemption provisions of 5 171.11 to require that licensees.who wish to be i
i considered for an exemption from the annual- fees must- file the exemption request within 90 days from the effective date of the rule establishing annual
{ fees; and-(4) codify the definition of " nonprofit- educational institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption requests.
Under the final rule, FY 1992 fees for most licensees will increase. compared
{ to FY.1991 fees because:
j (1) ,
The amount that must be recovered Ns increased fro , approximately j $445M to.$492.5M.
O
, -_ , . ._. . - . . _ . . . , . _ . _ _ .. _ _ . . - ;. ~. _ . - . ._.A._._ _.u.
I (2) Fewer licensees are available to pay for the higher costs of-regulatory activities not covered under 10 CFR Part 170. For example, approximately 2,000 of.9,000 material licensees have j requested that their' licenses be terminated or combined since the
! FY 1991 final rule was adopted in July-1991, and one of- the three-
! HEU fuel facilities has requeste'd a POL.
(
l A comparison of the FY 1992 annual fees to those assessed for FY 1991 are as-
, follows:
Ran' ae of Annual Fees Class of licensees FY 1991 FY 1992
! Operating Power Reactors $2.8M to $3.lM $3.0M to $3.1M
(
- Fuel Facilities $0.7M to $1.6M $0.5M to $2.3M i
j Uranium Recovery Facilities' - $67,100 to $100,100 $58,800 to $167,500
- Transportation Approval j Holders - $1,800 to $29,100 '51 660 to $62'960
i Materials Users (small j entity) $1,800 $400 to.51,800.
Materials Users (other). $390'to $10,800 $580 to $16,550
. Other Licensees ~ - $50,000 to $222,500 $55,700 to $336,150 i.
i j I recommend-that you sign the finalLrule at' Enclosure 1.forfpublication:-in the.
Federal Register. .The final: rule would become effective 30 days' from the.date i of publication. We will: send a bill for the amount-of the annual feeito the -
1icensee or certificate, registration or approval' holder'upon-publication of i-the final rule.; -Payment would be due on the effective-date of the rule. - An
" Approved for Publication" notice is' attached as Enclosure.3 and a notice to i the Commission that the- EDO has signed this final-rule is enclosed for inclusion-in the next-Daily Staff notes'(Enclosure 4)..lPlease note'thatLthe -
TCommission was informed-that you would'is. sue the proposed rule in SECY-92-107.
- - which addressed the-limited rule change concerning' lower-tier-small-entity g fees.
i L
li t.-.w- +> - ., -w.4 e-=,%,,--d. - e% eu.;,.c- --w . w .- -e .-, ve rr --vei, ,.e,v-,,+vy,om...wn+.me r -rC- m eevaa.-we r - w+ 4m- e e m m-a-+~<e -s e -e ww , ..w,v,hi- =r y,w-v y y - prse, vre ev y- y
- -. = . -
2 1
1 1
- I
. i
!- l
- Please also note that: I a.
The Houta Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Budget and Appropriation Committees will be i
notified by letter.(Enclosure 5).
b.
A public announcement will be issued when the final revisions are -
filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication (Enclosure 6).
- c. A Notice containing the final revisions will be mailed to NRC licensees and holders of Certificates of Compliance, sealed source '
' and device registrations,-QA-program approvals and approved topical reports.
d.
The final rule contains n~o information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements.of the Paperwork j
Reduction Act of. -1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
t j e.
Action required. under this final rule would be admiriistrative and-would not affect the environment; therefore, .neither an -
environmental impact statement norL an environmental assessment has been prepared for this_ final rule (10 CFR 51.22(c)(1)).
f.
The economic impact on small entities has been addressed in.the final - rule, g.
' The final rule is. administrative and would assess -fees for.
regulatory' services provided by the-NRC to applicants--and-l licensees. Accordingly, the backfit rule'(10 CFR 50.109) does not apply to the ' final rule.
The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, International Programs, and Administration concur in the final amendments.- The Office-of the: General-Counsel has no legal objection.
. ~ , ,- ...-:..m.. . _ , , , , . . _ . . . , . __- - - . _ . . _. . . . , in.. .
Ronala M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
Enclosures:
- 1. Final Notice of Rulemaking
- 2. Summary of Comments
- 3. Approved for Publication
- 4. Daily Staff Notes
- 5. Congressional Letters
- 6. Draft Public Announcement m
i I
l
4 kt u
a
,s. m
%ox':
5 IMAGE EVALUATION a g\///
4$)? TEST T ARGET ('MT-3)
/
f ? b
- /
Q L s?
+ r j
s i
i J
I.0 $a a is 715 M 2.2 s.
gp l!iav 1.1 E iS lhl 2.0-t 1.8 ll il 1.25 1.4
,- ll 1.6 n__
i j
- 150mm >
i 4 6" >
E ;. I I' /;,f 7 $
%f ls ' / 4'D8% % , Q4 l
^#
PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION ja 'O*
j h 770 BASKET ROAD 4(9 $,*
P.O. BOX 338 g4 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 Y (716) 265-1600
A kb e o, .
- ' "Q o?ie v_jf
.. : r, IMAGE EVALUATION ,
w
/
/4,[* j;p
\[
, $f/* TEST TARGET (MT-3) k//// NNNN / $$
+jf +
l
}
l l
1.0 ES 3 y y !E l.l bF e
fl2S ~ -=
l.25 1.4
{; i.6 4 150mm >
- 6" >
A%
Ry' 5,,,
/g;ffp 4 PHOTOGR APHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION . V" , e h 770 BASKET ROAD d(Dtc u Ql:'-
P.O. BOX 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 'W (716) 265-1600
A S e~ ~m- og ..
(V IMAGE EVA!.UATION ,'j /
///// , a
/\'
j// $hh8^ TEST TARGET (MT-3) .c [+ ?p
+
- j j#
l 4
1.0 tm en 2- U 2, !?2.2 1 ilNisas l,l
- kNe
!4 1.8 lll __ _.
l.25 1'4 !
l!l;_1.6_
l5 == li
-:: 150mm >
4 6" >
Ak%/
y ,
y, ...
/ !b t; ,
uW
^
" / ///// PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION ,,O,a o O 770 BASKET ROAD 8(Da $3 P.O. BOX 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 Y (716) 265-1600
_ - ~ - .
DISTRICUTION:
DDandois, GJacksonOC R/F, OC S/F. O'scroggins, JFunches, JHolloway, DAF R/F, OFFICE :OC :OC :OC NAME :JHolloway :JFunches :RScroegins DATE :6/ /92 :6/ /92 :6/ /92
?
_ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
ENCLOSURE 1 (7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 RIN: 3150-AE20
, Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1992 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. The amendments are necessary-to implement Public Law 101-508, signed into law on November 5, 1990, which mandates that the NRC recoverfapproximately 100 percent of its budget-authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 less amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). The amount to be recovered for FY 1992 is approximately $492.5 million.
EFFECTIVE DATE: (30 days after publication)-
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. James Holloway, Jr.,~ Office.
of the controller, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301-492-4301.
4
__ _--_-----.a_ ..x~r---.--------w-------n1- - - - - -
1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
t I. Background.
II. Responses *o Comments.
i III. Final Action -- Changes Included In Final Rule.
IV.. Section-by-Section Analysis, i V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
VII. Regulatory Analysis.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
IX. Backfit Analysis.
i i
I. Background Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), signed into law on November 5, 1990, requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority less the amount appropriated from the Department of j
Energy (DOE) administered Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) for FYs 1991 through 1995 by assessing license, inspection, and annual fees.
On July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31472), the NRC published a final rule in.the Federal Register which established the Part 170 professional hourly rate and the materials licensing and inspection fees as well as the Part 171 annual fees to be
-assessed to recover approximately 100 percent'of the FY 1991 2
1 g - , -- - ..-w.~ _yw- .y.. y.-3_. m_. . , - .e- . - - , ,,,._,-g .. ,,e.,_ -w -
budget. The July 10, 1991, final rule became effective August 9, 1991. In addition to establishing the FY 1991 fees, the August 9, 1991,- final rule established the underlying basis and method for determining the Part 170 hourly rate and fees and the Part 171 annual fees.
This final rule includes the limited changes made to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 which were issued as a final rule on April 17, 1992, (57 FR 13625) with an effective date of May 18, 1992. The limited change to Part 170 allows the.NRC to bill quarterly for those-license fees that are currently billed every six months. The limited change to Part 171 adjusts the maximum annual fee assessed a materials licensee who qualifies as a small entity under the NRC's size standards. The maximum annual fee of
$1,800 per licensed category is continued for FY 1992. However, a lower tier small entity fee of $400 per licensed category has
~
been established for small businesses and non-profit-organizations-with gross receipts of less than:$250,000 and small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than'20,000..
On April,29, 1992 (57 FR 18095), the NRC published the proposed rule that presented the licensing, inspection, and annual fees necessary for the NRC to recover approximately 100 percent of its-budget authority _for FY 1992 less the appropriation received.from the-NWF.: The basic-methodology used in the proposed rule was unchanged--from that used to calculate 3 - -
I f-
the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the specific materials licensing and inspection fees in Part 170, and the Part 171 annual fees in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31472). Because the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in the July 10, 1991, final rule and because these comments were fully addressed in that final rule, the NRC requested public comment only on the issue of whether the methodology adopted in FY 1991 was properly applied to the FY 1992 budget authority.
II. Responses to Comments The NRC received nineteen public comments by the close of the comment period on May 29, 1992 and an additional ten comments, by the close of business on June 22, 1992. These comments were evaluated in the development of this final rule.
Of the twenty-nine comments, two were from power reactor licensees or their representatives, and twenty-seven were from persons concerned with other types of licenses, including eleven comment letters from the uranium industry or their representatives. Copies af all comment letters received are available for inspection in the NRC Public Document. Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington,RDC.
Many of the comments were similar in nature. For evaluation 4
l l
.. .. - - - . - - .=
purposes, these comments have been grouped, as appropriate, and addressed in the context of the narrow focus of this final rule.
A.
Comments Regarding Application of the Methodology.
- 1. Comment.
A few commenters indicated that the NRC has not provided sufficient information on which to evaluate the fees to be assessed for FY 1992. These commenters stated that the NRC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide an explanation of how it arrived at its final determination of the annual fees, particularly as they apply to fuel cycle facilities.
They also stated that the NRC did not provide sufficient detail concerning the NRC budget to verify the significant changes in the proposed rule. Commenters recommend that NRC make publicly available its Five Year Plan or other l
documents with an equivalent level of detail to provide the information necessary to allow an effective evaluation of and permit affected licensees to provide constructive comments on the proposed rule.
Resconse. The NRC believes it has provided sufficient information concerning the FY 1992 budget to allow effective-evaluation and constructive comments on the proposed rule. It.
Part III, the Section-by-Section Analysis of the proposed rale published April 29, 1992, (57 FR 18097) the NRC provided a detailed explanation of the FY 1992 budgeted, costs for the 5
9
.-m- - - . - - - ' ~"
various classes of licensees being assessed fees. In addition, '
the NRC workpapers pertinent to the development of the fees to be .
assessed were placed in the Public Document Room (PDR) on
- April 29, 1992, for public review. The workpapers provide additional information concerning the development of the fees, including the FY 1992 budgeted resources at the subactivity level for the major programs. The resources shown in the workpapers are the same as those identified in the Five Year Plan for FY 1992 and are displayed at the lowest-level, the subactivity level, as in the.Five Year Plan.
- 2. Comment.
A few commenters indicated'that the hourly rate of $123 for FY 1992 (a seven perce5*' increase over FY 1991) is not justified, and that the'NRC had nc. indicated that'it is incurring an increase in the area of-: salaries, benefits, and overhead but rather an,, increase in total NRC spending. The commenters point out-that the NRC' professional rate-has increased by approximately 115 percent over a.seven. year-peried while the - - -
Consumer Price Index (CPI) has shown an inflation rate of about 22 percent for the same period.
The commenters recommend that I
the NRC bring its FY 1992 hourly rate back in line with the increase in the CPI and the average wage' increases in the industry it regulates. This would be three to four percent a year or an hourly rate-of $119 for-FYL1992. These-commenters-suggest that it is inappropriate.to raise.the' professional rate and inspection fees-by 7 percent.
The commenters recommend that 6
G
.v,-- w--i r ,.,_,-,,-..g, ,,y4.hm.,,_,.s.,_ ,w,_m.,www-%.,,,y,,.,.,,3 ...m.,,- ,,. bw ,m ,, y r -w w es,.+,y y , + --,.-.
the NRC use the CPI or other indices for determining future adjustments to its hourly rates.
Response.
The NRC professional hourly rate is 5
established to recover approximately 100 percent of the Congressionally approved budget, less the appropriation from the NWF, as required by OBRA-90. Both the method and budgeted costs used by the NRC in the development of the hourly rate of $123 for t FY 1992 are discussed in detail in the Part III, Section-by-Section Analysis, for 5170.20 of the proposed rule (57 FR 18097).
For example, Table II shows the direct FTEs (full time equivalents) by major program for FY 19?? and Table III shows the budgeted costs (salaries and benefits, administrative support, travel and other G&A contractual support) which must be recovered through fees assessed for the hours expended by the direct FTEs.
The budgeted costs have increased $38.6 million as compared to FY 1991 levels.
This increase reflects the amount required by the NRC to effectively accomplish the mission of the agency. The specific details regarding the budget for FY 1992 are documented in the NRC's publication " Budget Estimates, Fiscal Years 1992-1993 (NUREG-1100, Volume 7) which is available to the public.
Given the increase in the budget it is necessary to increase the 1992 hourly rate to recover 100 percent of the budget-as required by OBRA-90.
The NRC is unable to use the CPI or other indices in the development of the NRC hourly rate or the fees to be assessed under 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 because if the hourly rate were 7
increased by only three to four percent over the FY 1991 levels, the NRC could not meet the requirement of OBRA-90 to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC badget authority through fees.
- 3. Ccmment.
Several com:aenters indicated tnat the imposition of the annual fees in certain instances bears no
" reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services" and therefore the fees violate OBRA-90 in that they have not been " fairly and equitably" allocated among licensees.
Commenters argue, for example, that the NRC should not charge two fees for one process covered by two licensees or that a higher amount of generic safety costs should not have been allocated to high enriched uranium facilities as compared to low enriched uranium facilities.
Another commenter states that it is not feir and equitable to assess a UF6 converter a higher fee than for a mill license. One commenter suggests that it is not considered
" practicable" to assess all licensees of a class to compensate for revenue lost from other classes of licensees because of license terminations and that he should be provided an accounting l of the component costs for NRC generic activities, e.g.,
rulemaking, upgrading safeguards requirements, modifying standard review plans, overseeing regional programs and developing inspection programs.
Resnonse.
8
t a
1
, In the July 10, 199 final rule, the NRC indicated that it is not practical to allocate costs on the basis of such factors as difference in processes and whether or not the facility has more safety problems than another facility at a specific point in time. (56 FR 31480) It must be recognized that NRC generic 4
safety and safeguards costs that are included in the annual fee are not related to a specific individual licensee. Costs related to a specific applicatio., license or approval that provide an identifiable service are recovered under the fee regulations of 10 CFR Part 170. For-the generic and other regulatory costs not recovered under 10 CFR 170, the NRC, in compliance with the requirements of OERa-90, has allocated these costs to major classes of licensees. The law permits and the NRC has established a schedule of annual charges that assesses different annual charges for different licensees or classes of licensees.
To the extent practicable and where necessary for a more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was i
divided into subclasses. Within a class or subclass of licensees, the costs were uniformly allocated to each licensen in the class or subclass based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each_ licensee within a class ~or subclass.
This approach and principle were used for all classes of licensees. Therefore, the NRC cannot provide each licensee an
, accounting of the component costs for the NRC generic and other 9
e a.s a - - .A..
regulatcry activities. However, the activities associated with a specific class of licensees are summarized in this rule and detailed in the fee workpapers. With respect to license terminations that occurred during FY 1991, it must be recognized that for FY 1992 the base or total number of licenseen has decreased in some classes of licensees and therefore the fees must be increased in FY 1992 in order for the NRC to recover approximately 100 percent of the budget. Because the costs are allocated to a class of licensees, any terminations that occur within the class will therefore affect the remainder of the licensees within that class.
- 4. Comment. A few commenters indicated that the NRC may have inappropriately included certain budgeted costs in the fee base. One commenter indicated that the proposed rule did not show any offsets to FY 1992 salaries and expenses from revenues received from cooperative nuclear safety research programs, services rendered to-foreign governments and international organizations, and the material and information access authorization program. This commenter noted that the FY 1992 authorization language indicates that money from these programs may be retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with those activities, one commenter recommends that NRC review its FY 1992 allocation of funds and confirm that the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) appropriation of about $20 million includes $1.7 million in administrative-costs for high level waste activities 10 l
! l i-1 1
i
). in order to avoid double payment by utilities,
} once through their i
mill / kwhr payment to the NWF and again through the annual charge j
that recoups total NRC administrative costs.
l i
Resconse. The NRC provides some technical assistance to 4
< foreign governments and international organizations ~on a j
reimbursable basis and participates in cooperative research
- programc.
For example, the! Omnibus Budget. Reconciliation Act, FY 1987, requires that.the NRC certify containers that will be used to transport plutonium through United States air space and that j
all costs incurred for this certification be-reimbursed by the
} foreign country involved.
Examples of international cooperative research include the participation of-Finland and Spain in severe
! accident research, Austria on source term research, and Korea on
[ piping integrity research.
These costs are not included in-NRC's p
- - budget request but are, paid for by the foreign government or l international organization for which the work ir being performed.
These activities are therefore not included in the computation of p
l 100 percent fee recovery for the funds appropriated to.the NRC i
! and are therefore not charged to licensees through the assessment t
of user fees. These monies.are separately 11dentified in the agency's: financial systems, and are deposited and disbursed for F
!- the performance of the. functions for.which.they are collected.
I e
With respect to:the NWF appropriation for the FY 1992 budget,
$1.7 million of the NRC's total:adminis.:rative support l
L -
11 i'
- l. -
- a 2 -. , , - . . , . , .-.~..u.._,-. . . , . - _ , . . , _ - . _ . . . . . _ , '_- _ . . . . . _ , , _ -.-.
funds was allocated to the High-Level Waste Regulation program based upon the full-time equivalent staffing budgeted for that program. Funds for the NRC High-Level Nuclear Waste Regulation program are appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Licensees are not charged fees for the administrative support costs which are allocated to the Nuclear Waste Fund.
- 5. Comment. One commenter indicated that to assess fee Category 2.A.(2), Class I, fees for sites undergoing reclamation amounts to double charging because these types of facilities are already charged fees under Part 170 for the full cost of regulatory services associated with the reclamation process.
Resoonse: To recover 100 percent of the budget, the NRC assesses two types of fees. First, license and inspection fees are assessed under 10 CFR Part 170 to recover the costs to the NRC of providing individual services to specific applicants for, and holders of, NRC licenses and approvals. The Part 170 fees are billed for specific services rendered in response to an l
1 application filed with the NRC for review or an inspection conducted by the NRC. Second, annual fees are assessed under 10 CFR Part 171 to recover NRC generic and other regulatory costs not recovered under 10 CFR Part 170. This is the process used to charge uranium recovery licensees. Thus, there is no double charging of fees to uranium recovery licensees because the annual fee recovers only those costs not recovered under 10 CFR Part 12
. -- _._....___._._ _. _ __ . . . . . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . . - . . _ _ . . . _ . , . _ . . _ ~ -
l f
I
! 170.
4 i
i -- -
- 6. Comment. A few commenters submitted comments on the e methodology used by the NRC to develop the lower tier small j Lentity fee of $400 established by the NRC effective May 18, 1992.
- While applauding the NRC for developing a lower tier small entity j fee,'commenters believe that NRC should--
i t
(1) Expand the criteria as to what constitutes a "small -
i 1
entity" and that a sliding scale fee-should be considered based-I on ability to pay;
- (2)~ . Reexamine the method of allocation of costs p5 ticularly the lower tier small entity fee of $400 because 4
- these commenters believe that it is inherently-unfair to enable l'
" mom and pop" operations to remain in business but,. forces ~ modest companies, with cor.parably small radiographic testing j departments, to subsidize them; (3) ' Clarify the question as.to whether the-_ gross annual receipts _are considered the' income generated only_from the _
. activities pertaining to the license or income generated from.the entire entity composed-of various departments; and (4) Allow small county governmentalijurisdictions to' deduct the population of? incorporated cities and villages not within the-13 4
i-T
. , - . . ,,4...-......m..w,,,w'.m...,_~. ...~,-..,.._-.~.....w_.,-_..,,-.-m....,7mM.,cw.-e,y,.-w.. r. ..,-.,,-#+ .y..._-E,,..,4'.
i i -
i i
- -- jurisdictional powers-of the county.
4 Resoonse.
-These types-of comments were addressed by -
the NRC in Section II, Responses to comments,-item
! B., of the i final limited rule published by the NRC on April-17, 1992 (56 FR j
13626-13627). Briefly, the NRC indicated that any reductionLin i fees for small entities must be paid by other NRC licensees and I-
. that while the lower tier small entity fee of $400 does not
! eliminate the impact of the fees on small entities, it i
- substantially reduces the impact for those licensees with i
I relatively low gross annual receipts of less than'$250,000 and
]
for-small governmental jurisdictions with a relatively low population of less than 20,000.- With respect to the question of i
what constitutes gross. annual receipts, the NRC stated clearly in i establishing the size standards and in the promulgation of the i
final rule establishing the lower tier small entity fee that the 1
term-" annual receipts" is used in the same manner as used by the l Small Business Administration (SBA). In 13 CFR 121. 4 02 (b) (2) ,
annual receipts are defined " . . .
to. include all; revenue in i
i
.whatever form received-or_ assessed from whatever sources-.-. ."
! (54 FR 52647; December 21, 1989) (57 FR 13625; April;17,_1992).
j' Therefore, l
the term " annual gross. receipts" refers.to,the licensee's entire business, not solely receipts from licensed
- activities.
For-purposes of qualifying as a small governmental h
i-
. jurisdiction under the NRC fee regulations, the population of a county includesethe population'of all cities, towris, and villages 14 i
l i~
, . . _ . . . ~ . ~ . , . _ _ _ . . _ . _ , , _ _ ~ . ~ . - . . , , _ . - . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . ~ . . - . . . . . _ _ . . , _ . _ , . ,
. = - _ - .. . . .
within the county. The NRC finds no basis to modify our approach in this area.
- 7. Comment. One commenter indicated that he had submitted a petition for rulemaking to the NRC to review the FY 1991 methodology so that medical licensees could be treated like similar licensees. The commenter believen the NRC is obligated to address the concerns raised in the petition in terms of whether the proposed fee schedule for FY 1992 is consistent with the methodology adopted in FY 1991. The commenter suggests that the NRC institute an immediate moratorium freezing fees at FY 1991 levels until the petition is considered in its entirety.
Resoonse. The Commission is not obligated to address the concerns raised in the petition of rulemaking filed with the NRC before adopting the final rule establishing fees for FY 1992.
The NRC clearly stated when it published receipt of the petition for rulemaking in the Federal Register that "NRC intends to l
consider the issues raised by the petitioners after the rulemaking action necessary to establish the license and annual fees for FY 1992 is completed . . . . The petitioners' concerns will be considered within the context of the review and evaluation of the fee program for FY 1993 which will be conducted as part of the NRC's continued implementation of Public Law 101-508" (57 FR 20213; May 12, 1992). The NRC has not yet completed that' evaluation. To adopt an immediate meratorium freezing fees 15
at the FY 1991 level until the petition is considered would result in the NRC not meeting the statutory requirements of OBRA-90 that NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority for FY 1992.
, 8. Comment. One commenter indicated that the NRC did not properly apply the methodology in FY 1991 to one of its licensees S who conducts multiple activities under a single license. The commenter notes that one UF 6 converter operates multiple activities under a single license and therefore a substantially larger share of NRC budgeted costs allocated to UF6 converters should be assessed to the one conducting multiple activities.
For the same reason, the licensee should be assessed a substantially larger portion.of the low level waste (LLW) surcharge.
Resoonse. The NRC has reexamined the allocation of costs to the UF6 conversion licenses. This reexamination has been accomplished within the framework of the Public Law and accompanying-Conference Report, and the fundamental principles used by the Commission in establishing annual fees for all classes of licensees.
Public Law 101-508- and the accompanying Conference Report provide that to.the maximum extent-practicable, the-annual fee shall have a reasonable relationship to theLcost of providing 16- -
4 m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __m.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ __m
regulatory services to the licensees.
Consistent with the law and the guidance in the Conference Report, the NRC allocated its budgeted generic and other regulatory costs not recovered from 10 CFR Part 170 license fee to the major classes of licensees. To the extent practicable and where necessary for a more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was further subdivided into subclasses. For example, NRC costs for the fuel facilities class of licensees were allocated further to UF 6 conversion, HEU fuel fabrication, LEU fuel fabrication and other licenses.
Within a subclass, the cost was uniformly allocated to each license in the subclass based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each license within a subclass.
This approach and principle were used for all classes of licensees.
The costs allocated to the licenses within the UF6 subclass are-for the safety generic and other regulatory activities that are attributable to this subclass of licensees and that are not recovered by 10 CFR Part 170 license and inspection fees. These costs were allocated uniformly to each of the two licenses within the UF6 subclass, based on the premise _that there is not a significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each of the licenses.
The same NRC regulations, (e.g.,
10 CFR Part 40), guidance 17 e
(n.g., Regulatory Guides) and policios are applicable to both the license which authorizes deconversion activities (UF6 to UF g) and UF6 conversion and the license that only authorizes UF 6 conversion. The 10 CFR Part 40 generic safety regulations are applied the same to each of the two licenses in the subclass independent of the source material activities authorized by the two licenses.
As indicated by the above discussion, the NRC costs attributable to the UF 6 subclass are more related to the fact that a license exists and not to the UF manufacturing 6 process.
Thus a uniform allocation of costs to each license results in an annurl fee that has a reasonable relationship to the generic and other regulatory services provided.
The surcharge part of the annual fee includes NRC budgeted
- costs that are not attributable to the UF 6subclass, but it was assessed to the licensees in the subclass for policy reasons.
For the UF6 subclass of licensees, the surcharge includes a portion of low-level waste costs and costs not recovered from small entities. In the Conference Report, . Congress indicated that these types of costs "may be recovered from such licensees as the Commission, in its discretion, determines can fairly, equitably, and practicably contribute to their payment."
Following this guidance, the NRC decided to uniformly allocate these costs to each fuel facility resulting in the same surcharge 18
for each license.
- 9. Comment. Several commenters indicated that it appeared as if uranium licensees are being billed for agency overhead that is not attributable to the regulation of the uranium mining industry. These commenters believe that a considerable amount of the agency resources are likely dedicat'.d to interagency work for the Department of Energy (DOE) such as NRC review of DOE's reclamation plans for Title 5 uranium mill tailings sites, and interaction with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the promulgation of regulations. The commenters noted that these agencies are not billed for these NRC activities which are associated with uranium recovery. The commenters disagreed with the NRC's position that all substantive review at DOE sites is essentially completed prior to the application for a ganeral license for that site. The commenters also disagreed with NPC's interpretation of OBRA-90 that in order to be billed for annual fees one must be a licensee of the NRC. The commenters argue j that the test is whether "any person" receives a service or thing of value from the Commission because OBRA-90 allows the
" collection of fees from any person" and "all licenses". That person, whether a licensee or not, commenters argue, is required to pay _ fees to cover the NRC's cost of providing the services or thing of value.
Response. With respect to the 10 CFR Part 170 fees 19
___ .~ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _ _ ._ - . _ _. _ _.
I i
assessed pursuant to the Independent-Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA) of 1952, the NRC is precluded, under the IOAA, from s
assessing fees to Federal agencies for specific services rendered. The OBRA-90 limits annual. fee assessments to licensees of the NRC.
Thus, the NRC does assess annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 to Federal agencies to the extent that those Federal agencies have a license or approval / certificate from the NRC.
As indicated in the Conference Report accompanying OBRA-90, the Commission must collect approximately 100 percent of its budget through fees, even though in some instances certain activities are not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of-licensees. With regard to NRC activities for DOE under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), the NRC is prohibited under the IOAA from assessing such Part 170 fees to ~
Federal agencies.
The fees cannot be assessed to DOE under OBRA-i 90 and 10 CFR Part 171 because DOE does not possess a license or approval.
Thus, the NRC has assessed the costs for review'of DOE's UMTRCA actions based on ths-Conference Report guidance that
-the costs be " recovered'from such licensees as the Commission in its discretion determines can fairly, equitable and practicably contribute to their payment."' These costs are being recovered L from power reactor licensees, not from uranium recovery licensees l as impl'ied by-the commenters.
-This was_noted in the discussion in the final' rule of-the surcharge for power reactors (56 FR _
31486; July 10,.1991).
l t-The interaction that-NRC has with EPA is necessary for NRC to' develop and' execute'NRC's generic safety-20-t
, - . - - - - ,rs, , ,La. .- ,.r.-,,.c,,#w..,,-4.-w,,,.g-i..w,,,.rm,%.w-, . . , . . , + . , .-on,w,..-$w--,,wyy- 5 <-;v, y-- , - ,--.m,c. ., ,-
regulatory programs, primarily as a result of the Clean Air Act.
Thus, some of these costs are for NRC generic regulatory activities for uranium recovery facilities and have been appropriately included in the annual fee.
B. Other comments.
- 1. Comment. A few commenters stated that the short time frame (30 days) allowed by the NRC for comment on the proposed rule did not provide an adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
Response. The NRC indicated in Section I, Background, of the proposed rule published April 29, 1992, that a 30 day public comment period was being provided because OBRA-90 requires i
that NRC collect the revised FY 1992 fees by September 30, 1992, and that in order to comply with the public law, fees would have to be assessed on an expedited basis to ensure collection of Line required fees by the end of the fiscal year (57 FR 18095).
Thirty days represents a sufficient time to provide comments particularly since the NRC is not changing the approach or methodology for assessing fees that it adopted in FY 1991.
l
- 2. Comment. One cotimenter indicated that sections of the proposed regulation should be included within President Bush's moratorium of new regulations. This commenter argues that the 21
?
. - . . . - - , a.---
l fees for source material licenses, especially fee Category 2.A.(2), Class I, do not meet key aspects of President Bush's regulacory initiative because they are burdensome, impede :
economic growth, do not incorporate market mechanisms and do not provide a strong, systematic cost benefit realization.
Resoonse. OBRA-90 requires the NRC to promulgate each year a user fee schedule that will result in the collection by the end of the fiscal year a sum approximating 100 percent of its budget, minus the appropriation received from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Any delay in the publication of this rule would result in the NRC's inability to meet its statutorily imposed deadline for collecting FY 1992 user fees.
Therefore, the NRC must publish this rule at this time.
- 3. Comment. Several commenters addressed the proposed change to the $171.16, Category 2.A.(2) for uranium recovery licensees. The commenters indicated that dividing the current Class I facilities into two classes, which has the effect of increasing the annual fee for a mill by 138 percent over the FY 1991 levels, does not seem justified or reasonable and that the proposed rule does not distinguish between active and inactive facilities.
The commenters state that because inactive mill sites undergoing reclamation do not generate uranium mill tailings but are included in fee Category 2.A.(2) Class I, the NRC has overstated the costs for the entire category and 22
, , , -,. .n--g-- , ,ww---- y r+ -
~ s a --
appropriate adjustments must be made.
Commenters believe that any licensed facility that is serving solely as a cost center and not generating revenues should be exempt from fees. A few commenters indicated that the assessment of anneal fees for Part 71 Quality Assurance (QA) Plans that have increased 200 percent over 1991 levels have no reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services, particularly when the licensee pays separately on an hourly basis for all other services received from the NRC. Commenters point out that no other licensees or class of licensees is subject to the same exorbitant level of increase as fee Category 10.B, QA Program Approval Holders.
