ML20125E254
| ML20125E254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1992 |
| From: | Holloway C NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125E155 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR32691, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AE20-2-015, AE20-2-15, NUDOCS 9212160271 | |
| Download: ML20125E254 (181) | |
Text
. . - . _ _ _ _ . - . . - - - . _ _ .- .= _ -- -. . . - .
,$ o h(j Q O &
3 n UNITED STATES
- 3 i
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINoTON, D.C. 20066
.... /
July 10, 1992 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services, ADM FROM: C. James Holloway, Jr.
Special Assistant for Fee Policy and Rules, OC
SUBJECT:
10 CFR PARTS 170 AND 171 FINAL NOTICE OF RULEMAKING -- 100% FEE REC 0VERY FOR FY 1992 Enclosed for your action are the following items relating to the publication of the final rule which was signed by the EDO on July 8,1992.
- 1. Original and twenty copies of the Final Rule --
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 f
- 2. Changes made to the final rule
- 3. Seven Congressional letters relating to the final rule
- 4. Draft public announcement 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. Given the time urgency, the final rule should be published immediately. We are also enclosing for your files a copy of the " Approved for Publication" and " Daily Staff Notes to the Commission" which were sent to the E00.
I
^
9212160271 921113
$7 SNR32691 PDR
'}
i, p.
e l Donnie H. Grimsley <
Please note that because the fee regulations-relate to important' fiscal ~ -
matters, the Congressional-Appropriations and Budget. committees are also being.
notified, l-j Thank you for your assistance -in this matter.
A
- i
' C. ames Holloway, Jr..
Special Assistant for Fee Policy and Rules, OC ,
j
Enclosures:
1 As stated
- l. -
cc: David L. Meyer, ADM John D. Philips, ADM i
)
J 1.
l
?
i i
i i .-
1 I.
i i
i 1; .
h 4
s
, ,- .. ,, . .- . ,. .,._ -,,,-.r.,. . - .-e--..-,,... ._..-.... .-, ..-_ --. _..-..--- - ,-.._..,.,_..--., -
i s'
s f Donnie H. Grimsley ;
i.
- Please note that because the fee regulations relate to important fiscal matters, the Congressional Appropriations and Budget committees are also being
! notified.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
i
. C. James Holloway, Jr.
Special Assi ant for Fee-
! Policy v'r; 'ules OC- ,
4
Enclosures:
As W ted i
cc: David L. Meyer, ADM
- John D. Philips, ADM i
i J
1-i f
1-
, DISTRIBUTION: OC R/F, OC S/F, JHolloway, DDandois, LHiller, JFunches
- f OFFICE
- OC NAME : Hflway DATE
- 7/l0/92 OFFICIAL RECORD-COPY 4
-e ,+r- r,w= & w e- e+, - - -w e, ,wr-vew yv r, wr,--e-4,ve., i,-,,,,,w.->yys y y -
w- w wg-y.g.y-y-+
-,w,--
-ysw p p y a ve.-, = = yms
. . .~ . ~ . . . -..-.
I u -
p e
i 4
(7590-01) 1 1
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171
, RIN: 3150-AE20 l : Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1992 l AGENCY:: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
i 1
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending the 3
I 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 recover approximately 100 percent of its budget l authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 less amounts appropriated'from l the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) . The amount to be recovered for FY
+
1992 is approximately $492.5 million.
EFFECTIVE DATE: (30 days after publication)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. James Holloway, Jr., Office-of the Controller, U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301-492-4301.
4 a - - _ - ._, , - -- - ,% 4 =.v, y,v= , -- - . ., 4 -% , ,,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
II. Responses to Comments.
III. Final Action -- Changes Included In Final Rule.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis.
V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion.
l VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
VII. Regulatory Analysis.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
IX. Backfit Analysis.
I. Background Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), signed into law on November-5, 1990, requires ,
that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of-its budget authority less the amount appropriated from-the Department of l
l Energy (DOE) administered Nuclear Waste' Fund (NWF) for FYs 1991 through 1995 by assessing license, inspection, and annual fees. 1 On July- 10,-1991 (56 FR 31472),=the-NRC published'a final-rule in the Federal Register which! established-the Part 170 professional hourly = rate and--the materials. licensing and
. inspection fees as well as the Part 171 annual. fees.to be assessed to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY'1991 2
w N M r zg -+ w .w- rmw 'ggfv am e- g ---*ff -v 3wtrriYygwy*w i + wgyg'" W ip-WTe'*W-'S'-- f yrT W-(TWr-$T9W'p>-*p5-8 iv- g
- W -h y FW N-9e d 4rWPPt y
1 J
t budget. The July 10, 1991, final rule became effective August 9, i
1991. In addition to establishing the FY 1991 fees, the August 9, 1991, final rule established the underlying basis and l method for determining the Part 170 hourly rate and fees and the i
i Pa.; 171 annual fees.
l 1
This final rule includes the limited changes made to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 which were issued as a final rule on
- l i 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 i
- quarterly for those license fees'that are currently billed every 3
] six months. The limited change to Part 171 adjusts the maximum annual fee assessed a materials licensee who qualifies as a small l entity under the NRC's size standards. The maximum annual fee of l $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.