Response.
OBRA-90 and the accompanying Conference Report provide that to the maximum extent practicable, the annual fee shall have a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services to the licensees.
Consistent with the law and the guidance in the Conference Report, the NRC allocated its budgeted generic and other regulatory costs not recovered from 10 CFR Part 170 license fees to the major classes of licensees. To the extent practicable and where necessary for a-more fair and l
i equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was further subdivided into subclasses. For example, NRC costs for the uranium recovery class of licensees were allocated further to
" Class I," Class II," and "Other" facilities. Within a subclass, the cost was uniformly allocated to each license in the subclass 23
based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each license within a subclass. This approach and principle were used for all classes of licensees.
I
- The costs allocated to the licenses within the Class I I subclass are for the safety generic and other regulatory activities that are attributable to this subclass of licensees and that are not recovered by 10 CFR Part 170 license and inspection fees. These costs were allocated uniformly to each of the seven licenses within the Class I subclass. Uniform allocation is based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each of the seven licenses. The NRC has reexamined the l
allocation of costs to the Class I uranium recovery facilities.
This reexamination has been accomplished within the framework of the Public Law and accompanying Conference Report, and the fundamental principles used by the NRC in establishing annual fees for all classes of licensees. The NRC generic and other regulatory costs attributable to the-Class I facilities subclass are more related to the fact that a license authorizing operation exists and not to whether the mill is active or inactive. Thus, a uniform allocation of costs to each license results in an annual fee that has a reasonable relationship to the generic and other regulatory services provided.
1 24
With respect to QA plan approvals, the NRC experienced a significant number of requests from QA approval holders to' change their plans during the past year. Many QA approval holders amended their plans, within the window of opportunity provided-by the NRC, to downgrade the authorized use of the plan from
" fabrication and use" to "use" only. These changes have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of plans authorizing
" fabrication and use" and an increase in the number of plans authorizing "use only". Therefore, in order to recover the costs -
for plans authorizing " fabrication and use" from fewer approval holders, it is necessary to assess a much-higher annual fee than was assessed in FY 1991. Similarly, to recover the costs for plans authorizing "use only" from an' increased-number of plan holders has resulted in a lower annual fee for these approval holders.
- 4. Comment.
One commenter objected to the NRC-proposal to l-exempt from the FY 1992 annual fee those licensees who-filed for termination or possession only during the period October 1, 1991,
- through December 31, 1991.
This commenter indicated that it' seemed arbitrary to establish such aLdeadline when changes to a
, license will occur throughout the year-and that--licensees should i
be permitted to file-exemption requestsLrelated to the FY 1992 fees after-December 31, 1991.
Another commenter indicated that in cases where the fees have substantially increased, licensees-
- should now be given-the option of canceling,the license or 25 1
9
,* sm-- - e-=,. , +e ,,.y -
4-. o .r.,m,-e. , rw -n,.,.e-e. --w-,,+,,-,4#,gw-- , e em me w c--a,r .--, rw,- # we iw r= v t e m wvro*-
approval and thus avoid the annual fee for FY 1992.
Resoonse. In the proposed rule, the Commission indicated that during the one month period from the publication of the FY 1991 final rule on July 10, 1991, to August 9, 1991, 4
the effective date of the rule, many licensees filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject to the FY 1991 annual fees.
Many other licensees have either called or written to the nac since the final rule became effective requesting farther clarification and information concerning the annual fees assessed.
The NRC is responding to these requests as quickly as possible but it was unable to respond and take appropriate action.
on all of the requests before the end of the fiscal yearion September 30, 1991.
Therefore, based on the number of requests filed, the Commission will exempt from the FY 1992 annual fees those licensees, and hpiders of. certificates, registrations- and ,
approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/ storage only licenses prior to January 1, 1992. All-other licensees and approval holders who held a license or approval on October 1, 1991, will be subject to the FY 1992 annual fees. This would-not, however, preclude a licensee from filing a-specific exemption request with.
respect to the FY-1992 fees after December 31, 1991 and within ninety-days of the effective date of this rule as specified.in.10 CFR 171.11.
-An exemption request would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
As in FY 1991, the NRC plans to continue a very high 26 9
threshold of eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant exemptions sparingly. With respect to tho-comment that licensees now be given the option of canceling the license or approval and avoid the FY 1992 fee, the NRC notes that licensees were put on notice in the proposed rule published April !
12, 1991, and again in the final rule published July 10, 1991, ,
that the NRC would assess annual fees that would significantly impact a substantial number of its licensees in order to recover 100 percent of its budget authority for FY 1991 through FY.1995.
The NRC mailed a copy of these notices-to each licensee.
(-
- 5. Comment.
A few commenters claimed that NRC intends to make the final rule establishing the FY 1992 license and annual fees effective upon publication, in violation of the section 553(b) of the Administration Procedures Act.
Response.
The NRC clearly stated in Section I, Background, of the proposed rule that, as in FY 1991, the final rule would become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The NRC will send a bill for the amount of the annual fee to the licensee or certificate, registration or approval holder upon publication of-the final rule. Payment is
- due-on the effective date of the rule (57 FR 18095; April 29, 1992). This fully satisfies all legal requirements.
There were four groups of comments that were not within the 27_
i i
I-
! i i
4 i
i scope of the proposed rule, and therefore, were not evaluated for
{
1 the purposes of issuing this final rule. Briefly, they are --
1 ,
(1) The legality of the fees to be assessed by the NRC; t
] f l (2) i The appropriateness of the NRC budget and regulatory j program; t
4 t- (3) The impact of the fees on licensees; and I
l (4) i The annual fee should be based on the amount of j
material, or-the size of the licensee's operation.
1 2
- 1. Leoality of, Fees. '
I i i
+
{ Comment. !
! Commenters indicate that OBRA-90 fails to set i
i fcrth adequate standards to guide NRC's discretion in-setting .
i annual charges under Part 171. Therefore, - .
1 i -
the proposed fees i amount to a " tax" rather than a " fee" and'NRC lacks legal authority to promulgate and-assess-the charges.
i j - Resnonse.-
i-The legal issues, including the issue of:"taxd vs. " fee",
involved in the assessment of annual fees-were fully
[
addressed in the final ruleipublished by the: Commission on
- July 10,-1991.(Esction III, Responseo to Comments, item A., Legal- .
e 28 i
- 1
'm_.
--.. .w.. . . , , , , . , . -,.mfy..,.Wm,,,m,.-,,,,_,r.mg_,.,,,w-.m,,y,..,-_,,--,..,g.--
.,,w-._, ..,n-4 , ,; ,,w-, -._,.%,.y,..y-4-.,-wf_,.
,m.%,.3,.-. .-%_,_,,.,.
issues (56 FR 31473-31475). The NRC's approach satisfies all legal requirements.
2.
Acorocriateness of NRC Budaet and Regulatory Proargg.
Comment.
There were several commenters who questioned the size of the NRC budget and regulatory program. Some commenters indicated that they would expect a decrease in the NRC budget because of the significant reduction in the number of licensees within the past year and the fact that Maine became an Agreement State during FY 1992.
Other commenters do not believe the 42 percent increase in the budget for uranium recovery activities over the previous year is justified given the current size of the licensed uranium industry. These commenters note that, there are no active conventional uranium mines and mills in the United states and only three commercially operating in-situ leach facilities.
They argue that the fee of $238,700 appears grossly out-of-line with the degree of HRC involvement for uranium recovery sites. Commenters suggest that NRC--
(1) Freeze fees at FY 1991 levels; (2) Distribute copies of-the'NRC budget to licensees for approval or disapproval; and (3)
Appoint an outside reviewer to evaluate the scope and 29 o
~?
. . . . . - . ______1_._.___. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _._.__ _ _ ___ __.._ _ _ _ __ _ __. _ .__ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ __ _ _~ _.. ._ _ .
effectiveness of the NRC medical program because the increases are tied to unnecessary and overly expensive medical regulation. '
i Response.
OBRA-90 requires NRC to recover 100 percent of its budget authority through fees. The fees being assessed for L
FY 1992 fulfill this requirement. The budget is developed by the HRC, submitted by the President to the Congress, and approved by the Congress. The basis for-the NRC FY 1992 resources are explained in the NRC's Budget Estimates, Fiscal Years 1992-1993' s (NUREG-1100; Volume 7). The basis for the resources are ;
thoroughly addressed by the Congress through hearin,gs and written-questions and answers. The FY 1992 NRC hearings are documented, for example, in the publication, Energy and Water Development !
Appropriations "or FY 1992 -- Hearings Before A Subcommittee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, First. Session Part 6. The resources resulting from this review and decision _ process are those necessary for NRC to implement its statutory responsibilities. The fees must be consistent with this approved budget in order to. comply with OBRA-90. The agency makes an extraordinary' effort to ensure to r
the maximum extent possible that fees are related to the cost of providing services to the beneficiaries of the NRC activity.
Questions relating to the-NRC budget approval process were also addressed.in the final rule published by the Commission on July 10, 1991,_in Section III, Responses to' Comments, item E, other r comments, (56 FR 31482).
l 30
'.,--.y,-..
,,-.e .- ,, . .e-.,.-v36 -
.r - , [ e,-, ,--c.%., ,N r . .mwu,,,,,-p <w,. g. ,, v , , ,,.~..,i..w..oa-.,, . * , .%m,,e ...-v- .r
L
- 3. Imnact of Fees on Licensees.
1.
Comment. Several commenters expressed concern about the impact of the fees.
Some commenters indicated that an exemption be offered to nonprofit medical institutions similar to nonprofit 4
educational institutions and that the previous exemption from ,
fees for State and local governments be reestablished.
ResDonse. The impact issues regarding the assessment of the annual fees-were fully addressed by the Commission in=the final rule published July 10, 1991 (see.Section III., Response to comments, item B2. Major Policy Issues - Consideration of non-safety impacts in assessing fees.) The NRC continues to believe that the previous assessment of impacts and resulting conclusions are still appropriate.' '
4.
Fees based on material oossessed and size of ooeration.
l Comment. Commenters suggested that the NRC assess fees based on the amount of throughput of material, the size of the facility, the amount or type of material possessed, the sales generated by the licensed location, the competitive condition of certain markets. including the assessment of-fees to Agreement States;and the effect of fees on domestic and foreign competition.
Another commenter indicated that it is-not fair and 31 L
y e
equitable, as well as contrary to the intent of Congress, to assess UF 6 converters a fee that is larger than assessed for a mill.
Another commenter stated that the methodology the NRC has applied is unjustified because it results in increased fees of .s over 2,000 percent over 1990 \
fee levels to some medical licensees n}i p
while the risk to the patient remains the same. The commenter suggests that some consideration be given to the commensurate risk to the patient before exercising such exorbitant fees on the industry which has not increased the risk of radiation exposure to the public or to its patients.
Response.
The issues of basing fees on the amount of material possessed, the frequency of use of the material, and the size of the facilities, were addressed by Commission in the Regulation Flexibility Analysis, which was Appendix A to the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31511-31513). The Commission did not adopt that approach, and finds no basis for altering its approach at this time.
III.
Final Action -- Changes Included in Final Rule OBRA-90 requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its FY 1992 budget authority, including the funding of its Office of the Inspector General, less the appropriations received from the NWF, by assessing license and annual fees.
32
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ - _ - - - - ~
For FY 1992, the NRC's budget authority is $512.5 million, o of which approximately $20.0 million has been appropriated from u the NWF. Therefore, OBRA-90 requires that the NRC collect 8
7 5pproximately S492.5 million in FY 1992 through Part 170 licensing and inspection fees and Part 171 annual fees. The NRC IN estimates that approximately $105 million will be recovered in FY 1992 from the fees assessed under Part 170. This estimate represents an increase of $15 million over that estimated in the proposed rule because of one additional quarterly billing in FY 1992.
This is the result of the rule change effective May 18, 1992 which permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly rather than e semiannual basis. The remaining $387.5 million would be recovered through the FY 1992 Part 171 annual fees.
The Commission has not changed the basic approach, policies, and methodology for calculating the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the specific meterials licensing and inspection fees in Part 170, and the Part 171 annual fees set forth in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31472). The public was provided an opportunity to comment fully on the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in the July 10, 1991, final rule.
Those comments were fully addressed by the Commission in its final rule.
That rule has been challenged in Federal court by several parties and those lawsuits are pending. Under this final rule, fees for most licenses will increase because --
33
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~~
(1) NRC's budget has increased. This has resulted in a corresponding increase in the professional hourly rate; .-M (2) Approximately 2,000 licensees have requested that their licenses be terminated or combined since the FY 1991 final rule was adopted. This has resulted in fewer licensees to pay for the costs of regulatory activities not recovered under 10 CFR Part 170.
A. Amendments to Part 170: Fees for Facilities. Materials.
Iroort and Excort Licenses, and Other Reculatory Services.
Four amendments have been made to Part 170. These amendments do not change the underlying basis for the regulation -- that fees be assessed to applicants, persons, and licensees for specific identifiable services rendered. These revisions also comply with the guidance in the Conference Committee Report on OBRA-90 that fees assessed under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA) recover the full l cost to the NRC of all identifiable regulatory services each 1
t applicant or licensee receives.
i First, the agency-wide professional hourly rate, which is used to determine the Part 170 fees, is increased from $115 per l hour to $123 per hour ($214,509 per direct FTE) . The rate is based on the FY 1992 direct FTEs and that portion of the FY 1992 34
1 budget that is not recovered through the appropriation from the
, NWF.
Second, the current Part 170 licensing and inspection fees in SS 170.21 and 170.31 for all applicants and licensees are increased by seven percent to reflect this increase in the professional hourly rate.
Third, the NRC is amending SS 170.21, Facility Category K, and 170.31, Category 15, to make further refinements to the i
existing fee categories for import and export license applications and amendments.
Fourth, the NRC is amending S 170.3 to add a definition for nonprofit educational institutions.
B. Amendments to Part 171: Annual Fees for Reactor Operatina Licenses, and Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses.
Includina Holders of Certificates of Comoliance.
Reaistrations, and Ouality Assurance Procram Accrovals and Government Acencies Licensed by NRC.
Five amendments have been made to Part 171. First, SS 171.15, and 171.2.6 are amended to increase the annual fees for FY 1992 to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1992 budget less fees collected under Part 170 and funds appropriated s
35
)
from the NWF.
It is noted that the amount of the annual fees for several classes of licensees has decreased from the amount shown in the proposed rule.
The reason for the decrease in annual fees if that an additional $15 million is estimated to be collected-from part 170 fees in FY 1992 because of the change in the Part 170 rule effective May 18, 1992 which permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis.
Second, S 171.16, Category 2.A.(2), is amended to divide Class I facilities-in the uranium recovery class of licensees into two classes. The additional category (Class II)-would recognize _those licensees who do-not-generate-uranium mill tailings.
Third, S 171.11 is amended to require that licensees who wish to be considered for an exemption from the annual fees file their respective exemption requests within ninety (90) days from the effective date of the rule establishing the annual fees. As in FY 1991, the NRC plans to continue a very high threshold of eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant exemptions sparingly.
The NRC notes that during the one-month period from the publication of the FY'1991 final rule on July 10, 1991,Eto the effective date of the rule on August 9, 1991, many licensees l
filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject {
36 t
\
to the FY 1991 annual fees. Many other licensees have either called or written to the NRC since the final rule became effective requesting further clarification and information concerning the annual fees assessed. The NRC is responding to i these requests as quickly as possible but was unable to respond and take action on all of the requests prior to the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 1991. Therefore, based on the number of requests filed, the Commission, for FY 1992, is exempting from the FY 1992 annual fees those licensees, and holders-of certificates, registrations,. and approvals who either filed for termination of their license or approval or filed for a possession only/ storage only license during the period October 1, 1991, through December 31, 1991. All other licensees and approval holders who held a license or approval on October 1, 1991, are subject to the FY-1992 annual fees.
Fourth, S 171.19 is amended to credit the quarterly partial payments made by certain licensees in FY 1992 toward their FY 1992 annual fees.
l Fifth, S 171.5 is amended to add a definition for nonprofit educational institutions.
The NRC notes that-the impact of this final rule on small entities has been evaluated in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.(see Appendix A to this final rule). Based on this 37
_ . _ _ _ . _ - .- - , - ~ ~ . , , . . _ ,
. ....,._..._,._._,__.,._...,_.._._;;,__..__..., .- ,_ _ ; . . . . . a__
analysis, the NRC is continuing for FY 1992 a maximum annual fee l
of $1,800 per licensed category for those licensees who qualify as a small entity under the NRC's size standards. The lower tier small entity annual fee of $400 per licensed category for certain materials licensees, which was adopted by the NRC effective as of May 18, 1992, will apply for FY 1992 (57 FR 13625; April 17, 1992).
The amounts to be collected through annual fees in the amendments to Part 171 are based on the increased professional hourly rate. The Part 171 annual fees have been determined using-the same method as was used to determine the FY-1991 annual-fees.
These amendments to Part 171-do not change the underlying basis-for Part 171; that is, charging a class of licensees for NRC .
costs attributable to that class of licensees. The changes are consistent with the Congressional guidance in the conference l
Committee Report, which states that the " conferees contemplate ;
that the NRC will continue to allocate generic costs that are attributable to a given class of licensee to such class"~and the
" conferees intend that the NRC assess the annual charge under the -
principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditures of -
the agency's_ resources should pay the greatest annual fee." 136 1
l Cong. Rec., at H12692-93.
- C.- - FY 1992 Budceted Costs.
38-f
, ,, s , -, -=m, ww-e -w, r--,,n, ..-n, r,,--r , , e-.. , , , - . , ~ , - ..nw
- - - - - . _ _ - . = - - _ _ _ . . - - - . . _ - _ - _ - - - . _
The FY 1992 budgeted costs by major activity, relating to the amendments to Parts 170 and 171 are shown in Table I.
Table I Recovery of NRC's FY 1992 Budget Authority Recovery Method Estimated Amount (S in Millions)
Nuclear Waste Fund $20.0 Part 170 (license and 105.0 inspection fees)
Part 171 (annual fees)
Power Reactors 309.6 Nonpower Reactors .6 Fuel Facilities 9.9 Spent Fuel Storage .2 Uranium Recovery 2.0 Transportation 5.0 Material Users _-31.31/
Subtotal $358.6 Costs remaining to be 28.9 recovered not identified above Total $512.5
, I 1/ ncludes $6.2 million that will not be recovered from small fees. materials licensees because of the reduced small entity I
The $28.9 million identified for those activities which are not identified as either Parts 170 or 171 or the NWF in Table I are distributed among the NRC classes of licensees as follows:
S25.1 million to operating power reactors; 39 4
+ -
--,---,--w--,.,---,---n- , - , , - - - -
l l $1.9 million to fuel facilities; and j
J
$1.9 million to other materials licensees.
In addition, approximately $6.2 million must be collected as a result of continuing the $1,800 maximum fee for small entitles and the lower tier small entity fee of $400 for certain licensees. In order for the Commission to recover 100 percent of its budget authority in accordance with OBRA-90, the Commission will recover $5.4 million of the $6.2 million from operating power reactors and the remaining $.8 million from 1.arge entities that are not reactor licensees.
4 This distribution results in an additional charge I
(surcharge) of approximately $272,000 per operating power ,
l reactor; $155,100 for each HEU, LEU, and UF 6 fuel facility;
$38,800 for each other fuel facility licensee and waste disposal 3 licensee in Category 4A; $1,600 for each materials licensee in a 3
category that generates a significant amount of low level waste; and $150 for other materials licensees. When added to the base annual fee of approximately $2.8 million per reactor, this will result in an annual fee of approximately $3.1 million per operating power reactor. The total fuel facility annual fee would be between approximately $0.1 million and $2.3 million.
The total annual fee for materials licenses would vary depending f
on the fee category (ies) assigned to the license.
40
These additional charges not directly or solely attributable to a specific class of NRC licensees or costs not recovered from all NRC licensees on the basis of previous Commission policy decisions would be recovered from the designated classes of licensees previously identified. A further discussion and breakdown of the specific costs by major classes of licensees are shown in Section IV of this final rule.
The Commission notes that in prior litigation over NRC annual fees, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the NRC "did not abuse its discretion by failing to impose the annual fee on all licensees,"
Florida Power & Licht Co. v. NRC, 846 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir.
1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 1952 (1989).
As noted earlier, the conferees on Publie Law 101-508 have acknowledged the D.C.
Circuit's holding that the Commission was within its legal l
discretion not to impose fees on all licensees.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis The following analysis of those sections that are affected under this final rule provides additional explanatory information. All references are to Title 10, Chapter I, U.S. 3 Code of Federal Regulations.
I 41
i part 170
, Section 170.3 Definitions.
i The definition of a nonprofit educational institutiore is added to more specifically identify those applicants and licensees that are exempt from fees under S 170.11(a)(4) of the Commission regulations. Since the FY 1991 final rule was published, many licensees have commented that the NRC has not defined the term and that the criteria used by the NRC to classify licensees as nonprofit educational institutions are not clear. The NRC is defining the term " nonprofit educational institution" as a public or nonprofit educational institution whose primary function is education, whose programs are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, who is legally authorized to provide a program of organized instruction or study, who provides an educational program for which it awards academic degrees, and whose educational programs are available to the public.
Section 170.20 Average cost per professional staff hour.
This section is amended to reflect an agency-wide professional staff-hour rate based on FY 1992 budgeted costs.
Accordingly, the NRC professional staff-hour rate for FY 1992 for all fee categories tnat are based on full cost is $123 per hour, 42 1
i ;
1 ;
i i.
! or $214,509 per direct FTE.
I The rate ~is based on the FY 1992 s
1 direct FTEs and NRC budgeted costs that are not recovered through j the appropriation from the NWF.
1 The rate is calculated using the identical method established for FY 1991. The method is as i
i follows: ,
i
, 1. All direct FTEs are identified in Table II by major
?
1 program, i
Table II i
3 i
i Allocation-of Direct FTEs e
by Major Program i
i Number Major Program 3 ofd{7ect FTEs_
i Reactor Safety & Safeguards i Regulation . . . . . . . . 1070.4 e
Nuclear-Safety Research . . 154.1 Nuclear Material & Low-Level Waste Safety &
Safeguards Regulation . . 294.5 Special.and Independent i
' Reviews, Investigations, and Enforcement . . . . . . . 71.0 i
Nuclear Material Management and Support . . . . . , .
23.0_ ,
Total direct FTE . . . . . . 1613.01/
II FTE
- year.
(full time equivalent) -is one person working for a full Regional employees are counted in the office of the program each-supports.
43:
I t-
?
.-r,~r,w,
,+mmes,,,,,.e--.-, -,%,-,- ~ ~ , , .,...-.<wem-m.-.m. - , .m..._--,----.-..-.e-,-.--...-.-.-- . . - , . -..~,4-,-. .-e.,.-
II In FY 1992, 1,613 FTEs of the total 3,261 FTEs are considered to be in direct support of NRC non-NWF programs.
- 1,648 FTEs are considered overhead and general andThe remaining administrative.
2.
NRC FY 1992 budgeted costs are allocated, in Table III, to the folloving four major categoriest (a) Salaries and benefits.
(b) Administrative support.
(c) Travel.
(d) Program support.
3.
Diredt program support, the use of contract or other services in support of the-line organization's direct program, is excluded because these costs are charged directly_through the
- various categories of fees. .
4.
All other costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel, Administrative Support, and Program Support contracts / services i l for G&A activities) represent "in-house" costs and are to be L
collected by allocating them uniformly over the total. number of j direct FTEs.
I l
Using-this method, which was described in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56'FR 31472)',- and excluding direct-Program Support funds, the remaining $346.0 million al ocated I
44-d
,w_m,h+..,-_
--,,W-.--.,,.y ,y,-v,5, -,-y.,gy,w_,,- ., w ,n -
m.~,w g y -,.myy.wm-.,,,,--g y..,#,
, y ,ev ,-ww.r, dgy,,,,,yym -ng- ,,,.ww.---y ,w,.,s,.'n.4mw,%,,
uniformly to the direct FTEs (1613) results in a rate of $214,509 per FTE for FY 1992.
The Ditect FTE Hourly Rate is $123 per hour (rounded to the .sare st whole dollar). This rate is calculated by dividing $346.0 million by the number of direct FTEs (1613 FTE) and tha number of productive hours in one year (1,744 hours0.00861 days <br />0.207 hours <br />0.00123 weeks <br />2.83092e-4 months <br />) as indicated in OMB Circular A-76, " Performance of Commercial Activities."
Table III FY 1992 Budget Authority by Major Category (Dollars in millions)
Salaries and benefits . . . . . . $238,4 Administrative support . . . . . 86.5 Travel
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Total nonprogram support obligations Program Support . . . . . . . . . $338.3
. . . . . . . . . 154.2 Total Budget Authority . . . $492.5 Less Program support (Direct Program) . . . . . . . _146.5 Budget Allocated to Direct FTE $346.0 Professional Hourly Rate . .
$123/ hour Section 170.21 Schedule of Fees for Production and Utilization Facilities, Review of Standard Reference Design Approvals, Special Projects, Inspections and Import and Export Licenses.
45
1; The licensing and inspection fees in this section, which are based on full-cost recovery, are revised to reflect the FY 1992 :
budgeted costs and to more completely recover costs incurred by the Commission in previding licensing and inspection services to identifiable recipients. The fees assessed for services provided '
i under the schedule are based on the professional hourly rate as shown in S 170.20 and any direct program support (contractual
- services) cost expended by the NRC. Any professional hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule would be ,
assessed at the FY 1992 rate shown in S 170.20.
I since July 10, 1991, the NRC has continued to receive comments regarding the fees assessed for import and export licenses in accordance with 5 170.21, Facility Category K. Based on experience in implementing these fees for the first time, the Commission is amending,the existing fee categories in this section to provide for more equitable flat. fees by expanding the number of fee categories.
Footnote 2 of 5 170.21 is revised to provide that for those applications currently on file and pending completion, the-professional hours expended up to the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the professional-rates established for the .
June 20,-1984, January 30, 1989, July 2, 1990, and July 10, 1991,-
rules as appropriate. .For topical report applications currently on file which are still pending completion of the review, and for 46
-, ~.. , g , , _~,,,mu.-,,my..,..,c,',-.., ....=3,~,r,me --,,....me , ..,...Ed'.,y,.....mm eym we-, v . . . ~.,y,-,
~
(
whien review costs have reached the applicable fee ceiling established by the July 2, 1990, rule, the costs inc.urred after any applicable ceiling was reached through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant.
Any professional hours expended fer the review of topical report applications, amendments, 1 revisiona or supplements to a topical report on or after August 9, 1991, are assessed at the applicable rate established by 5 170.20.
Section 170.31 Schedule of Fees for Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Services, including Inspections and Import and Ixport LiConses.
The licensing and inspection fees in this section are modified to reco$'er more completely the FY 1992 costs incurred by the Commission in providing licensing and inspection services to identifjable recipients.
Those flat fees, which are based on the average time to review an application or conduct an inspection, t are increased by seven percent across the board to reflect the increase in the professional hourly rate from $115 per hour in FY 1991 to $123 per hour in FY 1992.
After application of the seven percent increase to the flat materials fees, the amounts were rounded, as in FY 1991, by applying standard rules of arithmetic so that the amounts rounded would be deminimus and convenient to the user.
Fees that are greater than $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $100.
Fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10.
47
For example, an industrial radiography licensee (category 3.0.) will pay revised license and inspection fees as follows:
Current Proposed Tyne of Fees Egga Increase FY 1992 Fees Application $3,000 7% $3,200 Renewal 1,800 7% 1,900 Amendment 490 7% 520 Routine Inspection 1,200 7% 1,300 Nonroutine Inspection 2,500 7% 2,700 The increase is applicable to fee categories 1.C and 1.D; 2.B and 2.C; 3.A through 3.P; 4.B through 9.D, 10.B and 16. The increased fees are assessed for applications filed or inspections conducted on or after the effective date of this rule. Based on experience in implementing the import and export license fees assessed under fee Category 15, the commission is amending the existing fee categories to provide for more equitable flat fees by expanding the number of fee categories.
For those licensing, inspection, and review fees assessed that are based on full-cost recovery (cost for professional staff hours plus any contractual services), the revised hourly-rate of
$123, as shown in 5 170.20, applies to these professional staff hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule.
Part 171 Section 171.5 Definitions.
48
, , - e -- -n . -.r ,
The definition of a nonprofit educational institution is added to provide clarification and to more specifically identify those licensees that are exempt from the annual fees under S 171.11(a). Since the final rule was published, many licensees have commented that NRC has not defined the term and that the criteria used by the NRC to classify licensees as nonprofit educational institutions are not clear. The NRC is defining the term " nonprofit educational institution" as a public or nonprofit educational institution whose primary function is education, whose programs are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, who is legally authorized to provide a program of organized instruction or study, who provides an educational program for which it awards academic degrees, and whose educational programs are available to the public.
Section 171.31 Exemptions.
Paragraph (a) of this section is amended to require that requests for exemption from the annual fees must be filed by-the licensee within ninety (90) days from the effective date of the final rule establishing the annual fees. Based on the NRC's experience with the filing of exemption requests under the FY 1991 final rule, a defined time period must be established for the prompt filing of exemption requests. The Commission is, therefore, limiting the filing of exemption requests to the 90 49
___m_._____._____m _ _ .
i day period immediately following the effective date of the rule establishing the annual fees.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, any exemption requests filed beyond that date will not be considered. The commission, in making this change, is not intending to change its exemption policy. As in FY 1991, the Commission plans to continue a very high eligibility threshold for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant exemptions sparingly. Therefore, the Commission strongly discourages the filing of exemption requests by licensees who have previously had exemption requests denied unless there are significantly changed circumstances.
Exemption requests, or any requests to clarify the bill, will not, per se, extend the interest-free period for_ payment of the bill.
Bills are due on the effective date of the final rule, ,
Therefore, only payment will ensure avoidance of interest, administrative,.and penalty charges. '
i The Commission notes that during the one month period from the~ publication of the FY 1991 final rule on July 10, 1991,.to August 9, 1991, the effective date of the rule, many licensees filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject to the FY 1991 annual fees. Many other-licensees have either i
l called or. written to the NRC since the final rule became effective requesting further clarification and information
- concerning the-anntal~ fees assessed. The NRC is responding to l
50 l.
- m.
..,~...-~,.-..~,-m+,~.-,~.....-...,~..;..---,,..,e... .,-....,_,,,#., ,,..,,-.,+,--,m,m.y.-,.c .-,m.*r =~'- .s- n -
l l
l 1
i these requests as quickly as possible but it was unable to t respond and take appropriate action on all of the requests before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 1991. Therefore, based on the number of requests filed, the Commission is '
1 exempting from the FY 1992 annual fees those licensees, and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/ storage only licenses during the period October 1,_1991, through December 31,'1991. All other licensees -;
and approval holders who held a license or approval on October 1,-
1991, are subject to the FY 1992 annual fees.
Section 171.15 Annual Fee: Reactor operating licenses, i The annual fees in this section are revised to reflect the FY 1992 budgeted costs, paragraphs (b) (3) , - (c) (2)', (d), and (e) are revised to comply with the requirement of'OBRA-90 to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget for FY 1992. Table-i IV shows the. budgeted costs that have been allocated to operating -
! power reactors.
They have been expressed in terms of the NRC's-FY 1992 programs and program elements. _The resulting total base
- annual fee amount for power _ reactors is also shown. Lon=the average, the power reactor base annual fees for FY 1992.have increased about seven percent above the FY 1991 annual. fees.
It is noted that the power reactor annual fees _have decreased'from the i amount shown~in the proposed rule.- The decrease ~in power-reactor 51 ~
l -
e+9ys--y+y sin-e'i--y-wr 'J- *+w-ge p g = u 9'irm e- i 0 W '&r Y*D TW *~ **w 9it =e ve W e v-9y'T N' '*- **'TtE V 9'-Wrvy'qukwr *r ftWT
- . . . . - . - _ _ - _ _ _ = - - _. . . .
1 l
annual fees is the result of additional collections which are estimated from Part 170 power reactor fees because of the rule change effective May 18, 1992 which permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis.
52
Table IV ALLOCATION OF NRC FY 1992 8UDGET TO POWER REACTORS 1 BASE FEES' Program Element Allocated to Total Power Reactors Program Program Support Direct Support Direct fS,K) FTE f$,K) ..FTE REACTOR SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS REGULATION (RSSR)
Power Reactor Applications Reviews $1,100 14.9 1,100 14.9 Standard Reactor Designs Reviews 2,438 56.4 2,438 56.4 Other Reviews 350 8.2 --
5.9 Reactor 1.icense Renewal 1,913 13.7 1,913 13.7 Improvements to Regulations 2,800 14.5 2,800 14.5 Reactor Performance Evaluation 718 33.2 718 33.2 Evaluation of Licensee Performance 600 33.4 600 33.4 Reactor Accident Management 400 10.1 400 10.1 Human Performance Evaluation 600 3.2 600 3.2 Reactor Operator Examinations 6,620 55.9 6,255 53.7 Resident Inspections --
203.9 --
203.9 Region-Based Inspections 5,258 285.7 5,258 280.5 Specialized Inspections 3,197 69.5 3,197 63.5 Project Management --
156.6 --
156.6 Licensing Activities Safety 6,816 87.0 6,816 Evaluations 87.0 Regulatory Improvements 335 24.2 335 23.1 RSSR PROGRAM TOTAL S32,430 1,059.6 53 m _, , . . , , - . , . . , ..m-,, - , .,...m , ...my._ .
- . _ - - - . . . - - . - ~ _ . . - - - . _.- - - -_ . . . _ . -- . - . _ _ - - ~ - .-- - -
1 J
l Table IV i (Continued) i 1 Total Allocated to Program Element Power Reactors
] ......__.......
Program Program Support Direct support Direct
($,K) FTE ($,K) FTE i NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH (NSR) 1 Integrity of Reactor Components $27,650 17.5 26,150 1 17.4
] Prevent Damage to Reactor Cores 19,655. 26.5 19,455
- 26.2 l
Reactor containment Performance 13,922 10.5 13,922 10.5 Advanced Reactor Research 13,050 22.5 13,050 22.5 Generic Safety Issue Resolution 4,313 24.1 4,313 24.1 Developing and Improving Regulations 6,450 22.0 5,200 13.4 Severe Accident Implementation 2,125 6.0
- ' 2,125 6.0 Radiation Protection / Health Effects 6,285 17.5 3.119 2 8.6 i NSR PROGRAM TOTAL
$87,334 128.7 NUCLEAR MATERIAL & LOW LEVEL WASTE SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS REGULAT Safeguards Licensing and Inspection $465 8.8 $ -- .1 Threat & Event Assess./
International Safeguards 525 13.2 405 6.8 Decommissioning 1,000 i
28.1 125 3.7 NMLLWSSR PROGRAM TOTAL
$530 10.6 i
i l 54 l
l l
- a
- w - - - - Y iy- i-- w + wre ,ww,rr-
- ew------,ww- etw<-- - -w ev v
Table IV (Continued)
Total Allocated to Program Element Power Reactors Program Program Support Direct Support Direct
($,K) FTE ($,K) FTE SPECIAL AND INDEPENDENT REVIEWS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND ENFORCEMENT Diagnostic Evaluations $350 7.0 $350 7.0 Incident Investigations 50 3.0 50 3.0 NRC Incident Response 1,980 27.0 1,980 27.0 Operational Data Analysis 2,187 25.0 2,087 23.0 Performance Indicators 1,047 4.0 1,047 4.0 Operational Data collection / 2,016 5.0 2,016 5.0 Dissemination SIRIE PROGRAM TOTAL $7,530 69.0 TOTAL $127,824 1,267.9 TOTAL BASE FEE AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO POWER REACTORS $399.8 millioni LESS ESTIKATED PART 170 POWER REACTOR FEES 90.2 million PART 171 EASE FEES FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS $309.6 million a Base annual fees include all costs attributable to the operating power reactor class of licensees. The base fees do not include costs allocated to power reactors for policy reasons.
E Amount is obtained by multiplying the direct FTE times the rate per FTE and adding the program support funds.
55:
t l
+ , +-,-n , .--r. ,,.n,e r - -.w.- , - y ow --
i Based on the information in Table IV, the base annual fees to forbe assessed each nuclearforpower FY 1992 are thelicense.
operating amounts shown in Table V below TABLE V
, BASE ANNULL FEES FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS Reactors Containment Type Annual Fee Westinghouse:
1
- 1. Beaver Valley 1 PWR Large Dry $2,855,000 Containment
- 2. Beaver Valley 2 " "
2,855,000
- 3. Braidwood 1 " "
2,855,000 i
- 4. Braidwood 2 " "
2,855,000
, 5. Byron 1 " "
2,855,000
- 6. Bryon 2 " "
2,855,000
) 7. Callaway 1 " "
2,855,000
- 8. Comanche Peak 1 " "
2,855,000
- 9. Diablo Canyon 1 " "
2,849,000
- 10. Diablo Canyon 2 " "
2,849,000 i 11. Farley 1 " "
2,855,000
- 12. Farley 2 " "
a 2,855,000
- 13. Ginna " "
2,855,000
- 14. Haddam Neck " "
2,855,000
, 15. Harris 1 " "
2,855,000
- 16. Indian Point 2 " "
2,855,000
- 17. Indian Point 3 " "
2,855,000
- 18. Kewaunee " "
2,855,000
- 19. Millstone 3 " "
2,855,000 56 h
I
- 20. North Anna 1 " "
$2,855,000
- 21. North Anna 2 " "
2,855,000
- 22. Point Beach 1 " "
2,855,000
- 23. Point Beach 2 " "
2,855,000
- 24. Prairie Island 1 " "
2,855,000
- 25. Prairie Island 2 " "
2,855,000
- 26. Robinson 2 " "
2,855,000
- 27. Salem 1 " "
2,855,000
- 28. Salem 2 " "
2,855,000
- 29. San Onofre 1 " "
2,849,000
- 30. Seabrook 1 " "
2,855,000
- 31. South Texas-1 " "
2,855,000
- 32. South Texas 2 " "
2,855,000
- 33. Summer 1 " "
2,855,000
- 34. Surry 1 " "
2,855,000
- 35. Surry 2 " "
2,855,000
- 36. Trojan " "
2,849,000
- 37. Turkey Point 3 " "
2,855,000
- 38. Turkey Point 4 " "
2,855,000
- 39. Vogtle 1 " "
2,855,000
- 40. Vogtle 2 " "
2,855,000
- 41. Wolf Creek 1 " "
2,855,000 ,
- 42. Zion 1 " "
2,855,000
- 43. Zion 2 " "
2,855,000
- 44. CatawbaEl PRR -- Ice Condenser 2,850,000
- 45. Catawba 2 " "
2,850,000 57
. I
4 6. - Cook 1 " "
$2,850,000
- 47. Cook 2 " "
2,850,000
- 48. McGuire 1 " "
2,850,000
- 49. McGuire 2 " "
2,850,000
- 60. Sequoyah 1 " "
2,850,000
- 51. Sequoyah 2 " "
2,850,000 Combustion Engineering:
Calvert Cliffs 1 " "
2,850,000
- 3. Calvert Cliffs 2 " "
2,850,000
- 4. Ft. Calhoun 1 " "
2,850,000 '
- 5. Maine Yankee " "
2,850,000
- 6. Millstone 2 " "
2,850,000
- 7. Palisades " "
2,850,000
- 8. Palo Verde 1 " "
2,844,000
- 9. Palo Verde 2 " "
2,844,000
- 10. Palo Verde 3 " "
2,844,000
- 11. San Onofre 2 " "
2,844,000
- 12. San Onofre 3 " "
2,844,000
- 13. St. Lucie 1 " "
2,850,000
- 14. St. Lucie 2 " "
2,850,000
- 15. Waterford 3 " "
2,850,000 Babcock & Wilcox:
- 1. Arkansas 1 " "
$2,866,000 58 m -- , -
i
- 2. Crystal River 3 " "
- $2,866,000 ,
i.
- 3. Davis Besse 1 " " ;
2,866,000-l t
-1. Oconee 1 " "
i- 2,866,000 Oconee 2
- 5. " "
i 2,866,000 i 6. Oconee 3 "
t "
4 2,866,000
- 7. Three Mile Island 1 " "
2,866,000 General Electric i 1. Browns Ferry 1 . Mark I 4
i $2,810,000 i 2.
1 Browns Ferry 2 " "
2,810,000 1
j 3. Browns Ferry 3 " "
i 2,810,000 4.. Brunswick 1 " "
2,810,000'
,. 5. Brunswick-2 " "
I 2,810,000.
i 6. Clinton 1 Mark III 2,810,000-i 7. Cooper i Mark I 2,810,000-j 8. Dresden 2 .
2,810,000 i
- 9. Dresden 3 " "
2,810,000 t i
i
- 10. Duane Arnold " "
2,810,000
- 11. Fermi 2 " "
2,810,000'
- 12. Fitzpatrick' "' "
_ 2,810,000:
t
-13. Grand Gulf 1 3
Mark III 2,810,000
- 14. Hatch 1 i
Mark I- 2,810,000:
15 . - Hatch 2 " "
1- -
2,810,000 16.
Hope-Creek 1 - " "
2,810,000
- 17. LaSalle 1 1 Mark II- - 2,821,000
-18.
LaSalle[2: " "-
- 2,821,000-59 T
.6
. . - . , = - . , , , , - - -
97 9 . . . , . . .5, s y. , , _ , ,p _,
.,,y.,.. , m. , _hy,n _m,e, ,.w..g,.w;4,.., .,.w,,,.y..w,, ...-,#m.,%,'w..,%.'# , , . %. ,
- 19. Limerick 1. " "
_S2,821,000
- 20. Limerick 2 " "
2,821,000-
- 21. - Millstone 1 Mark I 2,810,000-
- 22. Monticello " "
2,810,000
- 23. Nine Mile Point 1 " "
2,810,000
- 24. Nine Mile Point 2 Mark II 2,821,000
- 25. Oyster Creek Mark I 2,810,000
- 26. Peach Bottom 2 " "
2,610,000
- 27. Peach Bottom 3 " "
2,810,000
- 28. Perry 1 Mark III 2,810,000
- 29. Pilgrim- Mark I 2,810,000
- 30. Quad Cities 1 " " ~
2,810,000
- 31. Quad Cities 2 " "
2,810,000'
- 32. River Bend 1 Mark III 2,810,000
- 33. -Susquehanna 1 Mark II 2,821,000
- 3 4. Susquehanna 2 " "
2,821,000
- 35. Vermont Yankee Mark I 2 310,000-
- 36. Washington Nuclear-2 Mark II 2,814,000 Other Reactors:
- 1. Big Rock Point GE Dry Containment 2,810,000-
- 2. Yankee Rowe Westinghouse-PWR 2,855,000 Dry Containment.
- 3. Rancho Seco B&W PWR-Dry ContainmentL2,860,000 4.
Three Mile Island 2 B&W PWR-Dry Containment 2,866,000 The "Other Reactors" listed-in Table V have not-been '
60
included in the fee base because historically th ey have been granted either full or partial exemptions from the annual f ees.
With respect to Big Rock Point and Yankee Rowe in this final rule, the Commission, hereby grants partial exemptions from the FY 1992 annual fees based on requests filed with the c ommission in accordance with S 171.11.
The total amount of $781,300 to be paid by the two licensees has been subtracted from the total amount to be assessed operating reactors as a surchargeThe .
Commission, in this final rule, \
hereby grants full exemptions from the FY 1992 annual fees for Rancho Seco and Thr ee Mile Island 2 based on the fact that these reactors are either permanently or prematurely shutdown and do not intend to op erate in the future.
Paragraph (b) (3) is revised to change the fiscal year references from FY 1991 to FY 1992.
Paragraph (c) (2) is amended to show the amount of the surcharge for FY 1992 ,
which is added to the base annual fee for each operating power r Table V. eactor shown in This surcharge recovers those NRC budgeted costs that are not directly or solely attributable to operating power reactors, but nevertheless must be recovered to comply witheth requirements of OBRA-90.
The Commission has continued its previous policy decision to recover these costs from operati ng power reactors.
The FY 1992 budgeted costs related to the additiona l charge and the amount of the charge are calculated as follows:
61 -
i FY 1992 Cateaory of Costs Budgeted Costs 4
-(S In Millions)~
1.
jl Activities an existing NRC licensee or not attributable to class of licensee:
- a. reviews for DOE /DOD reactor l
projects,= West-Valley $4.1 Demonstration Project, DOE i
Uranium Mill ~ Tailing Radiation i
Control Act (UMTRCA) ~ actions;
! b. international cooperative safety
! program and international 7.9 i
)
safeguards activities; c.
60% of low level waste disposal
[ generic activities; and 5.8
- d. uranium enrichment generic activities. .7 3
2.
t Activities licensing and not assessed inspectionPart fees170 i
or-Part 171 annual fees based on Commission policy:
i a.
activities associated with-nonprofit educational 6.6 i
institutions; and a
b.
! costs not recovered from Part 171 for small entities, -
5.4 s
i
! Subtotal Budgeted Costs $30.5 t
} Less amount to be assessed to small older reactors with' partial exemption under Part 171 ___ .8 i
Total Budgeted Costs $29.7 The' annual additional charge is determined-as follows:
Total _budanted costs =
Total number of-operating $29.7 million m'$272,000 perL
- power reactors- 109
- -operating power t
reactor i
-On the basis of this calculation,--an operating power p reactor, Beaver Valley 1, for example, would pay a base annual fee of $2,855,000-and anLadditional' charge of $272,000 for a .
1 -.
i- 62 e -.s
, ... ...... - -, , - , . . - . , , - . _ _ . = . . . . - ...,,,-:,_. --,-,..,-_...,-e~,..
total annual fos of $3,127,000 for FY 1992.
Paragraph (d) is revised to show, in summary form, the amount of the total FY 1992 annual fee, including the surcharge, to be assessed for each major type of operating power reactor.
Paragraph (e) is revised to show the amount of the FY 1992 annual fee for non-power (test and research) reactors. In FY 1992, $557,000 in costs are attributable to those commercial and Federal government _ licensees that are licensed to operate test and research reactors. Applying these costs uniformly to those nonpower reactors which are not exempt from fees results in an annual fee of $55,700 per operating license.
Section 171.16 Annual fees: Materials Licensees, Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Holders of Sealed Source and Device Registrations, Holders of Quality Assurance Program Approvals, and Government agencle's licensed by the NRC.
The intreditction to paragraph (c) is being repeated in this final rule for convenience. The change in this paragraph occurred as a part of the final rule published on-April 17, 1992 s
(57 FR 13625), relating to reduced annual fees for certain small entities.
Paragraph (c) (4) is revised to indicate that the maximum annual fee per licensed category is $1,800 for a small entity in FY 1992.
Paragraph (d)-is revised to reflect the FY 1992 budgeted l.
63 l
r --x-~ -
e
costs for materials licensees,-including Goverr. ment agencies licensed by the NRC.
These fees are necessary to recover the FY >
1992 generic costs totalling $48.4 million applicable to fuel facilities, urantum recovery facilities,-holders of transportation certificates and QA program approvals, and other materials licensees, including holders of sealed source and device registrations.
It is noted that the amount of the annual fees for some classes of licenses has decreased from the amount shown in the proposed rule. . The decrease is the result of the additional collections which are estimated from Part 170 fees because of rule change effective May 18, 1992 which permits.the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis.
Tables VI and VII show-the NRC program elements and resources that are attributable to fuel facilities and' materials users, respectively.
The costs attributable to the uranium recovery class of licensees are those associated withLuranium recovery licensing and inspection.
For the uranium recovery class of licenses, the current Category 2. A. (2) - for- Class I facilities is further divided into Class I and Class II facilities.
Class II facilities are tuose solution mining
-licensees, primarily-in-situ and heap leach facilities, which do not generate uranium mill tailings.
The NRC has reexamined the uniform allocation =of. costs to Class =I facilities in the-current rule to dotermine whether there is a significant difference between the regulatory services provided to operating ~in-situ facilities that do not generate mill tailings as compared to _
64 '
-I
other licensees in Class I. The NRC is dividing the current Class I facilities into two classes to differentiate between those facilities that generate uranium mill tailings and those facilities that do not generate uranium mill tailings because there are generic regulatory activities (e.g., Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40) that are necessary to regulate uranium mill tailings.
For transportation, the costs are those budgeted for transportation research, licensing, and inspection. Similarly, the budgeted costs for spent fuel storage are those for spent fuel storage research, licensing, and inspection.
65
Table VI ALLOCATION OF NRC FY 1992 BUDGET TO FUEL FACILITY BASE FEESM Total Allocated to Program Element Fuel Facility Program Program Support Support S,K FTE S.K FTE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH Environmental Policy and S2,675 8.5 $180 .6 Decommissioning NSR PROGRAM TOTAL $180 .6 NUCLEAR MATERIAL & LOW LEVEL WASTE SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS REGULATION Fuel Facilities Lic./ Inspections 52,460 39.1 S1,260 27.2 Event Evaluation --
25.0 --
3.6 Safeguards Licensing / Inspection 665 21.9 615 16.7 Policy, Threat and Event Asseosment 525 13.2 44 ,6 Decommissioning 1,000 28.1 54 4.7 NHLLWSSR PROGRAM TOTAL S1,974 52.8 l
l TOTAL $2,154 53.4 TOTAL BASE FEE AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO FUEL FACILITIES S13.6 millionU i
l LESS PART 170 FUEL FACILITY FEES 3.7 million 1
PART 171 BASE FEES FOR FUEL FACILITIES 59.9 million 1/
Base annual facility class offee includes licensees. all costs attributable to the fuel allocated to fuel facilities forThe base policy fee does not include costs reasons.
2/
Amount is obtained by multiplying the direct FTE times the l rate per FTE and adding the program support funds.
66 P
w w-- F
Table VII ALLOCATION OF FY 1992 BUDGET TO MATERIAL USERS BASE FEESY Allocated to
- Total Materials Users Program Program Support Support 5,K FTE 5,K FTE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH MISSION AREA Human Factors $5,750 5.2 S180 .3 i
Radiation Protection / Health Effects 6,285 17.5 3,677 13,3 TOTAL S3,857 13.6 NUCLEAR MATERIAL & LOW LEVEL WASTE SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS REGULATION 4
Licensing / Inspection of Materials $2,190 110.5 51,971 99.5 Users
, Event Evaluation --
18.2 --
13.1 Decommissioning 1,000 28.1 446 15,3 NMLLWSSR PROGRAM TOTAL $2,417 127.9 SPECIAL AND INDEPENDENT REVIEWS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND ENFORCEMENT Operational Data Analysis (PE) $100 2,0 TOTAL S6,374 143.5 BASE AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO MATERIALS USERS ($,M) $37.1 millionF LESS PART 170 MATERIAL USERS FEES S5.8 million PART 171 BASE FEES FOR MATERIAL USERS S31.3 million II Base annual materials feelicensees.
class of includes all costs attributable to the The base fee does not include costs allocated to materials licensees for policy reasons.
2/
Amount is obtained by multiplying the direct FTE times the rate per FTE and adding the program support funds.
67
-~ - e e e -,r , - - - i+
1 e
i
.j The allocation of the NRC's $9.9 million in budgeted costs to the individual fuel facilities is based,las in FY 1991, .
primarily on the conferees' guidance that licensees who require.
the greatest expenditure of NRC resources-should pay'che greatest annual fee. Because the two high-enriched fuel manufacturing l facilities possess strategic quantities of nuclear materials, more NRC generic safety and safeguards costs (e.g., physical.
i security) are attributable to these facilities, i
Using this approach, the base annual fee for each facility.
4 is shown below. -
4 d
i i
Annual Fee ($ in Thousands)
- - Hiah Enriched Fuel Safecuards- Safety nTotal i
I Nuclear Fuel Services -$1,073 $1,097 $2,170 l Babcock and Wilcox 1.073 1.097 2.170 a,
Subtotal -
$2,146 $2,194 $4,340 Low Enriched Fuel l
Siemens Nuclear Power $150 $533 $683
!- Babcock and Wilcox 1 150 533 .683 General. Electric .150 533' Westinghouse -683 150 533 683 Combustion Engineering 150 533 683 (Hematite)
Combustion Engineering 150 533 683 (Windsor)
Subtotal .$900 $3,198 . $4,098 i
s 3
68
,,+.r.,.,, , , . ,,,ey,. . , _ _ . , , . . . . , _ , . ~ , ,,,...,,_y,m.,,,,y,.
. ,,m... ,,-..-.r.y.- , r, , , , ,.
. l
?
A
' l 1
Uf6 Conversion
, Allied Signal Corp. $-- $381 l Sequoyah Fuels Corp. --
$381 i .381 381 Subtotal S--
i $762 $762 4
Other fuel facilities (9 facilities at $72,000 --
$648 l
each) $648 Total $3,046 -$6,802 $9,848 i.
The. allocation of the costs attributable to uranium recovery is also based on the conferees' guidance that licensees who require the greatest expenditure of NRC resources should pay the greatest annual fee.
It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the $2.0 million for uranium recovery is: attributable to uranium mills (Class I facilities). Approximately 20 percent of the $2.0 million for uranium recovery is attributable to those solution mining licens'ees who do not generate uranium mill tailings (Class II facilities). The remaining 20 percent would be allocated to the.other uranium recovery facilities-(e.g.
I extraction of metals and rare carths). The resulting. annual fees for each class of licensee are:
f Class I facilities $167,500 Class II facilities $73)200-i .
Other facilities .SE8,800 For spent fuel' storage licenses, the generic costs of l $172,000 has been spread _ uniformly to those licensees who hold j 69
~
1.
m.. . . n. _ . . _ , _ , _ . . , . . _ , . , . , . . . ,, _ . ,..., _ _
i
)-
4 i specific or general licenses-for receipt and storage of spent-i i
fuel at an ISFSI. This results in an annual fee of.$43,000,-
i s
4 4
To equitably and fairly allocate.the $31.3 million attributable to the approximately 7,100 diverse material users i
and registrants, the NRC has continued to base the annual'feelon the Part 170 application and routine inspection fees. Because the application and inspection fees are indicative of the'
( complexity of_the license, this approach continues to provide a
?
i proxy for allocating the costs to the diverso categories of 3
i licensees based on how much it costs NRC to regulate each category.
The fee-calculation also continues to consider the inspection frequency because the inspection frequency is indicative of the' safety risk and resulting regulatory costs f associated with the categories of licensees. In summary, the.
annual fee for each category of license is developed as follows:
i i
i i Annual Fee = (Application Fee + Inspection Fee / Inspection L
- Priority) x Constant + (Unique-Category-Costs) 1 s .
The constant is the multiple necessary.to recover $31.3 million and!is 2.8 for FY 1992. The unique costs are.any.special' 1
costs that_the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licensees. For-; FY- 1992, unique costs of approximately $2.5
- million were' identified for the medical improvement program which
- is attributable to medical' licensees;.about $200,000 in costs were identifiedlas being attributable to radiography licensees; and about $100,000-was identified as being attributable.to 70 s
I 4
4e-e9 , r ---w. e+ - .+=4 ., r w e ,, n,. += ww c -,er,wr.-.,-u---w- -w.~ , i.
l-j irradiator licensees. On the average, the mate' rials annual fees i
j for FY 1992 are increased about 50 percent above the FY 1991 l
The reason for this significant increase is annual fees.
twofold. First, the FY 1992 budgeted amount' attributable to materials licensees is about 20 percent higher than the FY 1991 amount. Second, the number of licensees to be assessed annual j fees in FY 1992 has decreased about 21 percent below the FY 1991 5 i levels (from about 9,000 to about 7,000) . The-materials fees t
j must be established at these levels in order to comply with the I mandate of OBRA-90 to recover approximately 100 percent of the i
NRC's FY 1992 budget authority. A materials licensee may pay a reduced annual fee if the licensee qualifies as a small entity i
! under the NRC's size standards and certifies that it-is a small j entity on NRC Form 526.
To recover the $5.0 million attributable to the transportation class of licensees, $1.2 million will be assessed to the Department of Energy (DOE) to cover all of'its 3
. transportation casks under Category 18. The remaining transportation costs for generic activities ($3.8 million) are j allocated to. holders of approved QA plans. The annual-fee-for i
approved QA plans is'$62,800'for-users and fabricators and $1,500
- j. for users only.
i The-amount or range of the FY 1992 base annual fees for all materials licensees-is summarized as follows:
I i
L 71 i
Materials Licenses-Base Annual Fee Rances Catecorv of License Annual Foes Part 70 - High enriched fuel $2.2 million Part 70 - Low enriched fuel $683,000 Part UF 6 conversion $381,000 Part 40 - Uranium
-recovery $58,800-$167,500 Part 30 - Byproduct Material- $430-$16,4001/
Part 71 - Transporta-tion of Radioactive Material $1,500-$62,800 Part 72 - Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel $43,000 1/
Excludes the annual fee for a few military " master" materials licenses
$300,000.
of broad-scope issued to Government agencies which is Paragraph (e) is amended to establish the additional, charge which is added to the base annual fees shown in paragraph _(d).of. _
this final rule. This surcharge continues to be shown, for convenience, with the applicable categories in paragraph (d).
l The additional charge recovers approximately 40 percent of~the NRC. budgeted costs of $3.8 million! relating to LLW disposal i
I generic activities because 40 percent of the LLW is generated by these licensees. Although these NRC LLW disposal regulatory' activities are not directly attributable to materials-licensees, the costs nevertheless must be recovered in order to comply withl l-72 1
. . _ . , - . , . . . . . . . ., . . _ . . ,_,, ._.,-_,.._._._.,_,_,_-._......,._,,......v. . . _ . ,
l l
the requirements of OBRA-90.
The commission has continued the
_ previous policy decision to recover approximately 40 percent of these LLW costo from naterials licensees. The FY 1992 budgeted costs related to the additional charge and the amount of the charge are calculated as follows:- ,
FY 1992 Cateaory of Costs Budgeted Costs
($ In Millions) 1.
Activities not attributable to $3.8 an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee, i.e., 40% of LLW disposal generic activities.
Of the $3.8 million in' budgeted' costs shown above for LLW activities, 50 percent of the amount ($1.9 million) are allocated to fuel facilities included in Part-171 (19 facilities), as follows:
$155,100 per HEU, LEU, and 6UF facility and $38,800'for each of the other 9 fuel facilities. The remaining 50 percent
($1.9 million) are all'ocated to the material--licensees in >
categories that generate low level waste (1,090 licensees) as follows:
$1,600 per materials licensee except-for those in Categories 4A and 17.
Those licensees that generate a.
significant amount of low level waste for purposes of the calculation of the-$1,600 surcharge are in fee Categories 1.B, 1.D,-2.C,--3.A, 3.B, 3.C, 3.L, 3.M, 3.N, 4.B, 4.C,.5.B, 6.A', and 7.B.
lThe surcharge for Categories 4A and 17, which also generate and/or dispose of11ow level waste, is $38,800 for Category 4A and-
$36,000 for Category 17.
lOf the $6.2'million not-recovered from small entities ,. S . 8 73
. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - " ^ ' " ~ - - " ^ - - ' - - ' ' '
,< million is-allocated to fuel facilities and other materials licensees. This results-in a surcharge of $150 per category for each licensee that is not eligible for the small entity fee.
On the basis of this calculation, a fuel facility, a high enriched fuel fabrication licensee, for example, pays a base annual fee of $2,170,000 and.an additional charge'of.$155,250 for LLW activities and small entity costs. A medical center with a-broad-scope program pays a base annual fee of $12,200'and an additional charge nt $1,750, for a total annual fee >of $13,950 for FY 1992.
Section 171.19 Payment.
4 This section is revised to.give credit for those partial payments made by certa,i i licensees in FY 1992 toward their FY 1992 annual fees. The NRC anticipates that the_first, second, l
j=
I and third quarterly payments for FY 1992,will-have been.ma'de by l-
- operating power; reactor licensees and some materials = licensees before the final rule is effective. Therefore, NRC will credit #
payments received for those three quarters toward-the total' annual fee to be assessed. -The-NRC will adjust-the fourth-quarterly. bill in order to recover.the full amount of the revised .
annual fee..
As.in"FY 1991, payment of the. annual'. fee.is:due on the effective date of the rule and interest-accrues from the effective-date of the rule.. However,_ interest will be waived if payment-is-received within 30 days from the effective date of thei rule.-
74
-~, ,e ,wn .- ,,,, u n -nn , ,-n,,,,,,m,-ne. -a, as , n ,~e e , nm n ,ve ars ,n ,nm,n-e-,- ,,--s,--c,~
V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) . e Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental impact assessment hr , been prepared for the final regulation.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule contains no information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
VII. Regulatory Analysis With respect to Part 170, this final rule was developed pursuant to Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) and the Commission's fee guidelines.
When developing these guidelines the Commission took into account guidance provided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4, 1974, in its decision of National Cable Television Association. Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 36 (1974) and Federal Power Commission v. New Encland Power Comnanv, 415 U.S.
345 (1974). In these decisions, the Court held that the IOAA authorizes an agency to charge fees for special benefits rendered to identifiable persons measured by the "value to the recipient"
. 75 r
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - i
i 1
i t- of the agency service.
i The meaning of the IoAA was further clarified on December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the U.S.
s Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, National Cable i
i Television Association v. Federal Communications Commission,.554 f F.2d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1976); National Association of Broadcasters
{- v.
- Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cjr.
- 1976);' Electronic Industries Association v. Federal j
i Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109 (D;C. Cir. 1976) and Caoital Cities Communication. Inc. v. Federal Communications l
Commission, 554 F.2d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1976).- These decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop. fee guidelines that-l are still used for cost recovery and fee development purposes.
i F i The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld-on August.24,
- 1979, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in J Mississioni Power and Licht Co. v. U.S. Nuclear-Reculatorv i
Commission, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S.
1102 (1980). The Court held that (1) the'NRC had the authority-to recover the full cost of providing services to identifiable
(
. beneficiaries; (2) the NRC could properly. assess a fee.for the costsiof providing routine-inspections necessary to ensure a 4
i
}
, licensee's compliance with the: Atomic Energy Act and .with
& l L
applicable-regulations; (3) the:NRC could charge for costs i
incurred in conducting environmental reviews required by NEPA;. '
(4).;the NRC properly included in the fee-schedule the costs of-uncontested hearings and of1 administrative and' technical support.
services; .(5) the NRC could. assess a fee'for renewing a license ;
+
to operate a low-level radioactive ~ waste burial site; and (6)'the 4 76 9
NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.
With respect to Part 171, on November 5, 1990, Ccngress passed Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90). For FYs 1991 through.1995, OBRA-90 requires-that approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority be l recovered.