4 On April 29, 1992 (57.FR 18095), the NRC published the
- proposed rule that presented the licensing, inspection, Land annual fees necessary for the NRC to recover approximately 100 i
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 a 3
, - - . _ . ~ ~ , +ie-. ,-er, .. ~,e , --w-- r #, 4, , . y w #- > '.~. >w-. , -+r,-. + w -- c --= v
_. _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ = - _ . _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 i
comments were evaluated in the-development of this final rule.
t j 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 elaven l comment letters from the uranium industry or their i
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
- - _ _ .. - . _ _ _ _ - - . . _ _ ~ . .
._._,-m,--.. ,- _. . - - . _
l 4
4
- purposes, these comments have been grouped, as appropriate, and i addressed in the context of the narrow focus of this final rule.
- - A. Comments Regarding Application of the Methodology.
i i 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)lby failing to
! provide an explanation of how it arrived at its final
, determination of the annual fees, particularly as they apply to i
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. recommended that the NRC make. publicly available its Five Year Plan or other 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, t
, the proposed rule.
i Resoonse. The NRC believes:it has provided sufficient
-information concerning the FY 1992 budget to allow effective f evaluation and constructive comment on the proposed rule. In Part III, the Section-by-Section Analysis of the proposed rule
- published' April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18097),Ethe NRC provided a detailed explanation of the FY 1992 budgeted costs for the a
l- 5
- ,, ,-ev. , - -.-e , r- e .,-wc ,e vs- > +-m--er e v-r +-v-wvv v v -w w,-r - ww '
various classes of licensees being assessed fees. In addition, i
l the NRC workpapers pertinent to the development of the fees to be assessed were placed in the Public Document Room (PDR) on t
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 percent-increase over FY 1991)
~
is not justified, and that the siRC had not 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 pointed out that the NRC professional rate has increased by approximately 115 percent over a seven year period while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has shown an' inflation rate of aboutL22 percent for the same period. The commenters recommended that 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 FY 1992. These commenters~ suggested that it is inappropriate to raise the professional rate and inspection fees by 7 percent. The 6
l commenters recommended that the NRC use the CPI or other indices for determining future adjustments to its hourly rates.
Resoonse. The NRC professional hourly rate is 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 4
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 S170.20 of the proposed rule (57 FR 18097).
For example, Table II shows the direct FTEs (full time f
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 specific details regarding the budget for FY 1992 are documented in the NRC's publication " Budget Estimates, Fiscal Years 1992- 4 1993" (NUREG-1100, Volume 7), which is available to the public.
Given the increase in the budget it is necessary to increase the-19'J2 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 statutory mandate requirement of OBRA-90 to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority through fees.
- 3. Ccmment. Several commenters indicated that the imposition of the annual fees in certain instances bears no
'reacanaulc relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services" and therefore the fees violate OBRA-90 in that they h ve not been " fairly and equitably" allocated among licensees.
Commenters argued, for example, that the NRC should not charge two fees for one process covered by two licenses 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 stated that it is not fair and equitable to assess a higher fee for a UF6 converter than for a mill license. One commenter suggested that it is not considered " practicable" to assess all licensees of a class to compensate for revenue lost from other classes of licensees l because of 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 review plans, overseeing regional programs and developing inspection programs.
l I
l t
8
Resoonse. In the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31480), the NRC indicated that it is not practical to allocate t
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. It must be recognized that NRC generic safety and safeguards costs included in the annual fee are not related to a specific individual licensee. Costs related to 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 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 i more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of i
licensees was divided into subclasses. Within a class or subclass of licensees, the costs were uniformly allocated to each licensee 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 9
l l
classes of licensees. Therefore, the NRC cannot provide each licensee an accounting of the component costs for NRC generic and
- other regulatory activities. However, the activities associated with a specific class of licensees are summarized in this rule and detailed in publicly available 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 decreased for 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 its budget. Because the costs are allocated to a class of licensees, any terminations that-occur within the class will raise the fees for 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 recommended that NRC review its FY 1992 allocation of funds and confirm that the Nuclear 10
,y ..,-- e-<
Waste Fund (NWF) appropriation of about $20 million includes $1.7 l
million in administrative costs for high level waste activities in order to avoid double payment by utilities, once through their j mill / kwhr payment to the NWF and again through the annual charge i
that recoups total NRC administrative costs.
I i
Response. The NRC provides some technical assistance to l
foreign governments and international organizations on a l reimbursable basis and participates in cooperative research programs. 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 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 budget request but are paid for by the foreign government or international organization for which the work is being performed.
These activities are therefore not included in the computation of 100 percent fee recovery for the funds appropriated to the NRC 4 l
i and are therefore not charged to licensees through the assessment of user fees. These monies are separately identified in the agency's financial systems, and are deposited and disbursed for the performance of the functions for which they are collected.