To accomplish this statutory requirement, the NRC, in accordance with S 171.13, is publishing the final amount of the FY 1992 annual fees for operating reactor licensees, fuel cycle licensees, materials licensees, and holders of certificates of Compliance, registrations of sealed source and devices and QA program approvals, and Government agencies. OBRA-90 and the Conference Committee Report specifically state that (1)- the annual fees will be based on-the Commission's FY 1992-budget of
$512.5 million less the amounts collected from Part 170 fees and the funds directly appropriated from the NWF to cover the Commission's high level waste program; (2) the annual fees shall, to the maximum-extent practicable, have a reasonable relationship to the cost of regulatory services provided by the commission; and (3) the annual fees be assessed to those licensees the-Commission, in its discretion, determines can fairly, equitably, and' practicably contribute to their payment. Therefore,:when developing the annual fees for operating power reactors the Commission continued to consider the various reactor vendors, the types of-containment,'and the location of the reactor. The annual fees for fuel = cycle-licensees, materials licensees, and holders of certificates, registrations and approvals and for
. licenses issued to Government agencies.take into-account the type 77
_ _ _ - . - , _ - - - ~ - - ' ^ ' - ' ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
i of facility or approval and the classes of the licensees.
4 Part 171, which established annual fees for operating power reactors effective October 20, 1986 (51 FR 33224; September 18, e
1986), was challenged and upheld in its entirety in Florida Power and Licht Comeany v. United States, 846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir.
i 1988), cert, denied, 490 U.S. 1045 (1989).
Parts 170 and 171, which established fees based on the FY 1989 budget, were also legally challenged. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in Skinner v. Mid-American Pipeline Co.,
109 S. Ct. 1726 (1989), and the denial of certiorari in Florida Power and Licht, all of the lawsuits were withdrawn.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The NRC is required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 4
of 1990 to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority through the assessment of user fees. This Act further requires that the NRC establish a schedule of charges that fairly and equitably allocates the aggregate amount of these charges among licensees.
I This final rule establisnes the schedules of fees that are necessary to implement the Congressional mandate for FY 1992.
The final rule results in an increase in the fees charged to all licensees, and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals, including those licensees who are classified as small 78
- --- ~. -- - . . - - . - .. . . . - .- ..- .
1 e
entities under'the Regulatory Flexibility Act.- The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, is included as Appendix A to this final rule.
IX. Backfit Analysis i
1 The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, j
does not apply to this final rule and that a backfit analysis is
- not required'for this final rule. The backfit analysis is not
- required because these amendments do not require the modification i
f of or additions to systems, structures, components, or' design of i-a facility or the design approval or manufacturing license for a j
facility or the procedures or organization required to design, f
4 construct or operate a facility.
5 1
4 1
List of Subjects
- 4 1
t 10 CFR Part 170 e
! Byproduct material, Import and' export licenses, i
2, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear.
materials, Nuclear power plants-and reactors, Source-material, Special nuclear material. .
s i
10 CFR Part 171 Annual charges, Byproduct material, Intergovernmental relations,-Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials,-Nuclear-
)
79-d
,,-w.-v-.-+nr --.~ir- .e -, ~,....mc,- yM,o,,.,. m. .E . g. ,,,5,+.-- ~.w'r i- cre y w r e- e 'e *'-' T -? V- t w " t r - --*p-
power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material, Holders of certificates, registrations, approvals, Penalties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 170, and 171.
PART 170 -- FEES FOR FACILITIES, MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORT LICENSES, AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
- 1. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w) ; sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
- 2. In S 170.3, the definition nonorofit educational institution is added to read as follows:
5 170.3 Definitions.
Nonorofit educational institution means a public or non-80 L
1 l
i profit educational institution whose primary function is education, whose programs are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, who is legally 4
authorized to provide a program of organized instruction or 4
study, who provides an educational program for which it awards academic degrees, and whose educational programs are available to the public.
s 3.
Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:
S 170.20 Averace cost oer orofessional staff-hour.
4 Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, Part 55 requalification and replacement examinations and tests, other required reviews, approvals, and inspections under SS170.21 and 170.31 that are based upon the full costs for the review or inspection will be calculated using a professional staff-hour rate equivalent to the sum of the average cost to the agency for a professional staff member, including salary and benefits, administrative support, travel, and certain program support.
The professional staff-hour rate for the NRC based on the FY 1992 budget is $123 per hour.
4.
In S 170.21, the introductory paragraph, Category K, and footnotes 1 and 2 to the table are revised to read as follows:
81
_ _ - - - - - --- - - -- ~--
I S 170.21 Schedule of fees for oroductica and utilization facilities, review of standard r.eferenced desion accrovals t sDecial croiects.'insoections and imoort and exDort licenses.
Applicants for construction permits, manufacturing licenses, operating licenses, import and-export licenses, . approvals of.
facility standard reference designs, requalification and replacement examinations for reactor operators, and special projects and holders of construction permits, licenses, and other approvals shall pay fees for-the following categories of services.-
Schedule of Facility Fees-(see footnotes at end of table).
Facility Categories and Type of Fecc Feesl/ 2/
i i
K. Import and export licenses::
1 l
Licenses for the import and export only of-production - ..
and utilization-facilities or.the import and export
~
-.only of' components for production-and utilization facilities issued pursuant to 10 CFR Partr110.
1.
l..
Application for-import or export of reactors and :
82 i
& tw *- g ,-e v 4.* 4 a-. 7y- yyr -9g-. wsm rpei * = - -*p --t ey,--S- g yt i me t, y es 4yjw g- 3-*4--mwy g -3ye'S*- .
a d
other facilities and components which must be 4 reviewed by the Commission and the Executive Branch, for example, actions under 10 CFR s 110. 4 0 ( b) .
Application-new license . . . . . $8,000 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,000
- 2. Application for import or export of reactor components and initial exports of other equipment requiring Executive Branch review only, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.41(a) (1)-
(8).
t Application-new license . . . . . $4,900 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,900 3.
Application for export of components requiring foreign government assurances only.
Application-new license . . . . . $3,100 Amendment . -. . . . . . . . . . $3,100 4.
Application for export or import of other facility components and equipment not requiring Commission review, Executive Branch review or foreign government assurances.
83
l Application-new license . . . . . $1,200 l
l Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 5.
Minor amendment of any export or import license to i
extend the expiration date, change domestic i
information, or make other revisions which do not require analysis or review.
Amendment . . . . .. . . . . . . . $120 1/
Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission pursuant to S 2.202 of this chapter or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of such Commission orders. '
Fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations unier Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g. 55 50'.12, 73.5) and any other sections now or hereafter in effect regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form.
Fees for licenses in this schedule that cre initially issued for less than full power are based on reviev througn the issuance of a full power license (generally full poker is considered 100% of the facility's full rated power). Thus, if a licer a received a low power license or a temporary license for less t..an full power and subsequently receives full power authority (by way of license amendment or otherwise), the total costs for the license will be determined through that period when authority is granted for full 84
- - - ,.a ~ - -- , , .- -
.-- , ,g -,,, . , - . , n
power operation.
If a situation arises in which the commission determines that full operating power for a particular facility should be less than 100% of full rated power, the total costs for the license will be at that decided lower operating power level and not at the 100% capacity.
U Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.
For those applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984, January 30, 1989, July 2, 1990, and July 10, 1991 rules, as appropriate.
For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984, and July 2, 1990, rules but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable rates established by 5 170.20, as 1
appropriate, except for topical reports whose costs exceed
! $50,000.
Costs which exceed $50,000 for each topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to a topical report-completed or under review from January 30, 1989, through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any 85
1 professional hours expended on or after August 9, 1991, will be assessed at the applicable rate established in S 170.20. In no event will the total review costs be less than twice the hourly rate shown in S 170.20.
i 1
5.
Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:
d
?
4 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other reculatory services, includina inspections, and import and export licensen.
Applicants for materials licenses, import and export licenses, and other regulatory services and holders of materials licenses, or import and export licenses shall pay fees for the following categories of services. This schedule includes fees
, for health and safety and safeguards inspections where applicable.
86
.n a -n.-- - . , - . -
~ -- . .,,e., ,g_.e,-- +r. , ew.-. .. -. ,-+ m , ,
. - - .. . - . _ _ = . ... - _. . . _ . . -_ .- -
l 4
SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES (See footnotes at end of table) l 4 Cateoorv of materials licenses and tvoe of fees1/ EqgI /' I/
- 1. Special nuclear material:
- A. Licenses for possession and use of 200 I
grams or more of plutonium in unsealed form or 350-grams or more of contained U-235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or i
more of U-233 in unsealed form. This i
includes applications to terminate licenses as well as licenses authorizing possession only:
License, Renewal, Amendment . . . . . . Full Cost Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost B.
Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel at an independent' spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI):
License, Renewal, Amendment . .. . . . Full Cost I
87
, , , y ,.,, , - - - - - - - - ,
Inspections:
Routine
. . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . .
Full Cost C.
Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers:l/
Application - New license . . . . . . $540 Renewal .
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . $540 Amendment
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $410 Inspections:
Routino
. . .. . . . . . . . . $490 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,400 D.
All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical quantity, as defined in S 150.11 of this' chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those for Category 1A:l/
Application - New license . . . . . . $740 Renewal
............... $740 88
1 h
h Amendment . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . $250 i Inspections:
I Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $860 .
E. Licenses for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility.
Application . .
- . . . . . . . . . $125,000 ;
License, Renewal, Amendment . . . Full Cost
~
c Inspections !
Routine . . . . -. . . . . . . .- . Full Cost Nonroutine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost i
- 2. Source materialt ,
- A. Licenses for possession and use of-source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, ore' buying stations, i
ion exchange facilities ~and in processing of ores containing source material for '
extraction of metals other than uranium or-thorium,-including licenses authorizing-the possession of byproduct waste material' .
(tailings) from source-materia 1Lrecovery 89 1
..L..,,,rZ,L..-#., . . . . . . - . .
- ,_.v.iL,.- .-.,m.L,._,---_=_;.i, ,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,ymm, Aw.,,m_.4,%.s%.,...,%-,,,,W,,_,. <..~.w,c<,~, . ,,,--y , ,
i 4
operations, as well as licenses authorizing i
i i
the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby modes License, Renewal, Amendment . . . . Full Cost Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Honroutine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost B. Licenses for possession and use of source material for shielding:
3 1
Application - New license . . . . . $120 4
Renewal . . . . . . .. . . . . . . $120 I
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $120 Inspections:
i Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $310 Nonroutine . . * . . . . . . . $370 C.
le All other source material licenses:
Application - New license . . . . . $850 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $800 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $480 Inspections:
Routine . . ... . . . . . . . $860 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . $1,600 90
--w-- w -
, y9-myw9 w g e- Tu- %-
9 - - + - , y- 4 4 g
_. . _._ _ __ _ ._ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . _. __ _ _ _.
l J
l
, 3. Byproduct material:
, A. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use i
i of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution:
- Application - New license . . . . . $2,500 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 Inspections
- Il Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $2,200 j
Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $2,200 4
i B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of 4
items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution:
Application - New license . . . . . $1,400 Renewal . . . . . . .. . . . . . . $2,500 Amendment-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $590 Inspections:1/
4
. Routine - . . . . . . . . . . . $1,100 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $2,100 91 f
, ,,n - n-w, , - - - , , - , -w , , -- , -e,w,~
l C.
d Licenses issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing the processing or ma7ufacturing and distribution or redistribution l of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent i
kits and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material:
! Application - New license . . . . . $3,600 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $490 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $2,000 D. Licenses and approvals issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources or devices not involving processing of byproduct material:
Application - New license . . .. . $1,200 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $540 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $330
- Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $860 92
--e , - - , , . . , - . - , - . - . - . , , , , .- . ..m, - - - , -
i Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 l
4 l E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in scaled sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units):
Application - New license . . . . . . $540 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $510 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $270 Inspections:
Routiste . . . . . . . . . . . . $490 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740 F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for
~
irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes:
Application - Now license . . . . . $1,300 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $430 Amendment . . . . . . - . . . . . . . $370 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $620 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,400 G. Licenses for possession and use-of 10,000 curies or more-of byproduct material-in sealed sources 93
- . - . . y ,. , -y- . ~ _ . . . , , .~m.. . , . < _ ,. , , ,
for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes:
Application - New license . . . . . $4,900 Renewal . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
$2,000-Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. $490 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,100 Nonroutine-. . . . . . . . . . $1,500 H.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution.to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:
Application - New lidense . . . . . $2,200 Renewal .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 Amendment .
. . . . . .-. . . . . . . $270 Inspections:
Routine . . .. . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . .. . . . . . . . .- $740 I.
' Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of-Part.32 94
of this chapter to distribute items containing !
byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation !
to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for. distribution to persons exempt from the~ licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:
Application - New license . . . . . $2,800 Renewal . . . . . - . . . . . . .. . . . $1,300 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$370 Inspections:
Routine .- . . . . . . . . . . . $490 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740 ,
J. Licenses issued pursuant'to Subpart B of Part 32 -
~
of this chapter to distribute ~ items containing-byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device' review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this1 chapter,~except-specific licenses authorizing _ redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under.Part 31 of this chapter:
Application - New license 1. . -- . . . $2,700-
.RenewalL. . .: . . .- . . . . . . - . . . . -. . $620-
- 95e
- ,-Js ,r-y,- . . . , ,....-r ..,,m
. - , -- r w ~ _..-,~.. _ m. . ... -,. , . - . . , . ,- . - - . . , , - . . . , - . . . , . , , -
Amendment . . . . . . , , . . . . . . $420
) Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740 t
K. Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing i
i byproduct material or quantition of Jyproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or i
device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been 4
authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:
, Application - New license . . . . . $2,000 i Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1,000 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$310 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . S740
- L.
Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:
Application - New license . . . . . $2,500 96 l
l
- . . . _ = _ . . . - - . - _ _ . _ . _ - - . _- _ _ - . _ . -. - _ _ _ - . .- . -
Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,100 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$540 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 M.
Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:
Application - New license . . . . . $1,200 Ranewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$670 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $860 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,000 N.
Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except (1) licenses that authorize only calibration and/or leak testing services are subject to the fees specified in fee category 3P, and (2) licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee categories 4A, 48, and 4c:
Application - New license . . . . . $1,500 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $860 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $430 97 r _- , ,.w.._._,4 -.v.g.-.%,
%y_,
Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740 0.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations:
Application - New license . . . . . $3,200 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,900 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$520 Inspections:I/
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 Nonroutins . . . . . . . . . . $2,700 P.
All other specific byproduct material-licenses, except those in Categories 4A through 9D Application - New license . . . . . . $540 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $540 Amendment . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
$410 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,300
- 4. Waste disposal and processing:
98
i ;
A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special i nuclear material from other persons for the purpose ,
of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste-and residues, and transfer of packages'to another person authorized to t'eceive or dispose of waste material License, renewal, amendment . . . Full Cost Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Houroutine . . . . . . . . . Full Cost B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or-
- special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material
! by transfer to another! person' authorized to l
receive or dispose of the material:
.3
. Application - New license . .
. . . $3,000 Renewal-. . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,000 Amendment . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . $210 l .
99 4
w,- - , y r .,. y o e y 9 ,ww--w,v y - wor-w y-n y- e,< yvww w - y e .m- , e, i, e m a-v y-ya **e 9 t+v <T ,a,e-s vvt e-e-- + + e ++ + w
- ws em e-e = e-e-tv w ; o -e-w % ,-<-tret-- i v e - - W a-e----'c-----reenv- ms -- -+r
j i
l i
l 1
3 Inspections:
l 1
Routine . . . . . . . . . . $2,200
?
Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . $1,700
)
W
} i C. i 2
- Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of 3
! prepackaged waste byproduct material, source "
i
]
i material, or special nuclear material from other persons. t The licensee will dispose of the material '
s by transfer to another person authorized to receive or '
, dispose of the-material:
I r i
3 1
i Application - New license . . . . $2,000 Aenewal .. . . . . . . . . . . .
i $1,000 3-Amendment . . .. . . . . . . . . . ;
$250
- Inspections
- ,
.I e
i Routine . . . . . . . . . . $1,700 i
i Nonroutine . . .- . . . .: . . $2,200.
t t
- 5. Well logging:
i j A.
t Licenses for possession and use of byproduct-i i
material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well_ surveys, and tracer 4-studies other than field flooding tracer studies:-
P L
4' Application - New license . .-.
._$3,600-Renewal.. . . .. . . . . .. .- . S2,100 Amendment i .. . . . . . . .. . . $580 1
100 4
.- ,.,._-.~...-._..--._2....___,_._.__-_m_,. _ _ _ . _ . , _ . , _ , _ _ - . . . _ . , . . _ _ . _ _ . . , . . _ . . . - . .. . . _ . ,
Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $860 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $860 B.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies:
License, renewal, amendment . . . Full Cost Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . $1,100
- 6. Nuclear laundries:
4 A.
Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material:
Application - New license . . . . $1,500 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $370 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 Nonroutine . . .. . . . . . $2,000 7.
Human use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material:
101
A. Licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New license . . . . $3,600 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . $850 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $460 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 Nonroutino . . . . . . . . . $2,000 B.
Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians pursuant to Parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source natorial, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New license . . . . $2,500 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,200 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $390 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . $1,700 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . $1,900 l
l C.
Other licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, 102
__ _ - _ --.---_ - = . __ -. _ -._. _
and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New license . . . . $760 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,100 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $460 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . $1,100 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . , $1,600
- 8. Civil defenses A.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities:
l l
Application - New license . . . . . $620 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $430 I
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$330.
Inspections:
Routine . . .. . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740
- 9. Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation:
103
+ = = - - w -- ~
c , e- a. v..-e--, ,~r r- w ~e-.- ,-e ,s~-n - - - -c- e
{ A. Safety evaluation of devices or produc ts containing byproduct material, source material, or l
{
special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution: i I
4 i
< Application - each device . . . . $3,500 ;
i
\
Amendment - each device . . . . . $1,300 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . Full Cost 4
B. Safety evaluation of devices or products i
containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices J
j Application - each device . . . . $1,700 Amendment - each device . . . . . $620 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . Full cost C.
Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution:
104
. , s - ,- y , .-
- y e--iy _. - .
I Application - each source . . . . $740 Amendment - each source . . . . . . $250 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . Full Cost D.
safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel:
Application - each source . . . . . $370 Amendment - each source . . . . . . $120 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . .. . . . . . Full Cost 10.
Transportation of radioactive material:
A.
Evaluation of casks, packages, and shipping-containers:
Approval, Renewal, Amendment .
. Full Cost Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost 105 I I
_-----.a -
i j l i
i 4
B. i i
Evaluation of 10 CFR Part 71 quality assurance programs:
i Application - Approval . . . . . . $250 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 Inspections:
t Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost i
Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost i 11.
i Review of standardized spent fuel facilities:
i
- Approval, Renewal, Amendment . .
Full Cost Inspections i . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost
- 12. Special projects:
i
- Approvals and preapplication /
J licensing activities . . . . . Full Cost Inspections
. . . . . . . . . . Full Cost a
- 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:
Approvals
. . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Amendments, revisions, and supplements .
. . .. . . . . . Full Cost 1 106 4
-- - ,,.~
- y. ., ,m-. , , , _
_._.c. y ,-,. -.
y
l Reapproval . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost B. Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of compliance:
)
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost lionroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost C. Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under S 72.210 of this chapter:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost 14.
Byproduct, source, or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, or site restoration activities pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 of this chapter:
Approval, Renewal, Amendment . . Full Cost Inspection:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . .. . Full Cost
- 15. Import and Export licenses:
Licenses issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 110 of this chapter 107
for the import and export only of special nuclear material, source material, byproduct material, heavy water, tritium, or nuclear grade graphite.
1 A. Application for import or export of HEU and other materials which must be reviewed by the Commission and the Executive Branch, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.40(b).
Application-new license . . . . . $8,000 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,000 B.- Application for import or export of special nuclear material, heavy water, nuclear grade graphite, tritium, and source material, and initial exports of materials requiring Executive Branch review only, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.41(a) (2)-(8) .
Application-new license . . . . . $4,900 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,900 C. Application for export of routine reloads of LEU reactor fuel and exports of source material requiring foreign government assurances only.
Application-new license . . . . . $3,100 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,100 108
+-.c + # , , , - , , w.- . ,. ,--c- , - - --s-- -- - ,
i i
i i
D. Application for export or-import of other materials not *
} requiring Commission review, Executive Branch review or !
foreign government assurances. i i
Application-new license . . . . . $1,200 t
i -
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 I
E. Minor amendment of any export or import license to ,
1 extend the expiration date, change domestic information i
or make other revisions which do not require analysis ,
or review.
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $120 i
- 16. Reciprocity:
h Agreement State licensees who conduct activities in a non- '
i Agreement State under the reciprocity' provisions of 10 CFR 150.20.
Application (each filing of Form;241) -
. . . -. . . . -. . . .-$640
, Renewal .
. . -- . - . ... . . . . - . . . N/A-Amendment . . . . . .. - . . . . _ _ . . .
N/A Inspections: '
-Routine and nonroutina .-.. .. Fees'as' specified in appropriate _. '
fee _ categories--
in this section. . -
l 109 y (g-.q , rm..
,+.w..,---.+m e w, r,-.e,.=v, ,, , , ,=,~3-w .", tr + $ <e r c. s- w .r m , ,c..- ,+.e.-,,,vw- a'c M - m.,ww-+,,m.9,-3,y.--,,.,-,-r-~.-r y- p . er-w eewmm r,r eg .-r-
1/Tvoes of fees - Separate charges as shown in the schedule will be assessed for preapplication consultations and reviews and applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new licenses and approvals, amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals, safety evaluations of sealed sources and devices, and inspections.
The following guidelines apply to these charges:
(a) Anolication feta - Applications for new materials licenses and approvals;_ applications to reinstate expired licenses and approvals except those subject to fees assessed:at full cost; and applications filed by Agreement State licensees to register under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 150.20, must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category, except that:
- 1) applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear' material or source material must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category; and 2) applications for licenses. !
under Category 1E must be accompanied by an application fee of
$125,000.
(b)
License /anoroval/ review fees - Fees for applications for new licenses and approvals and for preapplication consultations and reviews subject to full _ cost fees (fee Categories 1A, 1B, 1E, 2A, 4A, SB, 10A, 11, 12, 13A, and 14) are 110 4
due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with S 170.12(b), (e), and (f) .
(c) Renewal /reaporoval fees - Applications for renewal of licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except that fees for applications for renewal of licenses and approvals subject to full cost fees (fee Categories 1A, 1D, 1E, 2A, 4A, SB, 10A, 11, 12, 13A, and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with 5 170.12(d).
(d) Amandment fee _g -
(1)
Applications for amendments to licenses and approvals, except those subject to fees assessed at full costs, must be accompanied by the preperibed amendment fee for each license affected.
An application for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more than one fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply. For those licenses and approvals subject to full costs (fee Categories 1A, 1B, 1E, 2A, 4A, SB, 10A, 11, 12, 13A, and 14), amendment fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with 5 170.12(c).
(2)
An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that would place the license or approval in a higher fee 111
i category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new catege '
(3) An application for amendment to a license or approval 1
that would reduce the scope of a licensee's program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee 4
for the lower fee category.
6 (4) Applications to terminate licenses autho.1 zing small materials programs, when no dismantling or decontamination procedure is required, are not subject to fee ~..
E (e) Inanection fees - Separate charges will be assessed for each routine and nonroutine inspection performed, including inspections conducted by the NRC of Agreement State licensees who conduct activities in non-Agreement States under the reciprocity provisions or 10 CFR 150.20. Inspections result.ing from investigations conducted by the C.tfice of Investigations and nonroutine inspections that result frca third-party allegations are not subject to fees.
- If a licensee holds more than one naterials license at a single location, a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the licenses will be assessed if the inspections are conducted at the same time, unless the inspection faca art, based on the full cost to conduct the inspection.
The fees assessed at full cost will be determined based on the professional staff time required to conduct the inspection multiplied by the rate established under S 170.20 to which any applicable contractual support services costs incurred s
112 3 .
4 s
will be added. Licenses covering more than one category will be charged a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the license.
Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with S 170.12(g). See Footnote 5 for other inspection notes.
l 2/Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 or for amendments resulting 1 specifically from the requirements of such Commission orders.
However, fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific r.;emption provision of the Commission's regulations under Title in of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other sections now or hereafter in effect) regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, cr other form. In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source
, .nd device evaluations as shown in Categories 9A through 9D.
U lull cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.
For thoce applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984, January 30, 1989, July 2, 1990, and July 10, 1991, rules, 113
as appropriate. For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984, and July 2, 1990 rules, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will 5
not be billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will
- be assessed at the applicable cates established by S 170.20, as appropriate, except for topical reports whose costs exceed
$50,000.
Costs which exceed $50,000 for each topical report,
- amendment, revision, or supplement to a topical report completed or under review from January 30, 1989, through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional hours expended on or after August 9, 1991, will be assessed at the applicable rate established in S 170.20. In no event will the total review costs be less than twice the hourly rate shown in S 170.20.
A/
Licensees paying fees under' Categories 1A, 1B, and 1E are not subject to fees under Categories 1C and ID for sealed sources authorized in the same license except in those instances in which an application deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license.
Applicants for new licenses or renewal of existing licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed sources for use in gauging devices will pay the appropriate application or renewal fee for fee Category 10 only.
114
l 4
I/ For a license authorizing shielded radiographic installations or manufacturing installations at more than one j address, i
a separate fee will be assessed for inspection of each
. location, except that if the multiple installations are. inspected during a single visit, a single inspection fee will be assessed.
[
PART 171 -- ANNUAL FEES FOR REACTOR OPERATING LICENSES, AND FUEL CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIALS LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF j
I CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE,' REGISTRATIONS, AND. QUALITY ASSURANCE ,
1 PROGRAM APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY THE NRC.
1 i 6.
';Tce authority' citation for Part 171 is revised to- read as follows:
i.
Authority:
Sec. 7601, Pub. L.'99-272, 100 Stat. 146, as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L. 100-103, 101 Stat. 1330, as' amended by Sec. 3201, Pub. L.
101-239, 103 Stat. 2106 as-amended by sec. 6101, Pub'. L.
101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, (42 U.S.C. 2213); sec.
[ 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222-(42 U.S.C. 2201(w)); sec. 201, F _
88 Stat.--1242 as. amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
7.
- In 5 171.5 the; definition nonorofit educational-l' institution is-added to read as follows:
i.
- j. S171.5 Definitions.
l I
l 115 l .
,,...._,,.c,._-.._,.,_.,_...._
l 4
Nonprofit educational institution means a public or nonprofit educational institution whose primary function is education, whose programs are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, who is legally authorized to provide a program of organized instruction or study, who provides an educational program for which it awards academic degrees, and whose educational programs are available to the public.
8.
In S 171.11, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
S 171.11 Exemotions.
(b)
The Commission may, upon application by an interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of this part as it determines are authorized by law or otherwise in the public interest. Requests for exemption must be filed with the NRC within 90 days from the effective date of the final rule eatablishing the annual fees for which the exemption is sought in order to be considered. Absent extra-ordinary circumstances, any exemption requests filed beyond that 116
date would not be considered. The filing of an exemption request does not extend the date on which.the bill'is payable. Only the timely payment in full ensures avoidance of interest and penalty 1 charges.
If a partial or full exemption is granted, any overpayment will be refunded.
9.
In S 171.15, paragraphs (b) (3) , (c) (2) , (d), and (e)-
are revised to read as follows:
S 171.15 Annual Fees: Reactor operatino licenses.
i-l (b) *** >
(3) Generic-activities required largely for NRC to regulate power reactors, e.g. , updating part: 20 of this chapter, or operating the Incident Response Center. -The base FY 1992 annual fees for each operating power reactor subject to fees underLthis 1
- section and due before September 30, 1992, are shown in paragraph (d) of'this section.
(c) ***
l (2) The FY 1992 surcharge to be . added tx) each operating-power reactor isLS281,000.. This amount is calculated-by dividing 117 w - . --,,-.#1--- +.~,r- e -m- 4,e, _ , , c<=--+-,--.~-ww-,sy,r-,w-,, v.,,r,,w~..<,,,--y,-,,,.,yy,,,s-,,v,2,,. y'i-,gr.,gr-%-.*s=,~,- y 9 v vy i +-w y ,-.-e.g
i the total cost for_these activities ($30.6 million) by the number of operating power reactors (109). ^
(d) The FY 1992 Part 171 annual fees for operating power reactors are as follows:
Part 171 Annual Fees by Reactor Category l (Fees in Millions) base Added Total Estimated Reactor Vendor Number Egg Charce Egg Collections Babcock /Wilcox 7 $2.866 .272 $3.138 $22.0 Combustion Eng. 15 2.850 .272 3.122 GE Mark I 46.8 24 2.810 .272 3.082 GE Mark II 74.0 8 2.821 .272 3.093 GE Mark III 24.7 4 2.810 .272 3.082 12.3 Westinghouse _11 2.855 .272 3.127 159.5 L
Totals 109
$339.3 I
i Fees assessed by reactor vendor will vary for plants west of the Rocky Mountains and for Westinghouse plants with ice condensers.
(e) The annual fees for licensees authorized to operate a nonpower (test and research) reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter except for those reactors exempted from fees under S 171.11(a), are as follows:
Research reactor $55,700 Test reactor
$55,700 l
I i
118 l
l
]
]
i i
i 1
10.
1 In S 171.16, the introductory text of paragraph (c)1and j
paragraphs (c) (4 ) , (d), and (e) are revised to read as-follows:
1 4.
S 171.16 Annual Fees: Materials Licensees. Holders of Certificates of Comoliance. Holders of Sealed Source ~and Device f
Reaistrations. Holders of Ouality Assurance Procram Acorovals and Government acencies licensed by the NRC.
/
4 s-i (c) A licensee rho is required-to pay an annual fee under this section may qualify as a small entity. If a licensee l qualifies as a=small entity and provides the commission with the
- proper certification, the licensee may pay reduced annual ~ fees
}
for FY 1992 based on gross annual receipts, or for small i governmental jurisdictions, population density, as follows:
i
}.
Small Businesses and Small Maximum Annual Fee i
Not-For-Profit Orcanizations Per Licensed Catecorv JGross Annual Receiots)
I $250,000 to $3.5 million i $1,800 f Less than $250,000
.$400 Private Practice Physicians-
[
- (Gross Annual Eeceints) s- $250,000 to $1.0 million- $1,800-Less-than $250,000 t $400
- Small Governmental Jurisdictions (Population) i
} 20,000 to 50,000 i.
$1,800' Less than 20,000
$400' i.
, 119.
,-,_m- ,,, .- . ._ - . _ . . , _ _ _ , _ _ _ . - _, _ . - , , _ - - . . . , ..._ ,. - . . . - . . . . - . .
F i
t (4) The maximum annual fee (base annual fee plus surcharge)-
a small entity is~ required to pay for FY 1992Lis $1,800 for-each category applicable to the-license (s);
(d)_ The FY 1992 annual fees,for materials licensees and holders of certificates,_ registrations.or-approvals subject to fees under this: section are as follows::
I SCHEDULE'OF MATERIALS ANNUAL: FEES AND FEES FOR-GOVERNMENT AGENCIESLLICENSED'BY NRC-(See footnotes.at-end of._ table)-
Catecorv of materials licenses Annual' Fees1 , 2, 3' [
- 1. Special nuclear material:
A.(1) Licenses lfor: possession and use of U-235'or-plutonium for fuel =
p l
fabrication activities.
!?
l Hiah-Enriched Fuel? License No. Docket No.
Babcock and Wilcox SNM-42 170-27'- $2,170,000 Nuclear: Fuel' Services 'SNM-124 2 70-143- 2,170,000 Low ~ Enriched Fuel' B&W FuelLCompany 'SNM-1168 1201
-Conbustion Engineering:
-$683,000
_(Hematite).
_SNM-33 :70-361 -683,000l Combustion Engineering.
= - -
120.
(Windsor) SNM-1067 70-1100 683,000 General Electric Company SNM-1097 70-1113 683,000 Siemens Nuclear Power SNM-1227 70-1257 683,000
, Westinghouse Electric Co.SNM-1107 70-1151 683,000 Surcharge . . . . . . . . . $155,250 I
, A.(2) All other special nuclear materials licenses not included in 1.A.(1) above for possession i
and use of 200 grams or more of plutonium in unsesled form or 350 l
1 grams or more of contained U-235 in unsealed form or 200-grams or more of U-233 in unsealed form. S72,000 Surcharge . . . . . . . $38,950 n
B. Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). $43,000 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in' sealed i sources contained in devices.used in 1
industrial measuring systems, including i
121 I
. . - _. _ _. . _ . ~ __ _ . . _ . . _ .. _ _., . . _ . . ._ . _ _ _ . _ _ __. _ -_
'i x-ray fluorescence analyzers.- $1,700 't 4
V Surcharge . . . . . .- . . $150 7
i D.
4 All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing '
special nuclear material.in unsealed form in combination:that would' constitute a critical quantity, as' defined in- ;
S 150.11 of this chapter, for which.
the licensee shall pay the same-fees as those for Category 1.A.(2). $2,300' Surcharge . . . - . . . . . $1,750 E. Licenses for the operation'of.a uranium enrichment' facility. -
S'N/A11I
- 2. Source material:
A.(1) Licenses for possession and use of source material'for refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride. $381,000
' Surcharge .-. $155,250-l 122 l w . . . .. .,_,,,.---,e -
,y.,w,,,-.i.,e...,ye-se, , . y _,.,3 ,w r ywww_..._-wee--, ye ,p,. ,,w g.p--,y.., ,
,. , , .,v,w-,%p 9--sy,,,+.w,- ,yy =4
(2) Licenses for possession and use.of 4
source material in recovery operations i such as-milling, in-situ leaching, 4
3 heap-leaching,-ore buying stations, ion exchange-facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode.
Class I facilities' . . . . . . . $167,500 l
Class II facilities' . . .- . . . . . $73,200 Other facilities . . . _. . . . $58,800 l
Surcharge . . . . . -. . . S150 B.
_ Licenses which authorize only the possession, use and installation of source material for shielding. -S430 Surcharges.~ . . . . .. . . $150 123 6
! a
, , - , - _ - - ,, - .. ._. ;.._,-.,.,, _ , . _ , _ , . --, ., ..,_ ..---.._....-J.,_- . . - - - . . - - -- , . -
J.
g C.
All other source material licenses. $3,000 i
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 4
- 3. Byproduct material:
h e
A. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued 1
pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing 4 of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution. $9,400 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution. $4,600 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 C.
Licenses issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing the processing or 124
i-i 4
i 1
i, ' -
F manufacturing and. distribution or s
4 redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, l
i generators, reagent kits and/or sources i
1.
4 and devices containing byproduct material.
s This category also includes the possession i
j i.-
and use of source material for shielding
) authorized pursuant to Part.40 of this t
1.
chapter when included on the same i
license. $10,900
^
i i
g-( Surcharge . . . . . . . . -$1,750
.j i
1
- D.
Licenses and approvals issued pursuant to SS.32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of i :
1 this chapter authorizing.distribu-
} tion or redistribution of radiophar-i maceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or-sources or devices not involving- L proceemhtg of byproduct material.~ This o
4 category also includes the possession 4
i and:use of source. material for: shielding-authorized pursuant to-Part 40 of:this chapter when included on the-same license..
$3_,800 Y
l t
Surcharge . . . _ . - . - . . . _ $150 e
.f' 125
E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units). $2,500 Surcharge . . . . .. . . $150 F._ Licenses for possession and use of less than.10,000 curies of byproduct-material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. $4,600 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 1
G. Licenses for possession and use of-10,000 curies or more of byproduct material'in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the-source is exposed for irradiation purposes. $16,400-
-Surcharge . . .. .. . . $150-H. Licenses-issued pursuant to Subpart A of-Part 32 of this' chapter to distribute items containing byproduct. material-that 126.
5 E
d
,i
- i. require device review to persons exempt -
from the licensing requirements of Part 30 4
of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that r i
1, have been authorized for distribution to i
. persons exempt from the licensing i
requirements of Part-30 of this s
1 chapter.
.i
$6,300 i
i i
i Surcharge . . .. . . . .
I,
$150 i
s I.
?
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A i
of Part 32-of this~ chapter to distribute I
items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that i do not require-device evaluation to i
persons exempt from the licensing i requirements of~Part 30 of.this chapter, i,
except for-specific licenses authorizing f redistribution of items 'that have.been i
authorized for distribution.to persons 1
- - exempt from the licensing requirements i of Part 30 of this chapter. -$7,600 1
d Surcharge . . . . .
1 ..z . . $150.
J.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B i of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute 127-1 -
P
- . - - , . ~ _ ,- ; , __ , . .._..__.-._,_.-_._.-_.___.._...,_._-.~....__._....-..._._.._..c..
l 3
L items containing byproduct material that i
require sealed source and/or device i
review to persons generally licensed i under Part 31 of this chapter, except i
specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have 4,
i been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter. $7,500 5
Surcharge . . . . . . . . -
$150
]
K.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 31 of this chapter to distribute' items containing byproduct
.i.
material or quantities of byproduct i
i material that do not require sealed i source and/or device review to persons
,i i
generally licensed under Part 31 of r
< this chapter, except specific licenses i authorizing redistribution of items that have-been-authorized for distribution
?
P to persons generally licensed under i Part 31 of this chapter. $6,000 l
?-
Surcharge . . . . . . . .
$150 L
L.
Licenses of broad scope for possession 1
128 a
- ., , g ,wr, ,49 ,+.g c n- p- sw,+,m,, v. ,,-v.- -wa +g ,,w,e,ae- c u- - , , , nwe,-*-,,v,n-prw,
- I t i
- and use of byproduct material issued \
pursuant to Part 30 and 33 of this i
chapter for research and development
- that do-not authorize commercial .
distribution. $7,400 4
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 i
, M. Other licenses for possession and use 4
1-of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for'research and development that do-not authorize commercial distribution.- $3,700 4
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 i
I N.
Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except_(1) licenses that !
authorize only calibration and/or leak
}
1-testing services are subject to'the fees R specified in fee Category 3P, and (2)
-licenses that authorize waste disposal 1
services'are subject to-the' fees specified in fee Categories 4A, 4B, and_4C.- _$4,400 Surcharge .-. . . ... . $1,750 l i
O. ' Licenses-for possession and use of
_: 1 129 l
Y 1
I i
byproduct material issued pursuant to
~
4 L-j Part 34 of this chapter for industrial i
radiography operations. This category i
also includes the possession'and use of source material for shielding authorized
- i. pursuant to Part 40 of this chapter when d
authorized on the same license. $12,800 '
i i~
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 P. All other' specific byproduct material 4 -licenses, except those in categories 4A through 9D.
- $2,100 4
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 l .
4.
' Waste disposal and processing:
i p A. Licenses _specifically authorizing t'he-1 receipt of waste byproduct material,-
i source. materia , or special nuclear material from other-persons for the purpose of contingency storage or.
5:
\'
commercial land' disposal-byithe
' licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency-storage of low level i-
' radioactive waste at the site of
, 130 I
nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material. $84,5001/
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $38,950 B.
Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, i source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose-of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will i dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material. $13,800 l Surcharge . . * * - - - - $1,750 c.
Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons.
131
-~ -, - , -- a--.- -, ,. --
i 1-The licensee will dispose of the 4
material by transfer to another F
person authorized to receive or dispose of the material. $7,600 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 t
i i-
- 5. Well logging:
A.
- Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging,.well surveys, and tracer studies other than. field flooding-tracer studies. $10,300 Surcharge .. . . . . . ..
$150 B.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material-for field. flooding tracer studies. $15,000
_-Surcharge . -
. - . . . . . . . $1,750-a 6.
NuclearLlaundries:
A.
Licenses for commercial collection and
- -laundry of items' contaminated!with 132' L
- byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material. $5,100 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 7.
Human use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material.
A. Licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, '
source material, or special nuclear :
material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license. $14,200 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians pursuant to Parts 30, 33, 35, 40 and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special 133 l
1
i-1 1
2 t
nuclear material in sealed sources 4
I contained in teletherapy devices. This t- :
! category also includes'the possession '
! and'use of source material for shielding 1 when' authorized on the same license.Il $12,200 i,
l' Surcharge . . . . . . . . 4
$1,750 i
4 C.
1 i
Other licenses issued pursuant to-k Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this
- i. - chapter for human'use of byproduct
.)
! material, source material and/or' i
special nuclear material ~except'
^
licenses for byproduct material, e
i source material, or special nuclear t-material.in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This 1'
1 category also includes the possession I
g and use of source material for
~
shielding when authorized on the i same license.2/
t- $4,600 i-o a
Surcharge . . . - . .. . .
$150-1
- 8. Civil-defense:
- A.
Licenses for' possession-and use of
- 134 .
i 9
.,#.m..e. -me.., ,.
.--.,.,my r,-,,.....,, ., ..%. g-..... . . . . . . . . , , . , . , , , . . ~ . . . . . - . . , , . , , , , , . , , , , , .
. .m.., yn,.....,, , , . .,
4 4
-byproduct material, source-material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities. $1,900 3
Surcharge . . . . . . . . _ $150 9.
Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation:
A. Registrations issued for the. safety evaluation of devices.or products containing-byproduct-material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices,-for commercial distribution. $9,300 Surcharge . . . . . . . . -
_$150
! B.
L t
Registrations issued for the safety l evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source
-material, or special nuclear material--
manufactured in-accordance with the unique specifications:of;-and for use by, a single-applicant, except:. reactor-fuel devices. $4,500 l
l i,
! Surcharge . . _ . . . . . . $150 135
= -,...e +, .-e. .--wese -.-,e., --w--,-w-e-ea.mt.wr -,,--.ar U e. -,.4,. v-s.er----,,w--ei wmw s ,e w w rv +e pr-t4--ow--t- -mm- e+ wr .* =a- **-Tg-s,-.--erwr ee t + w ew-t------ e-
- w w %
- . . . - ,- . . . . ~ . . - _ . . - . .-.- -. -. . . - . . . - .
I e
C.
- Registrations issued for the safety.
-evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution. $1,900 1
i Surcharge . .. . . . . . $150
- D.
Registrations issued for the safety
-evaluation of sealed sources
~
containing byproduct material,= source material, or special nuclear material- ,
i manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by,-a single applicant, except reactor fuel.
.$990 l
l
- Surcharge . . . .- . . .. $150 i
. 10. . Transportation of radioactive material:
i l
A. .
l Certificates of Compliance or other .
t.
-package approvals issued for design of: -
casks, packages, Land shipping containers.
l 136 L. ~ 3
i i-1, Spent Fuel, High Level-Waste and-1 N/AI/~
i plutonium air packages i
Other Casks
- N/AI/
i I
L B. Approvals issued of'10 CFR Part 71 d
. quality assurance programs.
4 i
Users and Fabricators
$62,800 Users
$1,500 Surcharge . . .. . . .. .
. $150 i
- 11. Standardized spent fuel facilities.
N/AII i
, 12. Special Projects i
I N/AI/
r
- 13. A.
Spent fuel storage cask Certificate N/AI/
of Compliance.
l B.
l General licenses for_ storage of '$43,000 L
l- -spent fuel under 10 CFR 72.210.
I Surcharge .-. . .. . . . $150 14.
Byproduct, source,'or-special nuclear
- N/All material licenses and other approvals 137
authorizing decommissioning, decontamination,_
reclamation or site restoration-activities pursuant to 10 C7R Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72.
- 15. Import and Export licenses N/AI/
- 16. Reciprocity N/ ail-17.
Master materials licenses of broad $300,000 scope issued to Government agencies.
Surcharge . . . - . . . . . $36,150
- 18. DOE Certificates-of Compliance- . . . . . $1,200,0001El 1/
Amendments based on applications filed after October 1 of each fiscal-year that change the scope of a licensee's program or that cancel a license will not result in any refund-or-increase in the annual fee for that fiscal year or any-portion thereof for the fiscal year filed.
The annual fee-will be waived where the license is terminated prior to October 1 of each fiscal year, and the amount of the-annual-fee will be increased or reduced where an amendment or revision is issued to. increase.or decrease the scope. prior to October 1 of each fiscal year.
-If a person holdsimore.than one license,_ certificate, registration,- or approval,-the annual fee (s) will be assessed for each license, certificate, registration or_ approval held by that
-138
_ - - - _ - - - - . - . ~ .
I i
person.
For those licenses that authorize more than one activity on a single. license (e.g.,
human use and irradiator activities),
annual fees will be assessed for each category applicable to the license.
Licensees paying annual fees under Category 1. A. (1) .
are not subject to the annual fees of category 1.C and 1.D for sealed sources authorized in the license.
Il Payment of the prescribed annual fee does not automatically renew the license, certificate, registration, or approval for which the fee is paid.
Renewal applications.must be filed in accordance with the requirements of Parts 30, 40,'70, 71, or 72 of this chapter.
4 1/
For FYs 1993 through 1995, fees for these materials licenses will be calculated and assessed in accordance with S 171.13 ar 1 .
will be published in the Federal Register-for notice and comment .
A/
A Class I license includes mill licenses issued-for the extraction of uranium from uranium ore. A Class II license--
includes solution mining licenses (in-situ and heap leach) issued for the extraction of uranium from uranium ores including research and development licenses.
i An "other"-license includes
.l censes for extraction of metals, heavy metals ,
and rare earths.
1/
Two licenses'have been issued by NRC for. land disposal of special nuclear material.
Once NRC issues a LLW disposal license for byproduct and source material, the Commission will-consider 139
establishing an annual foe for this type of license, il standardized spent fuel facilities, Part 71 and 72 Certifi-cates of compliance and special reviews, such as topical reports, are not assessed an annual fee because the generic costs of regulating these activities are primarily attributable to the users of the d1 signs, certificates and topical reports.
1/
Licensees in this category are not assessed an annual fee because they are charged an annual fee-in other categories while they are operating.
Il No annual fee is charged because it is not practical to administer due to the relatively short' life or temporary nature of tne ! *nse.
1/
Separate annual fees will not.be assessed for pacemaker licenses issued-to medical institutions who also hold nuclear medicine licenses under Categories 7B or 7C.
12/
This includes all Certificates of. Compliance issued to DOE.
III No annual fee has been established because there are currently no licensees in this particular fee category.
(e)-
A surcharge is proposed'for each category, except Category 18, for which a base. annual fee is required.- The 140
, _ _ __L-----l--"^-'--'^^~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
surcharge consists of the following (1)
To recover costs relating to LLW disposal generic activities, an additional charge of $155,100 has been added to fee Categories 1.A.(1) and 2. A. (1) ; an additional charge of
$38,800 has becn added to fec categories 1.A.(2) and 4.A.; an additional charge of $1,600 has been added to fee categories 1.B., 1.D., 2.C., 3.A., 3.B., 3.C., 3.L., 3.M., 3.N., 4.B., 4.C.,
5.B., 6.A.,
and 7.B.; and an additional charge of $36,000 has been added to fee Category 17.
(2)
To recoup those costs not recovered from small entities, an additional charge of $160 has been added to each fee category, except Categories 1E, 10.A., 11., 12.,
13.A., 14., 15.,
16., 17., and 18.
Licensees who qualify as small entities under the provisions of S 174.16(c) and who submit a co~pleted m NRC Form 526 are not subject to the $160 additional charge.
11.
In Section 171.19, paragraph (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
5 171.19 Payment.
(b)
For FY 1992 through FY 1995, the Commission will adjust the fourth quarterly bill for operating power reactors and certain materials licensees to recover the full amount of the revised annual fee. All other licensees, or holders of a 141
certificate, registration, or approval of a QA program will be sent a bill for the full amount of the annual fee upon '
publication of the final rule. Payment is due on the effective '
.~;
date of the final rule and interest shall accrue from the effective date of the final rule. However, interest will be waived if payment is received within 30 days from the effective ,
date of the final rule.
(c)
For FYs 1992 through 1995, annual fees in the amount of
$100,000 or more and described in the Federal Register Notice Pursuant to S 171.13, shall be paid in quarterly installments of 25 percent.
A quarterly installment is due on Octcsber 1, January 1, April 1 and July 1 of each fiscal year. l Annual fees of less than $100,000 shall be paid once a year.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of __, 1992.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
t James M. Taylor,
! Executive Director for Operations.
. . . , - - - . - . - . . , , . .---...- , - -.~.,: - ,_ , - .... - ,-.. .L- :.~... . ..---.-
APPENDIX A TO THIS FINAL RULE REGULATORY FLEXIDILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 170 (LICENSE FEES) AND 10 CFR PART 171 (ANNUAL FEES)
I. BACKGROUND The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
seq.) 601 et establishes as a principle of regulatory practice that agencies endeavor to fit regulatory and informational requirements, consistent with applicable statutes, to a scale commensurate with the businesses, organizations, and government jurisdictions to which they apply.
To achieve this principle, the Act requires that agencies consider the impact of ther i actions on small entities. If the agency cannot certify that a rule will not significantly impact a substantial number of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis is required to examine the impacts on small entities and the alternatives o t
minimize these impacts.
To assist in considering these impacts under the Regulat ory Flexibility Act, the NRC adopted size standards for determining which NRC licensees qualify as small entities (50 FR 50241; December 9, 1985).
November 6, These size standards were clarified 1991 (56 FR 56672).
follows: The NRC size standards are as (1)
A small business is a business with annual receipts of 143 i
"~
$3.5 million or less except private practice physicians for which the standard is annual receipts of $1 million or less.
(2)
A small organization is a not-for-profit organization which is independently owned and operated and has annual receipts of $3.5 million or less.
(3) small governmental jurisdictions are governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of less-than 50,000.
(4)
A small educational institution is one that is (1) supported by a qualifying small governmental jurisdiction, or (2) one that is not state or publicly supported and has 500 employees or less.
Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90),
requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund, for Fiscal Years (FY) 1991 through 1995 by assessing license and annual fees.
For-FY 1991, the' amount tt be collected was approximately $445 million, and for FY 1992, the amount to be collected is approximately $492.5 million.
To comply with OBRA-90, the Commission proposed amendments-to its fee regulations in 10 CFR-Parts 170 and 171 on April 12 ,
1991 (56 FR 14870).
On the basis of a careful evaluation of over 400' comments, the Commission issued a final rule on July 10 , _1991 144
_ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ -]
_ - - - ..-. - - - _ .~_ .- - . - - - ....._- - - - _ - - - -
t (56 FR 31472).
This final rule established the methodology to be ;
used in identifying the fees to be assessed and determined the i fees that were assessed and collected in FY 1991. Consistent with the Conference Committee Report accompanying OBRA-90,the i NRC fairly and equitably allocated its budget costs. This resulted in the assessment of annual fees for all classes of licensees, including those classes of licensees with a substantial number of small entities. Using the same methodology established in the FY 1991 rulemaking, the NRC published a-proposed rule on April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18095), that established the fees to be assessed for PY 1992.
II.
IMPACT ON SMAid OjIJTf 95 The comments re civ ? cn the proposed FY 1991 fee rule l ,
revisions and the small ourity certifications received in.
j response to the final FY.1991 foe rule indicate that NRC 4 licensees qualifying as small entities under the NRC's size standards are primarily those licensed under the NRC's materials progrma.
The refore, this analysis will focus on' the economic impact of the annual fees on materials licensees.
The Commission's fee regulations result in. substantial fees being charged'to those' individuals,. organizations, and companies that are licensed under the NRC materials program. Of these _
materials licensees, the NRC estimates that-about 25 percent (approximately 2,000 licensees) qualify as small entities.
Therefore, in recognition of this substantial number ofLamall 145
.. - . . . , , . . . . , ~ , , . -
-, ,. .,, -,,--..,,..,,-.,y.a_,.......,..,
, , ~ . , . , , . . , , m-._,.m-,-,......_,,.-mi. ,.._,,..m ,y..y,.,,_
l f
entities, the NRC requested comments from small entities on the proposed FY 1991 rule.
Comments were specifically requested on (1). how-the proposed regulations would affect each class of licensee and (2) how the regulations could be structured to i further minimize the economic impact on the licensee but still meet the statutory mandate of OBRA-90.
For materials licensees, the increase in fees assessed in FY.
1991 consisted of'(1) an increase of 25 percent in the license and inspection fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 170 and-(2) a new annual fee assessed under 10 CFR Part 171 that ranged from $290 to over $10,000.
A number of small entities indicated that the 25 percent increase in license and inspection fees although not ,
]
desirable, would not have a significant economic impact nothem.
L However, many other materials licensees commented thatnew the annual fee would have 4 negative economic impact'on them.
Therefore, l the regulatory flexibility analysis prepared for the July 10, 1991, final rule, as_Well as this regulatory flexibility .
analysis,' concentrates on the annual fee. '
.The commenters indicated the following results if the annual fees proposed on April 12, 1991, were not modified:
Large firms would gain an unfair competitive; advantage-over small entities, one commenter noted that a.small-Well-logging company (a " Mom and Pop" type of _
operation) would find it ' difficult to absorb the annual fee, while a large corporation would find it easier .
146 .
w --,-s +,,--~~-+,-,,,,,vm-, m e- ,v , no-w,-,v---,,'-n,,, ,n,-.- .,r---,m,rwae.,,-, r , ,,.--en., +,,,n.-ene, v ----m,,-,-,,-ew,,,,,,-w-,-,wie-a,A~~,
~
Another commenter noted that the fee increase could be more easily absorbed by a high-volume nuclear medicine clinic.
A gauge licensee noted that, in the very competitive soils testing market, the annual fees would put it at an extreme disadvantage with its much larger competitors because the proposed fees would be the same for a two-person licensee ao for a large firm with thousands of employees.
Some firms would be forced to cancel their licenses.
One commenter, with receipts of less than $500,000 per .
year, stated that the proposed rule would, in effect,-
force it to relinquish its soll density gauge and-license, thereby reducing its ability to do its work effectively.
Another commenter noted that the rule would force the company and many other small businesses to get rid of the materials license altogether.
Commenters stated ~that the proposed rule would result in about 10 percent of the well logging licensees -
terminating their licenses immediately and approximately 25 percent terminating their licenses before the next annual assessment.
Some companies would go out of business.
One:commenter noted that the proposal would put it, and several other -
small companies, out of business or, at the very least, make it hard to= survive.
147 T- _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _
Some companies would have budget problems. Many medical licensees commented that, in these times of slashed reimbursements, the proposed increase of the existing fees and the introduction of additional fees would significantly affect their budgets. Another noted that, in view of the cuts by Medicare and other third party carriers, the fees would produce a hardship and some facilities would experience a great deal of difficulty in meeting this additional burden.
Although it was not clear to what extent these impacts would materialize at the time the July ~10, 1991, final rule was promulgated, it was clear that the assessed annual fees would be a relatively high portion of the gross revenues of some licensees and far less of a portion for other larger material licensees.
After the final rule was published, approximately 2,000 license ,
approval, and registration terminations were requested. Although some of these terminations were requested because the license was no longer needed or licenses or registrations could be combined, indications are that other termination requests were due to the -
-economic impact of the fees. g The NRC continues to receive written and oral comments from small materials licensees.
These comments indicate that the $3.5 million threshold for small entities is not representative of small businesses with gross' receipts in the thousands of dollars .
These commenters believe that the $1,800 maximum annual fee represents a relatively high percentage of gross annual receipts 148 i
for these " Mom and Pop" type businesses. Therefore, even the reduced annual fee could have a significant impact on the ability of these types of businesses to continue to operate.
Members of Congress, in many of the more than 100 Congressional letters the NRC has received since the July 10 ,
1991, final rule was published, have expressed concern about the size of the NRC annual fees and their economic impact on small entities.
Some of these letters have suggested that the Commission should act to further reduce the economic impact on those licensees who conduct limited operations. The small Business Administration (SBA), while commending the Commission for complying with and using the RFA in the final rulemaking ,
suggested that the Commission should act to further alleviate the impact of tre fees on small businesses.
The American Nuclear Society (ANS) also expressed concern about the impact of the annual fees on small entities and suggested that the Commission examine alternatives to further reduce the impacts.
s Therefore, the NRC concludes that it thould consider l
additional alternatives, in accordance with the RFA, because of the continuing significant impact of the annual fees on a substantial number of small entities.
III. ALTERNATIVES Commenters on the proposed rule published April 12, 1991, and comments received subsequent to publication of the final rule loa
on July 10, 1991, suggested alternatives to reduce the impact on small entities. These comments are categorized as follows:
Base fees on some measure of the amount of radioactivity possessed by the licensee (e.g., number ,
of sources).
Base fees on the frequency of use of the licensed radioactive material (e.g., volume of patients).
Base fees on the NRC size standards for small entities.
The first 41ternative would result in the annual fee being in direct proportion to the amount of radioactivity (e.g., number of radioactive sources) possessed by the licensee, independent of whether the licensee meets the size standard for a small business.
Thus, a large diversified-firm that owns one source-would get a reduced fee, while a small. entity, whose business may depend solely on'the use of radioactive materials, would pay a larger fee because it has more than one source. Thus, this alternative does not necessarily achieve the goal of the RFA to minimize the impact on sma111 entities.
The NRC also believes that this approach would not result.in a fair and equitable .
allocation of its generic and other costs not recovered under 10 CFR Part 170.
Therefore, the NRC rejected this approach.
For similar reasons, the second suggested alternative, basing the fee on the frequency of use of the licensed 150
-% .-,..o....w, ,.,y,,..,.,y,,.,s,v-,ww,,c-...-ry.-p,+,,,-..,yn, .-..,,_,,-,.w,, --..,-wv - , - - -,,,--,,--,.--..-y-e,y,.y..,,-,,n-w_,-,,
t i
radioactive source, would not necessarily reduce the cost for i
small entities that meet the size standards discussed earlier. l Therefore, the NRC also rejected this approach.
The last alternative would base fees on the size standards that the NRC has used to define small entities. This alternative would ensure that any benefits from modifying the proposed fees would apply only to small entities. Three basic options, each $
using the NRC size standards, were considered for modifying the r annual fees imposed on small entities:
1.
Exempt all small entities which meet the size standards from annual fees.
2.
Require small entities to pay a fixed percent of the amount of the fee in each of the specif'ic material
+
license fee categories.
! 3. )
Establish a maximum fee for.small entities.
Under Option 1, all small entitles.would be exempted from fees.
However, because small entities would'not pay any of the-generic costs attributable to their class of licensees, this
! option could be viewed as inconsistent with the objectives of
) OBRA-90.
Under this option, all the annual fees attributable to smallJentities_would be paid'by other NRC licensees.
Under option 2,.small_ entities would pay a percentage (e.g.,
151
- , , .,.,..,i,..e
.,-7-,e#--,.,-~w..ce.r .-,c-p--c- #w.,,.,,,w
,,.m-- y.. y - , . . , , , , ,,,,,-,.ww.e.m,~m,., ,,-,,,,ary,a,..,,. - - , .,,v,,e,,.m,.c.c.
50 percent) of the proposed fee for each specific category of materials license, regardless of how small or large the fee is.
This option could result in a reduction in annual fees that are already relatively small and that do not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, for those fee categories assessed large annual fees, the percentage of reduction may result in assessing small entities licensed under those fee categories relatively large annual fees.
Option 3 would establish a maximum fee for all small entities.
Under this option, a small entity would pay either the smaller of the annual fee for the category or the maximum small entity fee.
This alternative strikes a balance between the requirements of OBRA-90 and the RFA, which are to consider and reduce, as appropriate, the impact of an agency's regulatory actions on small entities. Therefore, the NRC has adopted Option 3 as the most appropriate to reduce the impact on small entities .
(
l l
IV. MAXIMUM FEE To implement option 3, the NRC established a maximum annual 1
fee for small entities. The RFA and its implementing guidance do not provide specific guidelines on what constitutes a significant economic impact on a small entity. Therefore, the NRC has no benchmark to assist in determining the amount or the percent of gross receipts that should be charged to a small entity. To determine a maximum annual fee for a small entity, the NRC 152
-- - - - , ,e --
examined the NRC 10 CFR Part 170 license and inspection fees established in 1991 and the 1991 Agreement State fet:: for those fee categories that are expected to have a substantial number of small entities.
Because these fees have been charged to small entities, the NRC believes that these fees do not have a significant impact on them.
In fact, the NR( concluded, in issuing the July 10, 1991, final rule, that the existing materials license and inspection fees do not have a significant impact on small entities.
The maximitm fees per year charged in 1991 by several Agreement States and by the NRC for materials license fee categories with a significant number of small entities are shown below.
1991 Maximum Average I
Total Fee _Per Year -
$3,760 Texas
$2,100 Illinois
$2,000 NRC
$1,590 Nebraska
$1,460 New York
$1,030 Utah l $440 l
Table 1 presents the estimated total fees (Part 170 plus Part 171) for materials licensees, assuming maximum annual fees for small entities of $2,000 or $1,500 and an average number of 153
1 l
licensing actions and inspections per year. If the maximum annual fee for small entities is established at $2,000, the 1
average fee per year for all of the categories would be below the approximately $3,800 maximum fee charged by Agreement States, except for radiography, waste receipt and packaging, and broad-scope medical licensees.
The broad-scope medical, and waste receipt and packaging licensees are primarily large entities.
Therefore, with a $2,000 maximum small entity annual fee and the .
average license and inspection fees, only small entities who are radiographers would pay slightly more than the current maximum Agreement State fee of approximately $3,800.
If the maximum fee is reduced by $200 (from $2,000 to $1,800), then all categories of materials licensees, including radiographers, would pay no more for each category than the 1991 maximum Agroement State fee of about $3,800 if the licensee qualifies as a small entity.
' By establishing the maximum annual fee for small entities at Si,800, the annual fee for many small entities will be reduced while at the same time materials licensees, including small entities, pay for most of the FY 1991 costs
($22.3 million of the total $27.2 million) attributable to them. Therefore, the NRC has established and will continue, for FY 1992, the maximum i
annual fee (base annual fee plus surcharge) for certain small entities at $1,800 for each fee category covered by each license issued to a small entity.
Note that the costs not recovered from small entities are allocated to other materials licensees and to operating power reactors.
154
., , - - - , - , _ - - . - . - - - , ,. .- .,-.,v --,y --
y-,-- - - , ,
s I
While reducing the impact on many small entities, the i commission agrees that the current maximum annual fee of $1,800 for small entities, when added to the Part 170 license and inspection fees, may continue to have a significant impact on materials licensees with annual gross receipts in the thousanda l
! of dollars.
l Therefore, the Commission has further reduced the '
i impact on small entities with relatively low gross annual ;
t receipts.
Commenters have suggested that the NRC could reduce the impact of the fees for materials licensees by basing them on the licensee's nuclear capacity (e.g., the number of sources possessed, the number of hospital beds, or the amount of radioactive material possessed), or the frequency of use of the radioactive material.
In adopting the July 10, 1991, final rule, the Commission recognized that inherent differences exist in the nuclear capacity and the frequency of source use for many of the .
classes of materials: licensees. However, as indicated in Section III of this analysis, the Commission concludes.that basing the -
fee on the number of sources, frequency of use, or amount of radioactive material possessed does not necessarily reduce the impact of the fees on-small entities, which is-the goal of the RFA.
The Commission continues to believe that-uniformly allocating the generic-and other regulatory costs to the specific license to determine the amount of the annual fee is a fair and -
equitable way to recover its costs and that establishin g reduced annual fees based on gross receipts (size) is the most appropriate approach to minimize the impact on small entities.
155
. _ - - - -- . . , , _ . , _ , - , _ _ _ _ . _ - , _ . . - . . , _ . . . _ . _ - . _ . _ , . , _ , _ _ _ , . _ , , _u...,_.._
consistent with this approach, the commission will continue the
$1,800 maximum annual fee for small entities.
In addition, the commission has created a lower tier annual fee for small entities with relatively small gross annual receipts or with a relatively small population (57 FR 13625; April 17, 1992).
To implement this action, relatively small annual receipts were defined.
Based on data from an NRC survey of materials licensees and the Department of commerce industry census, the following data shows the distribution of businesses with annua l gross receipts of less than $3.5 million.
Annual Gross Receints NRC Survey Department of Commerce Less than $250K 45%
$250 - $499K 14%
55%
$500 - $749K 8%
22%
$750 - $999K 9%
6%
$1,000 - $3,-500K 24%
6%
~11%
As shown, 45 to 55 percent (or about 50%) of small businesses with gross annual receipts of less than $3 5 milli .
on have gross annual receipts that are less than $250,000 Thus, by .
defining relatively small gross annual receipts as less than
$250,000, a significant number of small entities would be eligible for a further reduction of the impact of the annual '
fees.
This level would also help ensure that those small businesses which probably would be impacted the most a would p y the lower fee.
A similar approach was used to defino a relatively small 156
governmental jurisdiction.
Using 1990 data from the National Association of Counties, the distribution for counties located in non-Agreement States with a population of less than 50,000 shows that a population level of less than 20,000 would ensure that at least 50 percent of the small counties would be eligible for reducco fees (See the data presented below).
' This would also ensure that at least 50 percent of other governmental jurisdictions (cities, towns, villages, school districts, etc.)
could also receive the benefits because these other jurisdictions are typically smaller than counties.
Pooulation Percent of Total Less than 5,000 10%
5,000 - 9,999 18 10,000 - 14,999 16 15,000 - 19,999 14 20,000 - 24,999 9 25,000 - 50,000 33 The NRC also determined the amount of the annual fee that should be assessed to. lower tier small entities (less than '
$250,000 for small businesses and small non-profit organizations, or less than 20,000 population for small governmental 1
jurisdictions).
In establishing the annual fee for lower tier small entities, the commission retained a balance between the objectives of the RFA and OBRA.
This balance can be measured by-(1) the amount of costs attributable to small entities that-is transferred to larger entities'(the small entity subsidy); (2) the total annual fee small entities pay, relative to this subsidy; and (3) how much the annual fee is for a lower tier-157
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - ~ --- - - - - - - - - i
small entity.
Nuclear gauge users were used to measure the reduction in fees because they represent about 40 percent of the materials licensees and most likely would include a larger percentage of lower tier small entities than would other classes of materials licensees.
Before presenting alternative fees, the NRC notes that the number of licensees filing small entity certifications for the FY 1991 annual fees is lower than originally estimated. The NRC estimated 3,000 certifications in the July 10, 1991, rule, which would have resulted in an estimated cost of about $5 million in the small entity subsidy.
On the basis of the response to the FY 1991 billings, the NRC's estimate is now that there are about 2,000 small entities.
The following data shows four different lower tier small entity fees, their impact on the licensees, and their impact on the balance between OBRA and RFA.
Altorrative Estimated Lower Tier FY 1992 Estimated Reduction Small Small in Fee FY 1992 Annual Entity Entity Fees Paid for Gauge Subsidy by Small Annual Fee Users (%) 1S M) Entities (S Mi
$1,200 900 30% $5.0 $4.5 50 5.3 700 60 4.2 400 5.5 4.0 7S 6.0 3.5 Each of the alternative lower tier annual fees reduces the annual fee for qualifying nuclear gauge licensees. However, the 158
._ =____ _ ______ -
Commission established an annual fee of $400 for the lower tier small entities because this amount should ensure that the lower tier small entities receive a reduction (75 percent for small ,
gauge users) substantial enough to mitigate any severe impact.
The amount of the small entity subsidy resulting from this fee is equivalent to the amount estimated in the July 10, 1991, final <
rule, increased by 20 percent to account for the FY 1992 budget increase and the reduced number of materials licensees resulting from license terminations after the FY 1991 rule became effective.
Although the other reduced fees would result in lower subsidies, the Commission believes that the amount of the associated annual fees, when added to the license and inspection fees, would still be considerable for small businesses and organizations with gross receipts tV are less than $250,000 or for governmental entities in jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000.
l V.
SUMMARY
comments received on the proposed rule dated April 12, 1991, and implementation of the final. rule on July 10, 1991,. provide evidence that the annual-fee would significantly impact a substantial number of small entities. A maximum fee for small s entities strikes a balance between the requirement to collect 100 percent of the NRC budget and the requirementsoto consider-means of reducing the impact of the proposed fee on small entities. on i
the' basis.of=its regulatory flexibility analysis and the April .
17; 1992, final rule the NRC concludes that a maximum annual fee 159 v.,--,+ ,,,..w._m- -..w.~. mv- e.-y-w. c=-,- , ._-...-w,- w-y,..e,,,-m.,,.ves,ww,y,vy,,ww,,_n ,cmy,g,y,,.v-,,.,,u.ww,. rey.,,---u ,
~.y-w,,,-,,r,vyv,+ , ,,y,,,,p,m,-,
of $1,800 for small entities and a lower tier small entity annual fee of $400 for small businesses and non-profit organizations with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000, and small governmental entities with a population of less than 20,000 , will reduce the impact on small entities. At the same time, these reduced annual fees are consistent with the objectives of OBRA-
- 90. Thus, he revised fees for small entities maintain a balance between the objectives of OBRA-90 and the RFA.
The NRC has used the methodology and procedures developed for the FY 1991 fee e rul in-this rule establishing the FY 1992 fees. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions established in the FY 1991 rule remain valid for this final rule.
160 I
Table 1 . 1991 Average Total Small Entity Fees Per Year License Fee category Total Small Entity FeeY Max Annual Max Annual
.......... ........................... . Fee * $2K
........... Fee = S1.5K Special Nuclear Material (SNM):
1C. Industrial Gauges
$1,672 51,672 1D. All other SNM 2,506 2,006 source Materials 2B. Shielding 463 463 2C. Other Source Materials 2,867 2,367 s
Byproduct Materials JA. Manufacturing - Broad 3,560 3,060 3B. Manufacturing - Other 3,343 2,843 3C. Radiopharmaceuticals 3,207 2,707 3D.
Radiopharmaceuticals - Manufacturing 2,677 2,177 3E.
Irraciators - Self-shield 1,699 1,699 3F. Irradiators . < 10,000 ci 2,623 2,123
- 30. Irradiators - > 10,000 ci 3,840 3,340 3H. Exempt distribution - Device review 2,815 2,315
- 31. Exempt distribution - No device review 2,682 2,182 3J. Gen. license - Device review 2,679 2,179 161
_ _.. . . . . . .. .. _ - - - - - - - - - - ~- ~
._. . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ = . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
1 Table 1 -- 1991 Average Total Small Entity Fees Per Year License Tee Category Total small Entity FeeV Max Annual Max Annual
........................................ Fee = $2K Fee = $1.5K 3K. Gen. license - No device review 2,708 2,208 3L. R&D - Broad 3,210 2,710 3H. R&D - Other 3,050 2,550 3N. Service license 2,733 2,233
- 30. Radiography 4,050 3,550 3P. All other byproduct materials 2,120 2,120 WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING:
4B. Waste receipt / packaging 4,680 4,180 4C. Waste receipt prepackaged 3,216 2,716 Well Logging:
i 5A. Well logging 3,207 2,707 NUCLEAR LAUNDRY:
6A. Nuclear laundry 3,030- 2,530 O
162 f
- ..- , _- - - - - - , , . . , . , , , , . . - , , . - . . , , m.- , ., - _ _ . ., ,- _,
a Table 1 -- 1991 Average Total Small Entity Fees Per Year
- License Fee category Total Small Entit Fee 2
...................y .......
1 Max Annual Hax Annual
.................,...................... Fee = $2K Fee = $1.54 I
Human Use Of Byproduct, Source, or SNH 7 7A. Teletherapy 3,788
! 3,288 7B. Medical - broad 4,360 k 3,860 i 7C. Medical other
- 3,130 2,630 e
CZVIL DEFENSES BA. Civil defense 1,789 1,789 Device, Product, or Sealed Source Safety Evaluation 9A. Device / product - Broad 3,200 2,700 9B. Device / product - Other 2,580 2,000 9c. Scaled sources Broad l
1,530 1,530 9D.
Sealed sources - Other 770 770 jBased on average 10 CFR Part 170 f ees plus maximum annual fees.
1
{
163 i
4
, , , --- , o,, >- - r- w-- , ,- , , - -
1 i
i F
DIS 7RIBUTION AND CONCURRENCE FOR:
[7590-01)10 100% FEE RECOVERY, FY 1992CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 RIN: 3150-AE20 DISTRIBUTION: OC R/F, OC S/F, JHolloway, JFunches, RMBernero, P TRothschild, RMScroggins, JMTaylor, E00 R/F, JTurdici. - LHiller, D GJackson. 0 Weiss OFFICE :OC :OC f :NMSS :ADM NAME : lloway :JFubes :RMBernero :PGNorry DATE :6g92' :6 /92- = 7/ /92- :7/ /92 OFFICE :IP :OGC :OC :EDO-NAME .::HRDenton :TRothschild :RMScroggins :JMTaylor DATE :7/ /92 :7/ /92 7/ /92 :7/ /92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 2 Facilities Comments
- 1. Joe F. Colvin, Executive Vice President and Chief operating officer Nuclear Manaaement and Resources Council (NUMARC)
(10)
Comments submitted on behalf of the nuclear power industry.
NUMARC notes the following changes from FY 1991 a seven rate percent increase in the professional hourly an eleven percent increase in the power reactor annual charge a 200% increase in the power reactor subsidy for nonprofit educational institutions a 61% increase international in the power reactor subsidy for programs NUMARC comments that there is insufficient detail at the activity l level to verify those significant changen and this is contrary to NRC's commitment to provide the public with detailed supporting information concerning the bases for the fees. NUMARC recommends that NRC make publicly available its Five Year Plan or other l document with an equivalent level of detail to provide the detail necessary to~ allow effective evaluation and comment upon the proposed rule.
NUMARC indicates that the FY-1992 proposed appropriation' language -
in NUREG-1100, Volume 7, states that moneys received by the Commission for the cooperative nuclear safety research programs,
services rendered to foreign governments and international organizations and the material and information access authorization program may be retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with those activities.
Because the federal _
Reaistar notice does not show any offsets to FY 1992 sal aries and expenses from these revenues, NUMARC recommends that NRC identify sources of external funds and show explicitly how they are us ed to reduce salaries and expenses and consequently licens e fees.
NUMARC notes that approximately $20 million has been app ropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF).
NUMARC indicates that presumably this amount includes some $1.7 million in administrative costs for high level waste activities as identified in the FY 1992 budget request (NUREG-1100 - Volume 7).
NUMARC is concernou that the FY 1993 budget request (NUREG-1100 -
Volume 8) proposes to recover all administrative costs through user fees. NUMARC indicates that inclusion of the administrative costs associated with high level waste licensing activities would result in a double payment by utilities -- once through their mill / kwhr payment to the NWF and again through the annual charge that recovers total NRC administrative costs.
NUMARC recommends that NRC review its FY 1992 allocation of funds and confirm that the NWF appr opriation, rather than user fees, will be used to recover FY 1992 administrative costs for high level waste programs.
l 2
. - - ~ o--. ,----.g. -~ - . . -
-e . , , , a
- 2. William J. Cahill, Jr., Group Vice President TU Electric (25)
Commenter endorses comments made by liUMARC.
Commenter recommends that llRC define the term "FTE" which is used in the discussion of the increase in the professional hourly rate.
l l
l l
3
Materials Comments
- 1. Leon S. Malmud, M.D., President; Robert J.
President Lull, M.D.,
American Collece.of Nuclear Physicians / Society of
@' clear Medicine (ACNP/SNML (8) i ACNP/SNM, which represents over 14,000 medical members, objects to the approximate 50 percent increase in fees to me di cal licensees.
ACNP/SNM requests that NRC institute an immediate ,
moratorium -- freezing fees at FY 1991 levels until the ACNP/SN M
petition is considered in its entirety.
ACNP/SNM states that America is facing a health care crisis and believ es that NRC is obligated to address these concerns in terms of whether e th "
current fee schedule is consistent with the methodologyopted ad in FY 1991.
The haalth care crisis should not be perpetuated b y wrongful pressures from a regulatory agency.
ACNP/SNM contends that as their petition indicates ,
it would be appropriate to consider exemptions for nonprofit medic a l centers similar to that given to nonprof..t educational instit al ; uns. The same exemption criteria should be applied to materials licensees as applied to reactor licensees, i.e.,
individualized exemptions.
As suggested by SBA, a sliding rate scale for small entities should be implemented.
ACNP/SNM feels that it is imperative the medical community be involved in regulatory policy development -
- much like reactor 4
. .- - - . . .- - . - . - . . . -- _-. - . . . - . . . . . - - - ~ - - ._
licensees -- so that patient-health care is not sacrificedued to an unnecessary yet perceived need for increased protection to public health and safety.
Commenter cites the fact that-the FY 1992 budget amount to materials licensees is about 20% g er hi h than the FY 1991 amount allocated and indicates millions that of dollars in user fees are generated from NRC administrati ve overhead which further exacerbates the enormous regulatory compliance costs.
Commenter indicates that the proposed rule threat . ens the availability of health. care with over 400-medical users ca ncelled last year as compared to 80 cancellations during ear thebefore.
y Commenter states that delaying consideration of th e -
petition until FY 199' perpetuates the cancellation of these materi a l
licences.
They indicate that it was not the intent of Congress nor the NRC to limit access to nuclear medicine services .
- 2. Gary W.
-RelationsPrice, Senior Director,zDivision-of Government
.American Colleae of Radioloav (ACRL i
(21)
ACR, on behalf of 28,000 physicians and physician' members , states that a methodology that results in increased fee s of.over 2,000 percent over 1990 levels to some medical licens
- . ees while the risk to'the patient remains the same isLsimply unjustifie. . d Some consideration should be.given1to the commensurate risk e- to th patient before. exercising suchLexorbitant' fees on an s ry indu t l 5
. . _ , _ . . , _.. m ,_. _ , , _ _ . . . . . . . . _ . _ , , , _ , . . , _ . . _ . , , - , _ .
i.
p which has.not increased the risk _of radiation exposure to the public or to its patients.
- i The short time frame that NRC has
-allowed for comment does not provide the ACR membership an
{
< adequate opportunity to respond.
i 4
i ACR indicates that the proposed rule 1will continue the -
aa esc on l ti of fees' paid by medical licensees.
The impact of the fee i increases on medical practices, medical institutions , medical '
research and health care costs in general.is not adequately i
addressed in the proposed rule. _
i ACR points out that an indicator of the impact of increasing fees is that over.400 medical licensees cancelled their licensees'in 1991, a 500 percent
{
a increase over the terminations in 1990.
ACR feels that while the cancellations may.not be wholly attributable to the increase in _
i fees,-it certainly has been a major factor .
1 ACR applauds the NRC for developing a different f ee' tier for licensees determined to be small entities. However,-ACR suggests NRC 1) expand what constitutes those entities; 2) consider a
[
sliding scale based on ability tonpay; and~3) i'
. consider l offering
- i anLexemption to nonprofit. medical institutions in much th e same 4
. manner _that-it does for nonprofit educational organizations .
i
.3
_ Milton:M. Bush, Esquire, Director of Public Affairs
'American Council of IndeDendent Laboratories. Inc. (ACILL (14) 6
..- . . , . _ _ ._...-.;.- , , . ~ . _ . . . - . . . . . . . - . . _ . - . _ . - _ _ . , _ _ _ _ - _ _
ACIL represents an industry of over 4,000 laboratories engaged in testing, analysis, investigations, sampling, research and development and/or consultation for the public in the field s of engineering and the sciences.
ACIL indicates that the industry contributes an estimated $12 billion annually to the nation's economy.
ACIL is concerned about the impact of fees paid by ACIL firms.
ACIL rec-gnizes the NRC's approach to entities with annual revenue of less than $250,000; however, ACIL believes that most viable commercial entities could not operate at this revenu e level and are not affected by the NRC changes. In addition, the
$1,800 maximum small entity fee is an admirable attempt to reduce onerous costs but most firms are burdened with inspection fees .
ACIL states that many ACIL companies may not renew their censes li which would result in less revenue for NRC and the licensee .
ACIL is conducting, in response to fee concerns, a data collection project to effectively analyze the cost of the increases as it relates to the company's overall r evenue and the services directly affected by the use of the license .
ACIL would be happy to meet with NRC representatives to discuss memb ers' Concerns.
- 4. James D. Bentley, Ph.D.,
Senior Vice President for Policy American Hosnital Association (AHA)
(17)
AHA, representing 5,300 hospitals, is concerned aboutLNRC's 7
l 1
decision to raise the FY 1992 annual fees for materials users approximately 50% over FY 1991 levels.
The increases seem out of line with fee increases experienced by other users such as power reactors and fuel facilities. AHA believes the increases are tied to unnee4ssary and overly expensive regulation and that health care providers will have to pass the increased fees onto patients.
Because Medicare and Medicaid no longer pay their fair share of the costs, AHA states that privately insured patients will end up subsidizing a disproportionate share of NRC's regulatory program.
AHA believes that the 20% increase in-the materials budget is due .
primarily to the quality assurance (QA) program-or " medical improvement program."
AHA states that the NRC could decrease the amount of-the budget attributable to materials licensees by discontinuing or_significantly scaling back this unnecessary program.
AHA recommends that NRC terminate the QA' program and -
thereby reduce-the budget and fee increases.
( With the significant reduction in the number of material licenses -
(from about 9,000 to about 7,000), AHA would expect a decreaseni -
the budget but in fact the budget has increased.
Fewer licenses should mean decreased salaries,1 administrative support, _ travel-and program support costs.
AHA believes that continuing-in this direction in future years will result.in fewer 1 licenses and raise
~
the possibility-of-denying access to needed' health care services.--
8=
L . _ _ _ - . . . _ . . . . .,___.- , _ . . . - . _ , . , _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ , . _ _ . - , . . _ .
AHA strongly urges that NRC consider providing a
. group exception to health care users of nuclear materials because organizations, ealth careh like nonprofit educational institutions, have a '
limited ability to pass the cost of the fees on to oth ers.
AHA points out that health care organizations also, as NRC stated in its July 1991 final rule, provide an important benefit to "the public at large and should not be discouraged."
- 5. James E.
Gilchrist, Vice President for Environmental Affai rs American Minino Concress (AMC)
(20)
AMC, on behalf of its member companies who are uranium fuel cycle licensees, objects to the proposal to pay excessive and unjustified fees particularly the 139% increase in fees fo I mill facilities. r Class AMC also objects to.the proposed fees on the grounds that they would not be implemented in a fair and equitable manner.
AMC states that OBRA-90 fails-to set forth adequate standards to guide NRC's discretion in ng setti annual charges under.Part 171 and therefore NRC is precluded rom f
assessing those' charges.
t arouendo, AMC contends-that even if one assumes,-
that Congress has set forth adequate standard s -
to guide NRC, the proposed annual' charges fail to comply with th ose-standards.
OBRA-90 mandates'that to the maximum' extent - -
practicable the fees-should have a reasonable relationship . e to'th l-
. cost of providing the service and that licensees who require the - _
9
_. . . .... . -. . . - _..._. . - _ . _.. __._s-_. .
i u
l greatest expenditures of agency's resources should pay the .
- . greatest annual charge. ,
AMC states that NRC has failed to fcllow the congressionally imposed standards and-therefore the charges are " arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwis e
! contrary to law."
AMC indicates that NRC has also violated the Administrative procedures Act i
i (APA) by failing to provide an explanation to how it arrived at its final determination of th e
{ .
annual fees for uranium recovery facilities.
i AMC asserts that rather than providing an explanation for its cost estimates , it.
' merely makes bald assertions that it has determined certain'fe es must be paid.
AMC is aware of no reason the uranium recovery budget should be increased 42% particularly in light of the continued depressed state of the market for uranium and the absence of any increase in the numberlof or expansion-of ty facili operations-for uranium recovery facilities.
AMC states that the need to increase the annual fee to $238,700 appears grossly out -
i of-line with the degree of NRC involvement for uraniumovery rec 1
sites and the unlawful and arbitrary nature of the fee incr ease is compounded by the failure of NRC to provideexplanation any for its proposed actions.
At-the very least, AMC suggests-NRC republish the proposed rule with a-complete explanation for :
s it L _ conclusions.
\
AMC indicates that to assess Category 2.A
.(2), Class.I, fees to sites-undergoing reclamation amounts to double :charging ecause; b these type of-facilities are'already chargedfwith th e full costs 10
, , _ , - _ . . _ . _ . _ . - _ . _ . - . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ , _ _ . . . . _ . _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ ~ . _ _ . . - _ _ _
p of regulatory services associated with the reclamation process pursuant to Part 170.
AMC states that there is no justification for double charging and the annual fees have no reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services.-
AMC states that NRC does not charge an annual fee for lic enses authorizing reclamation (Category 14) yet it does not extend the reasoning to its logical outcome-as applied to a site that is also not producing and is merely a cost center while awaiting NRC approval of its final reclamation plan.
AMC indicates that NRC has a dismal record of providing timely review and approval of these plans -- many have been under review for as longs a seven years and that the delays are not the fault of the licensee but rather the NRC.
The NRC delays prevent these sites from shifting into a category where no annual fee would be assessed AMC .
recommends that NRC exempt these facilities from fees-or establish a credit that allows for a rebate upon ultimate approval of the proposed plan.
AMC points out that NRC has already recognized this distinction by establishing lower fees -
for-Class II facilities (in-situ heap leach facilities) which do not generate tailings and involve lower costs.
Because-these facilities (ones that do not generate tailings) are now included under Class I for fee purposes, the NRC has overstated-the costs for the entire category andl appropriate adjustments must be -made.
AMC. believes that.any licensed-facility that is serving - solelyfas a cost center and not generating revenues, such as non-
-11 1
operational uranium fuel cycle facilities undergoing reclamation ,
should be exempt from fees. !
The annual charges NRC proposes to levy upon AMC's members violate the spirit of Congress' enacting OBRA. intent in AMC believes it is inequitable and improper for DOE's program under UMTRCA to utilize the Commission's resourcos with respect to oversight and review of its mill tailings site reclamation activities without contributing anything to the NRC budget. AMC disagrees with the NRC statement in the 1991 fee regulations that all substantive review at DOE sites is essentially completed prior to the application for a general license for the site . NRC stated that the general license should be issued only after the site enters the postclosure stage, and therefore as such, DOE is not yet an NRC licensee and thus cannot be billed under these regulations.
1 4
AMC states that the 1991 fee regulations admit that OBRA allows the " collection of fees from any person" and "all licen sees."
Thus, being a licensee is_not a precondition for fee ass essment.
Instead, the test is whether "any person" receives a service or thing of value from the Commission.
If so, AMC argues that person, whether a licensee or not, shall pay fees to cover the Commission's costs in providing such service or thing of value.
- i Further, AMC points out that section 111(s) of the Atomic Energy Act defines " person" as:
12
l I
any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association,
- trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government acency other than the Commission, any state or t
political subdivision . . .
AMC contends that if the NRC can provide valuable services to a a
government agency tha* will, by law, become a licensee for the UMTRCA Title
- nill tailings reclamation program, there is no reason why that agency should not pay its fair share. AMC indicates that the dilution of NRC resources available eal to d with the Title II private sites and their closure plans ,
which has resulted from NRC involvement in the DOE program, has undoubtedly contributed substantially to the delay in approval of proposed reclamation plans for those sites.
AMC states that this has led those sites to become subject to higher annual fees sa they do not qualify for the category of an inactive sit e with an approved reclamation plan and this cannot be justified on any fair and equitable basis.
AMC states that NRC's proposed fees are also inequitabl e as-they provide unfair advantage to facilities located in Agreement states which are not charged a similar annual fee.
This results in discriminatory treatment between licensees located in Agreement and non-Agreement states as a result of the uneven fee relationship.
AMC indicates that NRC spends substantial 13
_ ~ - --
}
J resources on oversight and training for Agreement state
{
regulatory programs and that these programs fall within the scope of OBRA and-Atomic Energy Act.
AMC references section 111(s) of j
the Atomic Energy Act which includes "any state" within th e definition of " person" subject to the Act.
{ AMC contends that it t
is unreasonable for the NRC to spend resources on Ag
- reement state regulatory programs without charging Agreement states appropriat e I
i fees.
-Failure to do so, AMC argues, has imposed additional costs
}
on the NRC licensees who are being asked to foot the bill fo -
r
! NRC's regulation of~their facilities and NRC's oversight of Agreement' state programs.
Given that the NRC is ultimately
}
responsible for' assuring that Agreement state programs provid e an equivalent level of protection to public health and safet y, AMC _
concludes that NRC must charge those states for its services .
i i-AMC states that NRC's estimate that it costs ,
000$214 for a single FTE associated with its regulatory program is so ,
j excessive
{
and out-of-l'ine for what should be reasonable n costs to fu d government employee positions as to be shocking.- According to AMC this excessive FTE demonstrates thatempting NRC tois att t
pass bloated costs on to licenseen for which theyfdo not receive anything remotely resembling commensurate benefit.
l I
lAMC contends that NRC intends to make the proposed r l upon publication. u e effective AMC indicates that this action would violate t
section 553(d).of the APA, which requires a 30 day waiting _
period l
2
- . , - . - - . . . - --,.,,n, , , e , N-w w m e,-m m .:, r- v ., e s m.e n e s w-a - , c w , ,,w- wm .- v, - v,w ,v ~ w
i d.
l between publication and the effective dates.
4 j 6. C. J.
Payton, Superintendent, Engineering and Inspection Amoco Oil Comoany (2)
Commenter states that they have not used licensed materia l since June 1991.
The company applied for a renewal of the license in October 1990 and due to a backlog, it took eight months to receive a response from the NRC requesting additional information. In January 1992, Amoco changed its renewal request to " storage only" and feels that they should not be assessed and annual fee for FY 1992. ,
- 7. J.
A. Conner, Vice President-and-General Manager Babcock & Wilcox (28)
! Commenter believes that the safety costs allocated t o the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division's (NNFD) low enriched fuel facility (LEF) are inappropriately apportioned and.should be reevaluated'and adjusted.
Commenter states that the NRC allocation of a majority of the safeguards costs to .high enriched fuel facilities- (HEF) ;is appropriate because of the.differencesJin regulatory: require ments between HEF and LEF facilities.
However, commenter believes that the NRC-apportionment of safety costs associated with LEF facilities is inappropriate because the NRC has allocated ti w ce as much safety costs to HEF facilities as compared to LEF 15
facilities.
Commenter argues that the safety regulations apply equally to HEF and LEF facilities and the licensee safety programs should be comparable and equally shared by both typ facilities. es of Commenter believes that more NRC safety resources are being applied to LEF and UF 6
conversion facilities than to HEF facilities.
Commenter states that the proposed rule lists two HEF f acilities and thePart proposed annual 171 fees allocated to these two facilities in the is equivalent to the annual fees previously apportioned to the three HEF facilities and a $90 000 incr ease.
Commenter believes that the resources needed by th e NRC to support the Safeguards and Safety programs for two licensees should be significantly less than that required for thre e licensees and consequently the total annual fee for th e two i
remaining HEF Facilities should be significantly less than that specified in the proposed revisions.
Commenter does not believe retaining extra resources and charging significantly in creased fees is responsible or justified.
Commenter indicates that most of their business is conducted in support of government df e ense activities and that based on defense budget reductionse th size of the NRC fees has a significant impact on the activitie s conducted and on the company's business survival .
l 16
- 8. Teresa A. Otruba, Attorney for Toledyne Energy Systems Baker & McKenzie (Attorneys at Lawl (18)
Comments are submitted on behalf of client, Toledyne Energy Systems.
Teledyne submits that the proposed annual fee for Category 10.B.1, QA Program Approval Holders, must be reduced to an amount which is consistent with the FY 1991 level. There is no justification for the 200 percent increase in the annual fee f rom
$29,000 to $62,800 particularly since the budget for the transportation class of licensees increased only 4 .2%. There is no justification for a disproportionate allocation of costs to one class of licensee and not another. At a minimum, if Teledyne must bear an increase in its annual fee, the DOE should also bear a similar increase.
While there may have been a decrease in the number of licensees subject to annual fees, it is unfair and inappropriate to allocate all of these costs to the remainin g QA Plan approval holders.
The decline in the number of licensees and the excessive 200% increase in fees further underscores tha NRC made a serious error when it determined last year not to equitably distribute costs to all transportation licensees including Certificate of Compliance holders.
The exorbitant fee increase reprecents a significant change in circumstance s which justifies the NRC's reconsideration of its previous position no t 17
to assess an annual fee against Certificate of Compliance .
Holders.
An-explanation should also be given for the reduction in the annual fee for users only.
Teledyne should be exempt from the annual l fee because a fee increase of 200% over the 1991' fee has no reasonable s p. re to the cost of providing regulatory services to Teledyne No .
other licensee class is subject to the same exorbitant level of .
increase as Category 10.B.1.
QA Plan Approval ~ Holders.
Teledyne should be given the option of canceling its QA1 planand avoiding the annual fee because the 200% increase was only announced April 29, 1992..
If Teledyne had significant knowledge of the-dramatic proposed increase, it would have considered-the option of cancelling its QA plan.
As a result, the exemption proposed for those licensees who filed for termination during the period October 1, 1991 - December 31, 1991 is unjustified and unfair.
9.
A. Edward Scherer, Vice-President Regulatory Affairs .
ABB Combustion Encineerina Nuclear Fuel (C El-
. (23)
CE1 recommends against adoption of the proposed revisionsecause- b the imposition of annual fees on both of CE's fuel facilities.
bears no reasonable relationship to the cost of providing .
regulatory services.
The NRC's generic costs for regulating fuel 18 L
L 3e----. -
e , ,- r - ---,r, ---e e e ,-e, -er,- --ewi.. -r ,...wi.nww,.-- .,-,+%,3,ww-e,.--w-.,4.<+ 4wrv.,m.e.. E.-..-,,#.---.,, . -
I I
facilities are not substantially increased by the f act that CE has one process split between two facilities l
charged only one fee, Even'if CE were
{
CE would still pay a disproportionate amount of the NRC costs in relation to larger fuel manufac turers.
CE indicates that for these reasons the charges al so violate OBRA in that they have not been fairly.and equitably all licensees. ocated amt J Thus, CE will be further substantially adversely affected by the proposed increases and such increases will further exacerbate the already= unfair, inequitable ~and disproportionate assessment of annual fees and surch arges on CE.
- 10. V. Sahadevan, M.D.,
Director Daa Hammarskiold Cancer Treatment Center (3)
Commenter requests that NRC reconsider the fee l
small entities. structure for The commenter indicates that after analyzing all the pros and cons of the proposed rule it appears that major institutions and corporations with much more fin ancial resources may be in a better position to absorb the increased fees.
Even the proposed annual fee and inspection fees a re significantly much higher and a several fold fee increase for a lice nse is a.
significant added financial'-burden.
Often the Center does not-receive any payment.or a very. marginal payment'for a con .
sultation-extending up to 2-3 hours for those patients who can afford it.
ill The commenter raises-the question as to whethe
! r the gross annual receipts of a company are considered to'be inco me l '19
. _ - ., , _. . _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ - _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . . - . . _ . . . . _ . ~ . _
1 generated only from the activities-associated with the licen se or income generated-by-the entire entity.
11.
Michael H. Gibson, Vice-President Kennecott Uranium Comoanv-(26)
Commenter indicates that the recently proposed incr ease in the annual fee for Class I' uranium milling facilities to $238 700s i ,
excessive for a facility that has demonstrated its compliance with its license provisions and which is not operating nor generating any income to its owners.
This proposed increase in fees is 138 percent above the prior year's fees ,
and cdnnot be justified on the basis of the actual costs borne by the NRC in administering'this specific license.-
The commenter states that-the proposed increase in the-hourly rate from $115 to S123 per hour represents an increase9of 5 6 .
percent and results in charges for professional staff in excess of those for any consulting or professional services'to the uranium _ mining and milling-industry from the private sector .
Commenter indicates that such rates are not justifi ed for all NRC -
professional staff _and for an organization that is:to only cover
-its actual costs and that typical consulting services - pr ovided=by-professionals in Wyoming range'from $95 to $120 per hour .
Consultant fee-schedules also provide an element .
of profit for the consulting organizations in the-range of 3 t o 10 percent of 20
_ _ - _ _ - _ - - - I
total costs.
Contmenter states that NRC billings-to licensees do n o t specify the time time or billed.
is being date the costs were incurred or the v indi id uals whose This is contrary to the practice of consulting firms who specify the individuals and the number of hours worked on a task.and their billing rate.
Greater detail of billing charges would be appropriate.
The-commenter notes that the NRC projects an increase n the i
overall costs for Fiscal Year 1992 above its 1991This . costs is at a time'when there are 2,000
-(of 9,000) fewer licenses to be administered.
This represents a reduction-of 22.2 percent in the number of licenses to be administered. Should this trend continue, an ever increasing burden will be_placed on those
- licensees remaining in a shrinking industry .
Such action by the NRC is unjustified and without merit.
Commenter recommends that for class I sfacilitie on standby status such as.the Sweetwater Uranium Mill, that licen --
se fees be reduced from the proposed level of $238,700,-
otherwise th e
-financial obligation of these fees will be' overly burdensome
~
- 12. J.
Barry McCrudden, Vice President & General Manager.
Lehich Testina Laboratories. Inc.
(22) 21 l
Commenter feels the revised schedules are unfair and discriminatory. i The company is too large to qualify as a small entity and too small a portion of the business is related to radiographic activities to make the increased fees palatable .
The large national radiography companies can spread ethr ione large entity fee between 20 or 30 locations.
The small entity with a $400 fee absorbs a somewhat like amount. Commenter feels it is grossly unfair and unreasonable to be expecte d t o absorb the difference in revenue between a full license 400 small and $
entity " mom and pop" location that directly competes withe th business. The compane tready underwrites in-house louses for the radiography program.
Commenter suggests that NRC look at eliminating multiple sites operating under one license and have each location doin g radiography work pay a full fee and that the fee be based on sales at that location.
Commenter feels that this would possibly generate the needed total dollar revenue and more equitabl y spread the load based on actual dollar revenues generated n i
radiography.
- 13. William R.
Prendergast, Radiation Safety Officer LFE Corooration (1)
The commenter makes the following recommendations:
22 k
- _ . , _ . _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ .. __ _ _ _ ._ _. _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _
4 1.
With 2,000 fewer licenses to serve, the cost'of-performing i
the services-(amendments, renewals, inspectionn) no longer _ exist.
In addition,-Maine became an Agreement State in FY 1992 and NRC k
no longer services these licenses.
! Since the NRC workload hr; decreased and will likely continue to decrease, the NRC budget must decrease accompanied by a decrease in staff of 10-20%.
- 2.
Since the licensees are paying for NRC's budget, the s
licensees must have input to the budget for purposes of cost-containment.
Recommends that copies of~the budget be sent to licensees for approval or disapproval because there'are some NRC programs that licensees can live without..
These are difficult times and licensees have had to cut costs.
Commenter states that he received 66 copies of the propose drule and requests that NRC investigate.this waste and take corrective action.
- 14. David Krashes, President Massachusetts Materials Research Inc.
(7)_
i l ..
The commenter indicates that the' methodology used in roposed .
the p rule is inherently unfair.
_The amount ofctheEfees-pay little j
attention to the realities of the-radiographic testing industry .
The fees force modest companies with small-radiographic t
- esting departments to subsidize so-called " mom and-pop" businesses a th t 23
__ - . - . , , _ __.-_m,..._,. ._..,,.,..._,_.a.._...._,.,_.-_
compete with them.
The commenter points out that many independent testing laboratories perform radiography n ave adh sales in the $100,000 - $500,000 range.
In some instances, the radiographic testing comprises the gross sales of the labor a ory t while in other instances the testing comprises the sales of only one department of the laboratory.
The same number of people may be doing the radiographic testing in the " mom and operation pop" as in the department of the larger laboratory business .
The $400 annual fee for the " mom and pop" operation is small and enabl es the operation to remain in business.
The larger entity (over
$3.5 million gross)
$13,000.
will pay an annual fee of approximately The larger entity will not be subsidizing one of its own departments but will be subsidizing competitive small er businesses which is unfair.
This will enable " mom and pop" operations to charge lower prices and take business fro m the larger entity.
- 15. Michael T. Gillin, Ph.D., Associate Professor Medical Collece of Wisconsin (4)
The commenter notes that as a physicist working withi n a medical environment the fee recovery system has discriminated agai nst clinical research and patient care.
Commenter states that the Department of Radiation Oncology is hoping to initi t a e a clinical research program involving semi-continuous low dose teleth erapy and various drugs in an attempt to improve tumor respons e. The 24
commenter-indicates that as an experimental program the college is neither ethically or legally entitled to charge patients .
. -The-additional fees ($15,000 per year) for the Cobalt 60 license is a significant impediment to the College's ability to perform the research.-
The commenter states that Senator Kasten of Wisconsin has informed the College that it was not the intent of Congress to have such charges imposed upon medical research activiti es.
The commenter notes that the NRC activities in medicine e continu to grow and-it is his hope that eventually some outside revi ewer can objectively evaluate the scope of the program and its effectiveness.
- 16. L. C.
Reynolds, Radiation Safety Officer Moore Business Forms and Systems Division (5)
Commenter-thinks that the licensing costs should be review e dorf small amounts of nuclear material'e.g.,-the-company has only 5 _
one curie Krypton low: intensity sources.
The commenter states that with further increases in fees more companies willobe-pushed .
away from their licenses.. The-fees seem outLof_-line.
17 Robert W.-Poyser,-Manager, Environmental Affairs Pathfinder Mines Corocration
.(13)
Commenterestates that-the domestic uranium' mining and milling industry is very: fragile and.that'U.S.-uranium producers are 25
_ ___.-__m _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - - -
_ . . - ~ . . . -.-. .-.- - _
poorly positioned to absorb regulatory service charges which increase at about twice the rate of' inflation and fees that increase at a rate of 50% to 138% in one year. Commenter suggests that NRC begin to look for other-entities to bill, e.g.,
EPA and DOE for NRC time expended, or reduce its budget because of the fragile status of the domestic uranium mining and milling industry.
With respect to the Part 170 hourly rate, the commenter requests that NRC bring its FY 1992 hourly rates back in line with the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the average wage increases in the industry it regulates.
This would be between 3%
and 4% or an hourly rate of-about $119.
The commenter notes that the Part 170. hourly rate has increased over'the past seven years by approximately 115%. In contrast, the CPI has shown an inflation rate of about 22% for the-same period. The NRC should use these indices ~for determining future hourly rate adjustments.
With regard to_the annual fees:for uranium recovery facilities ,
'the proposed increases do not seem-to meet 1 Congress' intent that they bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of-regulatory services.
The commenter recognizes that although a new Category _
2.A.(2) is being proposed.for_in-situ-leach facilities, the massive 138% increase in_ Class I (mill) licensees from $100',100-to $238,860 and the 56% increase in-Class II (in-situ) licensees l
from $67,100 to S104,460.seems particularly unwarranted. The-26 l
l L. . _, . . .a_
_ . _ - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' ~
I i
commenter has not' experienced any change in NRC services fo f r his j licenses in these two classes to warrant such al a substan '
increase in annual fees.
Considering the reduced size, activity and significantly-reduced revenues in the uranium productio n industry, the commenter states that it does not-seem justified ,
reasonable or-equitable to assess the uranium recovery aseavily h as in the past. .
I
_The-commenter indicates that it is difficult to
! understand how a 21% reduction in materials license holde 1
justifies a 40% plus increase-in NRC expenditures .
t With regard to the NRC. proposal to exempt from th
{ e FY 1992 annual fees those licensees who filed for termination or pos session only before December 31, 1991, b the commenter states that any request
$ to change the status of a license should be pre'dicaet d on actual changes in the status of the project. _ Commenter indicates that it seems arbitrary to establish such a deadline when changes'will occur throughout the year and the NRC is unable to notify its
'icensees of significant rule changes such as those addressed in the proposed rule until the last quarter of the fi scal _ year.
Commenter requests NRC delete the proposal to'11mit exemptions for~FY 1992 and that licensees be permitted to file . exemption i
requests under-$171.11'for-changes made-to the license sequent -
sub
.to December 31, 1991.
I'
(-
18 '. -
i Billand Ferdinand, RegulatoryManager,_Compliance. Radiation Safety, Licensing
'Rio Alaom Minina Corocration- ~
(6) 27
4 l
Commenter does not believe the proposed fee schedule has b een implemented in a fair and equitable manner nor do theosed prop
-changes reflect a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services for source material licenses .
Commenter states that the 138% increase for a Category 2A Cl ass I (mill) facility cannot be justified nor is it equitable to Class I source material licensees.
i Commenter states that enacting the fee schedule will only further weaken the already depressed domestic mining _and milling industry. . This will reduce the number of licenses and reduce the future financial support base -
for NRC regulatory oversight.
Commenter states that although there may be an increase in regulatory costs associated with an active processing mill that generates mill tailings, the same cannot be said for-inactive.
facilities which are in the process"of-reclaiming the tailings _
impoundments in accordance with Appendix A of Part 40 particularly since the regulatory services required by th'e regulation-are already.being charged to the licensee ~at full cost.
Commenter contends that, to~ continue assessing the higher class fee when an approved reclamation plan has-been-approved and is being implemented is not warranted nor justified .
Under the current. proposal,_Quivira wou.d beLassessed $238;700 even though conventional mining and milling ceased in.1985 and its tailings improvements ha I
ve been in reclamation since 1986.- Commenter 28 I.
, , , - - - , , 4~<..,,,-,,e -
,# v m. , ,w.m,...-y,-ww,. .,vy# m-....mn,m.m m',.m -% r w s ,w ~. - ~ ., %.,-r. M, ..-s-
.~ . _ .- -.- . - . . .- .- . . . - . - - . -.. - -. . _ . _
1 3
- states that the Ambrosia Lake facility should not be charged a '
i full Class I-fee of1$238,700 because it is 1) not actually- :
j milling conventionally mined ores; 2) presently reclaiming its impoundments pursuant to an approved NRC reclamation plan; and 3) using an ion exchange facility much like an in-situ leaching ,
i operation or even a publicly owned water treatment facility, i
- 19. James B.
1, Edgar, Staff Engineer, Licensing i
i Siemens Nuclear Power Corporation (SNP) r (9)
SNP believes that when Congress required the NRC to collect 100%
of its budget that such a requirement _was not to be open ended.
Thus, commenter states that there needs to be some budgetary .
restraint such as a manpower freeze cn I
budget.
dollar freeze on the NRC i
It is not obvious why when about 2,000 licenses have
{
terminated the NRC budget should increase by 7%. _
The reason for the budget increases should be provided.
There.should be some-constraints put on the NRC budgetary-process so that annual increases don't exceed-the annual inflation rate oflless than 5%
a year.
SNP does not understand the basis for the two fold increase in the approval-fee for'QA programs-from $29,100 toi$62 960 - , .
Once:
the QA program is approved, annual costs should be minimal'e.g.,-
less than_$20,000 per4 year.
-SNP requests that NRC explain the-basis'for the two fold increase and the logic for paying an
(
29 l
T rag- *-M*+PT T df*fT-*'*N*t ""*WEWWab'P f 85d'M' N f*"T Wm'1WFFt'T 4W T$PGP'if t-M"MM-'DP^" W9"'Or$'S-M-t0--W W e ' r--R
- "m$-"fe*F*198'+' T o 1 T "PM9"- *v"-f9'""*WW4srd
annual fee for verifying effectiveness of a previously approv program. e d
The SNP believes that the annual fee for uranium recovery licensees should be based on throughput and facility.
size related and that large, complex, higher throughput facilities require a greater expenditure of NRC resour ces than smaller facilities.
The practice of charging all low enriched fuel fabrication facilities the same annual ofeeniskeeping nti with the FY 1991 proposed rule which called for a throughput related fee.
Based on comments made for the FY 1991 allocation ,
commenter believed that low enriched fuel fabrication industry represented an ideal case for budget allocation based on servi ces rendered.
Commenter would expect most fee charges would be fo r specific services rendered rather than annual fees .
SNP annual fees are nearly two-thirds of the estimated total fe es.
- 20. John Fornace, D.O.
Suburban General Hosoital (29)
I Commenter is concerned with the requirement in OBRA
-90 that a regulatory agency maintain its budget by collecting from eth licensees it regulates indicating that the ethics and self-conflicts appear questionable at best.
Commenter indicates that regulations appear necessary but " paying your own regulator s to regulate is already a concept that will cost many Congress men their positions."
30 l
- -.. - .- - - . . . . . - . . - . - - . ~ . - . . . . . . - _ -- _._ - -. - --
p 21.
-Leonard A. Miller / John S. Hoff, Attorneys for 1 Allied-Signal, Inc.
Swidler & Berlin
!- (Attornev at Law)_
(11)
Comments submitted on behalf of Allied Signal Inc., who owns a-UF, conversion facility.
Commenter notes that in one respect the-proposed rule does_not properly apply the methodology ad m
opted in
}
FY 1991 in that-Sequoyah Fuels who also operate plant also deconverts UF s a UF6 conversion i 6 tails-to UF 4 at the facility.
i Because Sequoyah operates multiple activities under a I
Allied does not, single license and a substantially. larger share of the $848,000 in budgeted costs allocated to UF 6
Sequoyah than to Allied. converters should be assessed to
! For the same reason, Sequoyah should=be i
i assessed a substantially larger portion' of the IJ34 surch arge because the deconversion process poses an additi onal risk of spills which must be disposed of.
- _ The $310,200 of LLW disposal generic activities allocated to UF 6
- converters should not be-
. allocated equally--- Sequoyah should pay a substantially l amount than Allied to account for its multiple activiti es'giving
- rise to greater waste generation. '
i l
Allied incorporates the points.it has previou l s y made relating to the methodology adopted by the NRC in 1991 and 1992 as follows: 1
. applied to the FY 1
~ 31 A.
e,se e .v w e + , , - -gn - -, e + , ,---wey grm, .rv- ,- +,.h.,-<-.-.w,-- - - - - . - - + .--,ve...ww--va, - . - ,<-.a #,, -,~,r,e we r n - - -w-e->, -
1.
The uranium hexafluoride converters compete in an-international market with foreign government converters who are not subject to the fee.
Because of this competition and the price sensitivity of those who contract for conversion services, it may be not possible for the American converters to pass on the cost of the commission's fee to their customers. Imposing the fee on them, therefore, is not fair and equitable, and would not permit the cost of the fet to be spread as broadly us practicable.
It is contrary to what congress-intended in authorizing imposition of the fee on non power reactor licensees.
- 2. .
It is not fair and equitable, and is contrary to the intent of Congress, to assess the_UF 6 converters a fee that is larger than that assessed against the uranium . nills. The coa /erters deal with uranium in the same state as the mill operators and thus are subject to a level of safety regulation comparable to that posed on the mill operators.-
2 Imposing an equal fe.n on the two uranium hexafluoride convel
- sris not fair and equitable and violates Congress' intent that-licensees who require the greatest exp enditures of e
$ the agency's resourcn should pay the greater annual charge.The conmission is required to spend substantially more time and effort on regulation with re,=pect to Sequoyah's plant than it is on Allied-Signal's..
Congress determined that the Part 171 fees should be addressed on non-nuclear power reactor licensecs if 32
i
) ,
l' 4
i this could be done fairly and equitable and if th i e fees were ,
t assessed by the commission so th~at licensees "who e the requir '
greatest expenditures of the agency's resources should pay the k greatest annual charge." '
{
It is improper to assess the two
}
converters equally for unequal regulatory effort by th e commission.
i l .
4 i For the same reasons, j the LLW surcharge should not be assessed equally on Sequoyah and-Allied-Signal .
Sequoyah disposes of substantially more low level radioactiv Allied-Signal does. e waste than j In 1991, Allied-Signal disposed of-1144 .
i cubic feet'of LLW generated by Metropolis.
Allied-Signal calculates that Sequoyah's facility disposed of'17 000 of LLW during the same period.
cubic feet In light of congress' intent that !
4 the Part 171 fees be allocated so that . ees licers who require the greater expenditure of Commission resources payargest charge, the l the LLW surcharge should reflect the differen ce in the volume of waste disposal between Sequoyah and -
gnal.
Allied Si Sequoyah receives.far greater benefit from th e commission's i
_ generic activities concerning LLW disposal than do es Allied-Signal, and this should be proportionately refl -
ected in the LLW surcharge imposed on:the two licensees.
f 33
-f
,..gr.., ,,p,y_.. wp..__..g.g-.,.g. , , .
,9 p, 9, y. ,,,7 p ,g, ,,,.9_,, 'g. , , , . , . g ,g. .g ., _,p ,. ,, - .g_.g,y .D- -
- 1v W t-M 9 Mv v m a-=M 4"r+FW- *M9
- 22. Marvin S.
U.S. Fertel, Vice President, Technical Programs Council for Enerav Awareness (USCEAL (19)
The USCEA, on behalf of its mining, milling , conversion, enrichment and fabrication members, as well as its low level waste disposal site operators, transportation andc radionu de li and radiopharmaceutical members, indicates that it should be obvious that the NRC is pricing the-nuclear industry out of business and needs to consider the adverse imp have. act the fees will A clear indication-of the. impact is that about-2,000-licensees have terminated their licenses .
USCEA raises the question of how the NRC can justify a budget increase when 2,000 licenses were terminated.-
The NRC's work should be reduced, therefore the budget should be reduced or the same according to USCEA.
, at a minimum, remain USCEA states.that the professional hourly rat justified. e does not seem The NRC has not indicated that it isg an incurrin
-increase in the area of salary, benefits and overhead er but rath an increase in total NRC spending.
This should not-be considered a valid basis for increasing the-hourly rate particul arly when rates increase 7% and' inflation is at 5% The . or USCEA-less indicates that because it is inappropriate to i
- ncrease the
,inspection professional rate by 7% it is also inappropriate toeincrease th fees by 7%.
34
With respect to annual fees, the USCEA questions if the NRC is correctly applying its funds, e.g.,
it is not clear that funds for international programs and from the nu l c ear waste fund have been applied in those respective areas and that other licensees may be providing subsidies to those areas which ontrary is c to the NRC's stated method of cost recavery .
The USCEo agests that NP.C needs to include methods and means o t
reduce its budget indicating that industry would be a lot less resentful of paying the fees if there was an indica ti on that the NRC was attempting to reduce and control its b d u get.
The USCEA endorses the comments submitted by NUMARC .
- 23. Donald C. Harrison, M.D.,
k and Provost for Healtn EducationSenior V.P.
Universifv__of Cincinnati Medical Center (12)
The commenter feels the revisionsecessary are unn and requests NRC to reconsider 1) the proposal to increase fees and ,
- 2) the concept of charging fees to any nonprofit institution.
The cost and quality of medicine and research and concerns e of th University and the proposed changes are m i l a n y due to the current over regulation practices of the NRC.
In recession years when nonprofit universities and nonprofit hospitals ar e experiencing decreases in support money, the payment of f ees, particularly increases of 44% (fee category 7B for medi cal human use), will be 35
. . - " - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- )
i t
impossible to absorb without directly passing th i
1 patient. e cost onto the 4 i
This type of pass through charge can only have a detrimental effect on the-cost of mediciney and of the abil i
persons of limited income to afford good medical care .
t 24.
}
i Robert AffairsP. Luke, Chairman, Technical and Regulatory Committee Uranium Producers of America i (15) 4 Commenter sees no justification for the proposed budget and associated fee increases.
The proposed budget and corresponding
- fee increases for FY 1992 are neither adequately justifi ed nor equitably assessed.
The uranium recovery budget includes a 42%
increase over the previous year.
Commenter does not believe such I an-increase is justified given the current size of the censed li uranium industry and the necessary NRC efforts.
For example, presently there are only three domestie, commercial in-situ leach facilities and there are no active conventional anium. mines ur and mills in the U.S.
Last year the number of materials licenses declined from 9,000 to 7,000.
The proposed increase in the annual ~ fee is unwarranted considering the uraniumustry ind is in a severely depressed condition.
Commenter fears that such an increase would compromise-the financial stability many of companies and would. threaten the uranium industry .
o e.as a wh l Commenter feels.the hourly ratu of $123 is unabl .
-is unreasonably high and e to find a justificatiun for such a change. The new 36 l
l l
,y,,,w,,.w e m .-ww-r < , ~ + . . ---_.#- ~
-,.- y -
- rre,-, ._www , , - - , - - - . , + , , , y r-w,-,w,,.- ., . , - - , - - -
.. e _ . . - . . __ a 1. - -~-._a..a. . - -a.. a -n. .- .u- 1 a-i proposal seeks to increase the annual fees to a level that is inappropriately high and unrelated to direct cost recovery.
Means should be found to reduce the cost componentsn withi this fee structure.
i Commenter believes the fee structure should sedbe to revi equitably assess all users for services rendered.
Neither the DOE or EPA contribute to the uranium recovery budget f they receive benefits. rom which The system should be made more equitable by requiring these governmental agencies to fund thei r share of the Commission's regulatory efforts.
Commenter disagrees with proposal's failure to distinguish, i n certain circumstances, between active and inactive mills. In some cases, the proposal provides for the same fee assessment to both active faciliti es that are generating tailings and to inactive faciliti es that are reclaiming tai]ings under an approved plan.
Commenter feels that this system should be changed to recognize the diff ering regulatory costs for active and inactive facilities .
- 25. Dale L. Alberts, Chairman, Uranium Industry Committee Hvnnina Minif n Association (16)
Commenter asks how the NRC can justify a 42% incre ase in the uranium recovery budget in light of a significantly small regulated community.
Considering the reduced size and activity
- of uranium mining and milling industry and the decrease in l
37
i regulatory oversight, the 138% increase in the annual fee for a class I mill license does not seem justified.
The annual fee also seems redundant when licensees are already billed the full cost of regulatory activities such as inspection, renewals or amendments.
Commenter indicates that it seems apparent that uranium licensees are being billed for agency overhead that is not directly attributable to the regulation of the uranium mining industry.
Commenter believes that a considerable amount of the Agency's resources are likely dedicated to interagency work for DOE and EPA, such as NRC review of DOE's reclamation plans for Title I uranium mill tailings sites or interaction with EPA for the promulgation of regulations -- yet these agencies are not billed for their use of NRC resources.
Commentor suggests that the impact of the fees on the uranium industry be considered when weighing the justification and reasonableness of the proposed license fee increases.
't e
i 38 I
5
Eederal Acencies
- 1. F. R. Clements, Captain, U.S. Navy Department of the Navy (27)
Commenter strongly objects to the amount and timi ng of the fee increases indicating that the methodology is va gue and does not specifically address how the NRC determinad the amount of the fee for the Navy's Master Materials License (MML) .
Commenter does not agree that based on past and current administration e of th MML the extent of NRC involvement would total
,160 annualthe $336 fee because Navy has assumed significant responsibili ty for the licensing, inspection, and enforcement functions .
Commenter states that it is not considered "prac ti cable" to assess licensees. licensees of an MML for revenue lost from asses of other cl Commenter suggests that the lost revenue shoulde b shared within the class of licensees losing the lic I
enses rather than penalizing all classes of licensees .
Because none of the MML licensees requested termination, the commente r states that the increased fees appear to be contrary to the Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion that dto the extent practicable, annual
- charges shall have a reasonable relationship to the co t s of-providing regulatory services to the particular license e or class of licensees being charged."
Commenter requests that NRC reassess the amount and timing of-the 39 l
!~
1 i
fee and reconsider the concept that Navy can " fairly equitably, and practicably" contribute to NRC's budget since Navy has a i'
fixed budget in advance which is decreasing and cannot reco ver increased costs from customers.
$ Commenter indicates that Navy be provided an accounting of the component costs for each of the
, stated generic activities (e.g.,
rulemaking, upgrading safeguards requirements, modifying standard review plans, overseeing regional programs and developing inspection programs).
State Aaencies
- 1. Patrick M.
Nowak, Director, Department of Transportation State of Michlaan (24)
Commenter feels the proposed increase in fees is exc essive and requests that state and local units of government be exempt fr the fee structure, om county, city and public works departments with only one moisture / density gauge are greatly burdened e by th i
fees and local government agencies do not have the abilit y to pass the proposed increases along to customers. County road commissions attempting to qualify as a small entity must be allowed to deduct the population of incorporated cities and villages from the total county population because these .
incorporated cities and villages are not within the jurisdictional powers of the county road commission wh en related to their role in county government.
40 l
I 4- - " Y . . _ . .
Enclosure 3 Approved for Publication The Commission delegated to the E00 (10 CFR Part 1.31(c)) the authority to develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) subject to the limitations in NRC Management Directive 9.17, Organization and 038, 039 and 0310. Functions, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, Paragraphs The enclosed final rule amends 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.amendments are These necessary to implement the requirements of Public Law 101-508 to recover 100 percent of the FY 1992 budget authority through license and annual fees.
does not constitute a significant question of policy, nor does it am regulations of policy. contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8 or 9 Subpart C concerning matters rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.I, therefore, find that this rule Date James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure 4 DAILY STAFF NOTES TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER Final Rule to be Sioned by EDO This constitutes notice to the Commission that, in accordance with the final rule for publication in the Federal _ Reaister. authority deleg become effective 30 days from the date of publication.The final rule will On a final rule that amends 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.1992, the Executive Direc These amendments to the Commission's Public Law 101 508fee regulations are necessary to implement the requirements of through fees. to recover 100 percent of the FY 1992 budget authority The final amendments to Part 170 (1) amend professional staff-hour from $115 per hour & 170.20 to change the cost per hourly rate; (3) further refine the existing fee catego import licenses; and (4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational t
institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption requests, The final amendments to Part 171 (1) increase the amount o l assessed to operating reactors, fuel cycle licensees a i
facilities into two classes to be consistent with exemption decisions that l
recognize amend those licensees the exemption provisions who of do not generate uranium mill tailings; and 6 171.11 to require that licensees who w(3)ish request within 90 days from the effective date of the fees; and (4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption requests .
, Under to FY 1991 the final fees rule, FY 1992 fees for most licensees are increased comp because:
1 (1)
The amount
$445M to $492.5M.that must be recovered has increased from approxim (2)
Fewer licensees are available to pay for the higher costs of regulator I
example, y activities not covered under 10 CFR Part 170. For approximately 2,000 of 9,000 material licensees have FY 1991 final rule was adopted in July 1991; and on HEU fuel facilities has requested a possession only license (POL).
l
a--- a luA,. 6 - - , ,_ -- . aL - A - A < AL --- .J w a_.a,awa a_t_.sw.A. a-2-
(.
A arecomparison as follows: of the FY 1992 proposed annual fees to those assessed for FY 1991 Ranae of Annual Fees Class of licensees FY 1991 FY 1992 Operating Power Reactors
$2.8M to $3.lM $3.0M to $3.lM Fuel Facilities $0.7M to $1.6M $0.5M to $2.3M Uranium Recovery Facilities '
$67,100 to $100,100 $58,800 to $167,500 Transportation Approval Holders $1,800 to $29,100 $1,660 to $62,960 Materials Users (small entity) $1,800
$400 to $1,800 Materials Users (other) $390 to $10,800 $580'to $16,550 Other Licensees
$50,000 to $222,500 $55,700 to $336,150
, . , , ---- , . . - ..,, - ,-.- r
i i
b J ,
. Enclosure 5 i 4
The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman
' Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation
- Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Public Law 101-508, I the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, requires :
that the NRC recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less the-appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, for fiscal years 1991 through 1995 by assessing license and annual fees.
For FY 1992, the NRC must collect approximately $492.5 million through these fees as compared to $445 million for FY 1991.
On April 27,-1992, we informed you of the-issuance of the proposed rule >
relating to 100 percent fee recovery for FY 1992 which was published in the Federal Reaister on April 29, 1992 for public comment.
expired on May 29, 1992. The comment period through June 22, 1992 The NRC reviewed a total of 29 comments received i and in order to comply with the Public Law, the NRC is amending its fee regulations in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.
The final amendments to 10 CFR Part 170, which-assess license and inspe fees for specific identifiable services:
(1) increase the cost ~per professional staff-hour for all full cost fees; (2) increase all flat fees for ,
radioisotope programs by seven percent based on the increased hourly ra refine the categories of fees for export and import licenses;-and (4) codify -
the definition of nonprofit educational institution.
The final amendments to 10 CFR Part 171, which assess annual fees for costs not recovered through 10 CFR Part 170, establish the amount of the FY- 1992 annual fees to be assessed __to operating-reactors,-fuel-cycle licensees, -
including fuel. fabrication' facilities, uranium recovery facilities, _
I transportation certificate holders, and materials licensees.
The FY 1992 annual fees are increased as compared to FY 1991 e and th' amounts of the FY
-. . - . . - . . - a- , - ~ ~ - ~ . _ . - - - . _ . . - - - . . . _ . , . - - - . .
i e
1992 annual fees are summarized as follows: 2 Class of licensees
- Ranoe of Annual Fees '
Operating power reactors
$3,082,000 to $3,138,000 .
- Fuel Facilities c
' e46,250 to $2,325,250 Uranium Recovery Facilities
! $58,800 to $167,500 3
Transportation Certificate /
Approval Holders
$1,660 to $62,960 Materials Users i
$580 to $16,550 Other Licensees
$55,700 to $336,150 Those NRC licensees that can qualify as a small entity under the NRC ,
standards are eligible to pay reduced annual fees.
For example, a licensee with gross annual receipts of $250,000 to $3.5 million pay a maximum an fee of $1,800 per licensed category.
Those licensees with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 pay an annual fee of $400 per licensed category.
1
. Enclosed is a copy of the enclosed copy of the Final Notice of Rul which is being transmitted to the federal Reaister for publication._ Th amendments to the fee regulations become effective 30 days from the da publication.
- Sincerely, Dennis-K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs- '
cc:
The Honorable John J.-Rhodes
Enclosure:
Final Revision to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 l
i p, -.< y-,gy, %,Q cp--g- --99J9,v ses y y w re -w ,, g p - y ting y---e*-y-wgmqgy9 M e y g-w qw e n-m'sp = auWN *-ae-9P$' P l'- -t"s'
ENCLOSURE 6 NRC REVISES FEE SCHEDULES ,
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is revi i ,
inspection and annual fee schedules to s ng its licensing, permit recovery of approximately 100 percent of its fiscal yearu1992 get.
bd The revisions implement the requirements of the omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 which r equires the NRC to recover approxicately 100 percent of its budget ority, less auth appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund ,
for fiscal years 1991-through 1995 by assessing license and annual fees. The amount to be recovered in fiscal year 1992 is $512 5 .
million less the amount appropriated from the Department of Energy
-administered Nuclear Waste Fund which le $20 million -
The revisions include an increase in th e amount of annual
$2.8 een assessed licensees operating nuclear pow er plants from about to about $3.1 million and increase th e annual fees to be paid by other NRC licensees.
In addition, the amendments:
1) increase the agency-wide professional hourl y rate,-which in used tc determine Part 170 licensing and i
$115 to $123 per hour; nspection fees, from 2) increase the current liconeing and insp ection' fees for all applicants and licensees by seven percentt:
3) further refine the existing fee categoriesorf import and export license applications and amendments ;
4) consees; further refine the uranium-recovery classes of 1
l
'-u
+'T- 5 m:r v sr----w-- y , = -ew w ou y *1r 6 - e, y w-wmywy-w-gT*v-- 3-c-- e- y r v-g 4 ~ ym g g#W* sew-* -~tw**v 4 gp + p'w w w
- s
9 l
3
- 5) require licensees who wish to be considered for an i
i xamption from annual fees to file an exemption request within 90 j
i days from the effective date of the amendments; and j 6) define a " nonprofit educational institution".
The amendments to Parts 170 and 171 of the Commission's 1
regulations will become effective on (date).
E i
I i
i l
i i
1 ,
l 1
4 Y
o
! I R
I e
i .
e- i, 24 , . R, 4 Q - '{,g-m .-- . . , , , ,, ,...,.._ . _ - . - - . . . .. , . . . . . - . - , - , - - , . . , . . - . _ . - . . . . - - . . - . - - - . - - , - . - . . . . . _
MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
SUBJECT:
FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 100% FEE RECOVERY, FY 1992 Enclosed for your signature is the Final Notice of Rulemaking (Enclosure 1) that would amend the fee regulations to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1992 budget less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund. These final amendments implement previous Commission policy decisions regarding license and annual fees. That is, the final rule does not change the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in FY 1991 for determining the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the Part 170 materials licensing and inspection flat fees and the Part 171 annual fees.
Nineteen public comments were received by the close of the comment period on May 29, 1992. An additional ten comments which were received by the close of business on June 22, 1992, have been evaluated for a total of twenty-nine ,
comments. These comments have been summarized in Enclosure 2.
Of the twenty-nine comments, twenty-seven were from persons concerned with other than power reactors, including eleven from the uranium industry, and two were from power reactor licensees or their representatives. Many of the comments were similar in nature. The comments fall into two major areas. The first area involves questions relating to the NRC budget increase for.FY 1992 which has resulted in higher fees for licensees particularly in light of the significant number of licensees who either terminated or combined their licenses in FY 1991. The other area includes comments relating to the methodology used for calculating fees and the hourly rate. The comments are addressed in the final rule,Section II, Response to Comments.
There were also four groups of comments that were not within the scope of the proposed rule, and therefore, were not evaluated for the purposes of issuing the final rule. Briefly, they are: 1) the legality of the fees to be assessed
. l
+4.vi by the NRC; 2) the appropriateness of the NRC dget and regulatory program;
- 3) the impact of the fees on licensees; and 4) the annual fee should be based on the amount of material, or the size of the licensee's operation. These '
types of comments were addressed in the final rule published July 10, 1991.
Based on an evaluation of the comments, no changes to the proposed rule are being recommended. However, most of the .nnual fees in the final rule are lower than those shown in the proposed rule _because of the rule change effective May 18, 1992, which permits the NRC to bill licensees for Part 170 4 fees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis.
The final amendments to Part 170 (1) amend i 170.20 to change the cost per professional staff-hour from $115 per hour;to $123 per hour; (2) increase all flat fees for radioisotope programs by seven-percent based on the increased hourly rate; (3) further refine _ the existing ~ fee categories for export and import licenses; and (4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption requests.
The final. amendments to Part 171 (1) increase the amount of the annual fees assessed to operating reactors, fuel cycle licensees and materials licensees; .
(2) further refine the uranium recovery class of licensees by dividing Class I facilities into two classes to be consistent with exemption decisions that recognize those licensees who do not generate uranium mill tailings;-(3) amend the exemption provisions of s 171.11 to require that licensees who wish to-be considered for an exemption from the annual fees must_ file _ the exemption request within 90 days from the effective date of the rule establishing annual fees; and (4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption requests.
Under the. final _ rule, FY 1992 fees for_most licensees will increase compared-to FY 1991 fees because:
(1) The amount that must be recovered has increased from approximately_
$445M-to $492.5M. -
L l
l L ,
i (2) Fewer licensees are available to pay for the higher costs of regulatory activities not covered under 10 CFR Part 170. For example, approximately 2,000 of 9,000 material licensees have requested that their licenses be terminated or combined since the I FY 1991 final rule was adopted in July 1991, and one of the three ;
HEU fuel facilities has requested a POL.
A comparison of the FY 1992 annual fees to those assessed for FY 1991 are as follows:
Ranae of Annual Fees
- Class of' Licensees FY 1991 FY 1992 Operating Power Reactors $2.8M to $3.lM 53.0M to $3.lM Fuel Facilities $0.7M to $1.6M $0.5M to $2.3M !
Uranium Recovery Facilities $67,100 to $100,100 -$58,800 to $167,500 Transportation Approval Holders $1,800 to $29,100 $1,660 to $62,960 Materials Users (small entity) $1,800 $400 to $1.800-i Materials Users (other) $390 to $10,800 $580 to $16,550
~
Other Licensees $50,000 to $222,500 $55,700 to $336,150 1 recommcnd that you sign the final rule at Enclosure 1.for publication in the Federal Register. The final rule would become effective 30 days from the date-of publication. We will send a bill-for the amount of the annual fee to the licensee or certificate, registration or approval holder. upon publication of the final rule. Payment would be due on the effective date of the rule, An-
" Approved for Publication" notice is attached'as Enclosure 3 and a notice to the Commission that the EDO has signed this final rule is enclosed for-inclusion in the next Daily: Staff notes _ (Enclosure 4). Please note that-the-Commission was informed 7that you would issue the: proposed rule in SECY-92 107 which addressed the limited rule change concerning lower-tier small- entity fees.
i.
" 'Y- W F'ge-'*y=tt-Jr g hegy rt ge--w wM Tr
- q,y-y e - g-q udmg*- q p 69 M--y r qn y -p.gy a, tr-g e WI +4- $-W3==p-ef e-'em pg$$ M.95%+-q ys y--mmt eg pwt M1 --- N-v=91-"'w3"t-=t 1y 9tr-9-'taq'-- im e p- r-g tiWF1-h e
o Please also note that:
- a. The House Committee on interior and Insular Affairs, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Budget and Appropriation Committees will be notified by letter (Enclosure 5).
- b. A public announcement will be issued when the final revisions are filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication <
(Enclosure 6).
- c. A Notice containing the final revisions will be mailed to NRC licensees and holders of Certificates of Compliance, sealed source and device registrations, QA program approvals and approved topical reports.
- d. The final rule contains no information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
- e. Action required under this final rule would be administrative and would not affect the environment; therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule (10 CFR 51.22(c)(1)).
- f. The economic impact on small entities has been addressed in the final rule.
l
- g. The final rule is administrative and would assess fees for regulatory services provided by the NRC to applicants and licensees. Accordingly, the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) does not apply to the final rule, e The Officefof Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, International Programs, and Administration concur in the final amendments. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection, i
, ,_,,. - _ . . . . - - - . .- -- - - ' - * ~ ~ ~
Ronald H. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
Enclosures:
- 1. Final Notice of Rulemaking
- 2. Summary of Comments
- 3. Approved for Publication
- 4. Daily Staff Notes
- 5. Congressional Letters
- 6. Draf t Public Announcement
~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ - - - _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
budget. The July 10, 1991, final rule became effective August 9, 1991. In addition to establishing the FY 1991 fees, the August 9, 1991, final rule established the underlying basis and method for determining the Part 170 hourly rate and fees and the Part 171 annual fees.
This final rule includes the limited changes made to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 which were issued as a final rule on April 17, 1992, (57 FR 13625)p with an effective date of May 18, ---~~
( ~ ~-
1992. The limited change to Part 170 allows the NRC to bill quarterly for those license fees that are currently billed every six months. The limited change to Part 171 adjusts the maximum annual fee assessed a materials licensee who qualifies as a small entity under the NRC's size standards. The maximum annual fee of
$1,800 per licensed category is continued for FY 1992. However, a lower tier small entJty fee of $400 per licensed category has been established for small businesses and non-profit organizations with gross receipts of less than $250,000 and small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000.
On April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18095), the NRC published the proposed rule that presented the licensing, inspection, and annual fees necessary for the NRC to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority for FY 1992 less the appropriation received from the NWF. The basic methodology used in the proposed rule was unchanged from that used to calculate 3
the Part 170 professional hov-ly rate, the specific materials licensing and inspection fees in Part 170, and the Part 171 annual fees in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31472). Because the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in the July 10, 1991, final rule and because these comments were fully addressed in that final rule, the NRC requested public comment only on the issue of whether the methodology adopted in FY 1991 was properly applied to the FY 1992 budget authority.
II. Responses to Comments The NRC received nineteen public comments by the close of the comment period on May 29, 1992 and an additional ten comments, by the close of business on June 22, 1992. These comments were evaluated in the development of this final rule.
Of the twenty-nine comments, two were from power reactor licensees or their representatives, and twenty-seven were from persons concerned with other types of licenses, including eleven comment letters from the uranium industry or their representatives.- Copies of all comment letters received are available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW]' (Lower Level) , Washington, DC. , c; _ , _ , ,
Many of the comments were similar in nature. For evaluation 4
i.. . . . . . . .
i purposes, these comments have been grouped, as appropriate, and addressed in the context of the narrow focus of this final rule, A. Comments Regarding Application of the Methodology.
- 1. Comment. A few commenters indicated that the NRC has not provided sufficient information on which to evaluate the fees to be assessed'for FY-1992. These commenters stated that the NRC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide an explanation of how it arrived at its final determination of the annual fees, particularly as they apply to fuel cycle facilities. They also stated that the NRC did not provide sufficient detail concerning the NRC budget to verify the significant changes in the proposed rule. . Commenters recommend that NRC make publicly available its Five Year Plan or other i
documents with an equivalent level of detail to provide the informationnecessarytoallowaneffectiveevaluationog_and permit affected licensees to provide constructive comments on the j
proposed rule.
Response. The NRC believes it has provided sufficient information concerning the FY 1992 budget to allow effective evaluation and constructive comments on the proposed rule. In
-Part III,--the Section-by-Section Analysis of the~ proposed rule published April 29, 1992, (57 FR 18097)Athe NRC provided-a N __ _ _. .a detailed explanation of the FY 1992 budgeted costs for the 5
-,,,w p- , v - -.,,,.w ,..,% w ,,,,w,_, ,
. . . . . + - - , . , , . , , , , , , , ,
y ..-3.,.cvy-- r * - < - - <r+~ w, - = n. w -n r m
the NRC use the CPI or other indices for determining future adjustments to its hourly rates.
Resconse. The NRC professional hourly rate is established to recover approximately 100 percent of the Congressionally approved budget, less the appropriation from the 0
4"$?"(JTWlh,asrequiredby03RA-90.
w Both the method and budgeted costs F" used by the NRC in the development of the hourly rate of $123 for FY 1992 are discussed in detail in the Part III, Section-by-g6' vbr
~
Section Analysis, 6ed S170.20 of the proposed rule (57 FR 18097). hJmhv For example, Table II shows the direct FTEs (full time equivalents) by major program for FY 1992 and Table III shows the budgeted costs (salaries and benefits, administrative support, travel and other G&A contractual support) which must be recovered through fees assessed for the hours expended by the direct FTEs.
The budgeted costs have increased $38.6 million as compared to FY 1991 levels. This increase reflects the amount required by the NRC to effectively accomplish the mission of the agency. The l specific details regarding the budget for FY 1992 are documented 1
in the NRC's publication " Budget Estimates, Fiscal Years 1992-t 19 9 3 ' '( NUREG-110 0, Volume 7) which is available to the public. ~~~-
p l
Given the increase in the budget it is necessary to increase the 1992 hourly rate to recover 100 percent of the budget as required by OBRA-90. The NRC is unable to use the CPI or other indices in the development of the NRC hourly rate or the fees to be assessed under 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 because if the hourly rate were 7
1
< ~
% + v . fy % a.J&
increased by only three tolfour percent over the FY 1991 levels, the NRC could not meet theu rcquirement of OBRA-90 to recover approximately 100 percent of tiie NRC budget authority through fees.
- 3. Comment. Several commenters indicated that the imposition of the annual fees in certain instances bears no
" reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services" and therefore the fees violate OBRA-90 in that they have not been " fairly and equitably" allocated among licensees.
Commenters argue, for example, that the NRC should not charge two fees for one process covered by two licensees or that a higher amount of generic safety costs should not have been allocated to high enriched uranium facilities as compared to low enriched uranium facilities.
, Another commenter states that it is not fair a ^ lyy 4.y he and equitable to asses,,sta UF 6 converter a-highan-fee than for a - ----
mill license. One commenter suggests that it is not considered
" practicable" to assess all licensees of a class to compensate for revenue lost from other classes of licensees because of j license terminations and that he should be provided an accounting of the component costs for NRC generic activities, e.g.,
rulemaking, upgrading safeguards requirements, modifying standard I review plans, overseeing regional programs and developing inspection programs.
Resoonse.
8 9
_m.___m.__..____________m_______mm______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
- - - . = - . - . - . - - - . . _ _ - - - .
i n ,
I b
In the July 10, 1990 final rule, the NRC indicated that it is i
--ee -
not practical to allocate costs on the basis of such factors as l difference in processes and whether or not the facility has more safety problems than another facility at a specific point in l time. (56 FR 31480) It must be recognized that NRC generic safety and safeguards costs-thet 2re included in the annual fee -
I
~
-are not related to a specific individual licensee. Costs related zo a specific application, license or approval that provide an identifiable service are recovered under the fee regulations of 10 CFR Part 170. For the generic and other regulatory costs not recovered under 10 CFR 170, the NRC, in compliance with the requirements of OBRA-90, has allocated these costs to major classes of licensees. The law permitsj and the NRC has -
established7 a schedule of annual charges that assesses different <
annual charges for different licensees or classes of licensees.
l To the extent practicable and where necessary for a more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was l
divided into subclasses. Within a class or subclass of 1
licensees, the costs were-uniformly allocated toVeach licensee in l
the class or subclass based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each licensee within a class or subclass.
This approach and principle were used=for all classes 1of
. licensees. Therefore, the NRC cannot provide-each licensee an accounting of the component costs for sha:NRC generic and other' su.,
9 w ~ w ,s - wm m , um -o ,-m .rw-m - -ew--www--,w,vr-,--r,,r,,r- -m om ~re e r , e ,,, , ,,>e- w w-' w, , e e w enme e n w- N m-,.- w - sm e em-----
f u hiN if a v.ml,is' regulatory acti ities. However, the activities associated with a specific class of licensees are summarized in this rule and ,
detailed in-bhd fee workpapers. With respect to license terminations that occurred during FY 1991, it must be recognized that for FY 1992 the base or total number of licensees has Af decreased te some classes of licensees
/
and therefore the fees **~
must be increased in FY 1992 in order for the NRC to recover ,
35 approximately 100 percent of the budget. Because the costs are -
allocated to a class of licensees, any terminations that occur
, ww ciL., V swa Cr w within the class will theref ore -a(f fect- the remainder of the licensees within that class.
- 4. Comment. A few commenters indicated that the NRC may have inappropriately included certain budgeted costs in the fee base. One commenter indicated that the proposed rule did not show any offsets to FY 1992 salaries and expenses from revenues received from cooperative nuclear safety research programs, services rendered to foreign governments and international organizations, and the material'and information access authorization program. This commenter noted that the FY 1992 authorization language indicates that money'from these programs may be. retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with those activities. One commenter-recommends that NRC review its FY 1992' allocation of-funds and confirm that the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) appropriation 1of about $20 million= includes $1.7 million in administrative costs for high level waste activities l-10
.. - . - ,, , - _ . , _ - - -a.-,---.-.---- -
i
?
? :.
i
- 170.
t
' 6. Comment. A few commenters submitted comments on the ,
- methodology used by'the NRC to develop the lower tier small l entity fee of $400 established by the NRC' effective May 18, 1992.
{ While applauding the NRC~for developing a lower tier small entity
! fee, commenters believe that NRC should--
I 4
.. Expand lthe criteria as to what constitutes a 'ismall (1) i j entity" and that a sliding scale fee should be considered based on ab'ility to pay; (2) Reexamine the method of allocation of costsj -'~
particularly the lower. tier.small entity fee of.$400 because
- these commenters believe that it is inherently unfair to enable fer
" mom and pop" operations to remain in business.but forcep modest _ w~--
l companies, with comparably:small radiographic testing-departments, to subsidize them; l
L (3) Clarify %bestion-as.-to: whether the gross annual -
j receipts:are considered the-income generated only from the ~
! activities pertaining to=the. license or income generated from the.
i entire entity composed-of various departments; and i .
(4) Allow small. county governmental jurisdictions to deduct the'popriation of-incorporated cities and villages not withinxthe .
t
, . ~ . - --w-,--v,- ww..w--, ,v-v.., ++w w or.-* + ,-m t
_ . _ . _ _ . . _ ~
!= ,
within the county. The NRC finds no basis to modify our approach l in this a.ea. '
i
- 7. Comment. 'One commenter indicated that he had submitted ;
i a petition for rulemaking to the NRC to review the FY 1991 i
j methodology so that medical licensees could be treated like 1
j similar licensees. The commenter believes the NRC is obligated to address the concerns raised in the petition in terms of i
4 whether the proposed fee schedule for FY 1992 is consistent with the methodology adopted in FY 1991. The commenter suggests that
- the NRC institute an immediate moratorium freezing fees at FY l- 1991 levels until the petition is considered in its entirety.
L e
Resoonse. The Commission is'not obligated to address
) the concerns raised in the petition of rulemaking filed with the
- NRC before adopting the final rule. establishing fees for FY 1992.
I j The NRC cletrly stated when it. published receipt of the petition-
) for rulemaking in the Federal = Register that "NRC interdsEto 1
consider the issues raised by the petitioners after the rulemaking action necessary to establish the license and annual fees for:FY 1992 is completed ._. . .- The petitioners'1 concerns I
Lwill be' considered withinethe context of the review and evaluation of-the fee program for FY 1993-which will be: conducted:
as part of the NRC's continued implementation: of Public Law 101-
-500" (57 FR 20213/ May-12, 1992). The NRC has not yet completed:
/
, thv. evaluation. To adopt an immediate moratorium freezing feert j- 15-
)
. = . _ . _ . - -- -..-.-.-.,..,-a,-.- .~ .. -... - . - - - - , . - ,. ... . - .- - -
regulatory services to the licensees.
Consistent with the law and the guidance'in the Conference Report,.the NRC allocated its budgeted generic and other 5 regulatory costs not recovered from 10 734rCFR Part 170 license feedt o the major classes of licensees. To the extent practicable and where necessary for a more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was (
further subdivided into subclasses. For example, NRC costs for the fuel facilities class of licensees were allocated further UF 6 o t conversion, HEU fuel fabrication, LEU fuel fabrication and other licenses.
Within a subclass, the cost was uniformly allocated to each license in the subclass based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each license within a subclass .
This approach and principle were used for all classes of licensees.
The costs allocated to the licenses within the UF 6 subclass are for the safety generic and other regulatory activities that are attributable to this subclass of licensees and that are not -
recovered by 10 CFR Part 170 license and inspection fees. -These costs were allocated uniformly to each.of the two licenses within
-the UF6 subclass, based on-the premise that there is not a
.significant difference in the generic and other regulatory services provided to each of the licenses.
The same NRC regulations, (e.g.,
10 CFR Part 40), guidance 17 e
_ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ ~ . _ . _ -
for each license.
- 9. Comment. Several commenters indicated that it appeared as if uranium licensees are being billed for agency overhead that is not attributable to the regulation of the uranium mining industry. These commenters believe that a considerable amount of the agency resources are likely dedicated to interagency work for the Department of Energy (DOE),such as NRC review of DOE's r --
reclamation plans for Title 5 uranium mill tailings rites, and 4t interaction with4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the -aa==
promulgation of regulations. The commenters noted that these agencies are not billed for these NRC activities which are associated with uranium recovery. The commenters disagreed with the NRC's position that all substantive review at DOE sites is essentially completed prior to the application for a general license for that site. The commenters also disagreed with NRC's interpretation of OBRA-90 that in order to be billed-for annual fees one must be a licensee of the NRC. The commenters argue that the test is whether "any person" receives a service or thing of value from the Commission because OBRA-90 allows the
~
" collection of fees from any person" and "all licenses". That person, whether a licensee or not, commenters argue, is required to pay fees to cover the NRC's cost of providing the services or thing of value.
Resoonse. With respect to the 10 CPR Part 170 fees 19
1 assessed pursuant to the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA) of 1952, the NRC is precluded, under the IOAA, from assessing fees to Federal agencies for specific services rendered. The OBRA-90 limits annual fee assessments to licensees
, of the NRC. Thus, the NRC does assess annual fees under 10 CFR
, Part 171 to Federal agencies to the extent that those Federal agencies have a license or approval / certificate from the NRC.
As indicated in the Conference Report accompanying OBRA-90, the Commission must collect approximately 100 percent of its budget through fees, even though in some instances certain activities are not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees. With regard to NRC activities for DOE under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), the NRC is prohibited under the IOAA from assessing such Part 170 fees to Federal agencies. The fees cannot be assessed to DOE under OSRA-90 and 10 CFR Part 171 because DOE does not possess a license or approval. Thus, the NRC has assessed the costs for review of
- DOE's UMTRCA actions based on the Conference Report guidance that l the costs be " recovered from such licensees as the Commission in its discretion determines can fairly, equitable and practicably contribute to their payment." These costs are being recovered from power reactor licensees, not from uranium recovery licensees as implied by the commenters. This was noted in the discussion
-in the-final rule of the surcharge for power reactors (56 FR 31486) July 10, 1991). The intera'ction that-NRC has with EPA is -
necessary for NPC to develop and execute NRC's generic safety l
20
-n , - - m - - - - - ~,. - - - - - - - ~
fees for source material licenses, especially fee Category 2.A (2), Class I, do not meet key aspects of President Bush's regulatory initiative because they are burdensome, impede economic growth, do not incorporate market mechanisms and do not provide a strong, systematic cost benefit realization.
Response. OBRA-90 requires the NRC to promulgate each year a user fee schedule that will result in the collection by of ~~~~~
the end of the fiscal yearAa_ sum approximating 100 percent of its budget, minus the appropriation received from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Any delay in the publication of this rule would result in the NRC's-inability to meet its statutorily imposed deadline for collecting FY 1992 user fees. Therefore, the NRC must publish this rule at this time.
- 3. Comment. Several commenters addressed the proposed change to the S171.16, Category 2.A.(2) for uranium recovery licensees. The commenters indicated that dividing the current Class I facilities into two classes, which has the effect of f
increasing the annual fee for a mill by 138 percent over the FY 4
1991 levels, does not seem justified or reasonable and that the proposed rule does not distinguish between active and inactive facilities. The commenters state that-because inactive mill sites undergoing reclamation do not generate uranium mill tailings but are included in fee Category 2.A.(2) Class I, the
- NRC has overstated the costs for the entire category and 22 a
m
,m - - , - , , ._r -
4 1
i
, threshold of eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes i
j its intent to grant exemptions sparingly. With respect to the
- comment that licensees now be given the option of canceling the license or approval and avoid the FY 1992-fee, the NRC notes that j licensees were put on notice in the proposed rule published April 12, 1991, and again in-the final rule published July 10, 1991, f that the NRC would assess annual fees that would significantly impact a substantial number of its-licensees in order to recover 4
100 percent of.its budget authority for FY 1991 through FY 1995.
The NRC mailed : ::Fj of these notices to each licensee. __
' '~
- D i s !) -
i
- 5. Comment. A few commenters claimed'that NRC intends to s
make the final rule establishing the FY 1992 license and annual fees effective upon publication, in violation of"t4g section -
i 553(b) of the Administration Procedures Act.
l .
Response. The NRC clearly stated in Section I,
- Background, of the proposed rule that, as in FY 1991, the final i
rule would become effective 30 days after publication in the j
Federal Register. The NRC will send a bill for the amount of the l
j annuni fee to the licensee or certificate, registration or approval-holder upon publication of the final rule. Payment is f
due on the; effective date of the rule-(57 FR 18095g April 29, _ ~ '
1992). This-fully satisfies all legal requirements.
4 There were four groups of comments that were not within the 27-i f
. .~ __ __. _ .__ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ . . - . . . _ . _ _.-._-. _.._. _ ._ _
1 4
1
- L 1
scope of the' proposed rule, and therefore ,were not evaluated for ""c l the purposes of issuing this final' rule. Briefly, they are --
1 1-
]_ (1) The legality of the fees to be assessed by the NRC; -
i i
- (2) The appropriateness of the NRC budget and regulatory 1
1 program; 1
l (3) The impact of the fees on licensees; and l (4) The annual fee should be based on the amount of I
j material, or the size-of the licensee's operation.-
i 1
i i 1. Lecality of Fees.
l l
1
! Comment. Commenters indicate that OBRA-90 fails to set forth adequate standards to guide NRC's-discretion in setting annual charges under Part 171. Therefore, the proposed.-fees j
d
- amount to a " tax" rather than_a " fee"_and NRC= lacks legal authority to promulgate and assess the charges.
i 4
Resconse. -The-legal' issues, including-the issue of-" tax" vs. " fee", involved-in the_ assessment ofiannual. fees were fully
, addressed:in the final rule published by thel Commission on-July 10, 1991_(Section III, Responses to Comments, item-A., Legal 1-i 28 i
k f
h-
, . , . . - , , , . ~ . , . - _ . . , - - _ _ . - - . . - . . ~ . , . . . _ . _ , _ . - _ . - . _ _ , . _ - , . - _ . ~ . . , - - . ---
issues (56 FR 31473-31475). The NRC's approacn satisfies all legal requirements.
- 2. ADoropriateness of NRC Budoet and Reculatory Procram.
Comment. There were several commenters who questioned the size of the NRC budget and regulatory program. Some commenters indicated that they would expect a decrease in the NRC budget
- because of.the significant reduction in the number of licensees within the past year and the fact that Maine became an Agreement State during FY 1992. Other commenters do not believe the 42 percent increase in the budget for uranium recovery activities over the previous year is justified given the current size of the licensed uranium industry. These commenters note that, there are no active conventional uranium mines and mills in the United States and only three commercially operating in-situ leach facilities. They argue that the fee of $238,700 appears grossly out-of-line with the degree of NRC involvement for uranium l recovery sites.
c
Commenters suggest that'+ NRC-- l-l' "> cm (1) Freeze fees at FY 1991 levels; 1
(2) Distribute copies of the NRC budget to licensees for approval or disapproval; and (3) Appoint an outside reviewer to evaluate the scope and 29
,y -- - y
effectiveness of the NRC medical program because the increases are tied to unnecessary and overly expensive medical regulation.
Response. OBRA-90 requires NRC to recover 100 percent of its budget authority through fees. The fees being assessed for FY 1992 fulfill this requirement. The budget is developed by the NRC, submitted by the President to the Congress, and approved by the Congress. The basis for the NRC FY 1992 resources are explained in the NRC's Budget Estimates, Fiscal Years 1992-1993 (NUREG-1100; Volume 7). The basis for the resources are thoroughly addressed by the Congress through hearings _and written questions and answers. The FY 1992 NRC hearings are documented, for example, in the publication [ Energy and Water Development --
Appropriations for FY 1992 -- Hearings Before A Subcommittee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, First Session Part 6. The resources resulting from this review and decision process are those necessary for NRC to implement its statutory responsibilities. The fees must be l
l consistent with this approved budget in order to comply with OBRA-90. The agency makes an extraordinary effort to ensure to the maximum extent possible that fees are related to the cost of providing services to the beneficiaries of the NRC activity.
Questions relating to the NRC budget approval process were also addressed in the final rule published by the Commission on July 10, 1991, in Section III, Responses to Comments, item E, Other comments, (56 FR 31482),
30
- Leb lS l equitable, as-webl-as contrary to the intent of Congress, to , , _ _
,l assess UF, converters a fee that is larger than assessed for a -
I mill. Another commenter stated that the methodology the NRC has applied is unjustified because it results in increased fees of over 2,000 percent over 1990 fee levels to some medical licensees while the risk to the patient remains the same. The commenter suggests that some consideration be given to the commensurate risk to the patient before exercising such exorbitant fees on the i
industry which-has not increased the risk of radiation exposure i
to the public or to its patients.
2 l
[/id Response. The issues of basing fees on the amount of
/
material possessed, the frequency of use of the material, and the size of the facilities, were addressed by Commission in the L e: ' .n Regulatign Flexibility Analysisy whdeh "as Appendix A to the 3'-
t final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31511-31513). The l Commission did not adopt that approach, and finds no. basis for altering its approach at this' tips.
i- III. Final Action -- Changes Included in Final Rule i
OBRA-90-requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its'FY-1992 budget authority,: including the funding;of its Office of the-Inspector General, less the appropriations-received from the NWF, by assessing license and' annual fees..
32 D
.-- . . , , , - _ - - - - . . . . . . . - - . . _ . - , . _ - , - _ _ - - . , . . . . . ~ - . . , . - . . _ , . . . . _ . ~. . . . . - - . . . . .
J.
1 For FY 1992, the NRC's budget authority is $512.5 million, ,
of which approximately $20.0 million has been appropriated from i
the NWF. Therefore, OBRA-90 requires that the NRC collect i
approximately $492.5 million in FY 1992 through Part-170
. licensing and inspection fees and Part 171 annual fees. The NRC estimates that approximately $105 million will be recovered in FY i 1992 from the fees assessed under Part 170. This estimate-1 represents an increase of $15 million over that estimated in the I proposed rule because of one additional quarterly billing in FY i
j 1992. This is the result of the rule change effective May 18, 1992 which permits =the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly j rather than a semiannual basis. The remaining $387.5 million would be recovered through:the FY 1992-Part 171 annual fees.
l 4
l , The Commission has not changed the basic approach, policies, i J and methodology for calculating the-Part 170 professional hourly 1 ""~ .
rate, the specific' materials licensing and inspection fees in Part 170, and the:Part-171 annual-fees set forth in the final #
l_
L rule published July 10, 1991 (56'FR 31472).- ~ The public-was- -
provided an opportunity to comment fully on the-basic approach, i
policies, and methodology used'in.the_'JulyJ 10,.1991, final rule.
l Those comments were fully addressed by the Commission in its-final rule. That rule has been challenged in Federal court by-
- several' parties and thosel lawsuits are pending. Underithis final 1 rule, fees for mostLlicenses.will increaseJbecause --
r ,
i E
e.-- ----r vwr ,w a -.wmww.. -9 -+--w--, e--* , em.- -
m.mu.ws.- c w--1 --y--- - -vy,e v y ---m--tt- y yg y e '- e c 9
- y t
9k-J 6t
~~~" '
from the NWF. It gg noted that the amount - of- the annual fees for several classes of licensees has decreased from the amount shown f-in the proposed rule. The reason for the decrease in annual' fees
,) if that an. additional $15-million is estimated to be collected 75~
, from Part 170 fees in FY 1992 because of the change in the Part l
170 rule effective May 18, 1992 which permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly.rather than a semiannual basis.
t l
Second, S-171.16, Category 2.A.(2), is amended to divide l Class I facilities in the uranium recovery class of licensees i
into two classes. The additional category (Class II) would recognize those licensees who do not generate uranium mill !
tailings.
4 4
Third, S 171.11 is amended to require that licensees who wish to be considered for an exemption from the annual fees file their respective exemption requests within ninety (90) days from the effective date of the rule establishing-the annual-fees. As in FY 1991,.the-NRC plans to continue a very high threshold of i eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant exemptions sparingly.
The NRC notes that.during the one-month period from the-1 publication of the FYL1991 final-. rule on_' July 10, 1991,.to the-offective'date of the rule on. August 9,- 1991, manyLlicensees filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject 36 i
_- . _ . , . _ ,- . ___ ...-._.----_._:_ -,...-.~.;-;
,