11 l
i i
j With respect to the NWF appropriation for the FY 1992 budget, $1.7 million of the NRC's total administrative support 1
funds was allocated to the High-Level Waste Regulation program' !
based upon the full-time equivalent staffing budgeted for that-i program. Funds for the NRC High-Level Nuclear Waste Regulation 1
4 program are appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Licensees e
are not charged fees for the administrative support costs which i
j are allocated to the Nuclear Waste Fund.
i i
! 5. Comment. One commenter indicated that to assess-fee
! Category 2.A.(2), Class I, fees for sites undergoing reclamation 1
l amounts to double charging because these types of facilities are 3
already charged fees under-Part 170 for the full cost of i
- ~
regulatory services associated with the reclamation process.
I.
i l Resnonse: To recover 100' percent of the budget, the NRC '
i l assesses two types of fees. First,~ license and. inspection fees i
j are assessed.under 10 CFR Part 170 to recover the. costs to the l NRC of providing individual services to' specific applicants.-for,
- and holders of, NRC licenses and approvals. The Part 170 fees i . .
- - are billed for specific services rendered in response to an-l application filed with the NRC.for review or an inspection l
l conducted by the 1000. Second, annual fees are assessed under lio CFR-Part 171 to recover NRC generic and other regulatory costs
~
3-Act recovered'under 10:CFR Part 170. . ThisLis the process used'to l
- charge uranium recovery licensees. -Thus, there is no' double t-
! 12 l-a , ;,,- -, ..,;.-.,..,..,-.;
I charging of fees-to uranium recovery licensees because the annual fee recovers only those costs not recovered under 10 CFR Part 170.
- 6. Comment.- A few commenters submitted comments on the-methodology used by_the NRC to develop the lower tier small entity fee of $400 established by the NRC-effective ~May 18, 1992.
While applauding the URC forLdeveloping a lower tier small~ entity j fee, commenters recommended that the NRC --
(1). Expand the criteria as-to what constitutes a "small entity" and that'a sliding scale fee should be considered based ,
- on ability to puy; (2) Reexamine the method of allocation of costs, i
particularly the lower tier small entity fee of $400-because 1
these commenters believe that it is inherently unfair to enabl 1
" mom and= pop" operations to remain in business yet1 force modest companies,.with comparably small radiographic testing departments, to subsidize them; (3) ' Clarify whether the gross annual-recei~ pts are considered-incomeLgenerated only from the activities pertaining.
to the license or income generated from the: entire entity composed of various departments;;and 13
- - ,- - . . . - - . . . . - - - - - . . - - . - , . . . - . . - . - . - . - , - , ~. . . - . . . - - - .
l (4) Allow small county governmental jurisdictions to deduct l
the population of incorporated cities and villages not within the j i
jurisdictional powers of the county. )
i Resoonse. These types of comments were addressed by the NRC in Section II, Responses to comments, it-A B., of the final limited rule published by the NRC on April 17, 1992 (56 FR 13626-13627). Briefly,-the-NRC indicated that any reduction in fees for small entities must be paid by other NRC licensees and that while the lower tier small entity fee of $400 does not eliminate the impact of the fees on small entities, it substantially reduces the impact for those licensees with relatively low gross annual receiptslof 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 what constitutes gross annual receipts, the NRC stated clearly in establishing the size standards and in the promulgation of the final rule establishing the-lower tier'small entity fee that the term " annual receipts" is used-in the same manner as used by the Small. Business Administration (SBA).. In 13 ~ CFR 121. 4 02 (b) (2 ) ,
annual receipts are defined " .. ...to include all. revenue in whatever form received or-assessed.from whatever sources . . .
(54 FR 52647; December 21,11989) (57 FR 13625; April 17, 1992),
i Therefore,.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' i 14 i
t
)
4 i
i jurisdiction under the NRC fee regulations, the population of a
~
county includes the population of all cities, towns, and villages i.
within the county. -The NRC finds no basis to modify our approach ~
i l in this area.
t
- 7. Comment. One commenter indicated that he had submitted ~
!. a petition for rulemaking to the NRC to review the FY 1991 i
c methodology so that medical licensees could be-treated like i
j similar licensees. The commenter. believes the NRC is obligated i
. -to address the concerns raised in the petition in terms of
{ whether the proposed fee schedule for FY 1992 is cons'istent with 1
l the methodology adopted in FY 1991. The commenter. suggests that
! ~
~
l the NRC institute an immediate moratorium freezing fees at FY 1991 levels until the petition is considered in its entirety.
j- Resoqngs. The NRC'is not obligated to address the concerns raised in the petition of rulemaking filed with the NRC-t j before adopting the. final rule establishing fees for'FY 1992.
The NRC clearly stated when11t published receipt of the petition I. for rulemaking in the Federal Register that "NRC intends to j' consider the-issues raised by the. petitioners after'the i
rulemaking action necessaryJto establish the license and annual f
fees for FY 1992 is completed . . . - . The' petitioners' - concerns' t
- f. ;will-be considered within'the context'of the review and~
l
[ evaluation of the fee-program for FY 1993 which will be~ conducted 4-
- as part of the NRC's1 continued implementation of Public Law 101- .
i
- 15-i.
4
- ,, en- , ,-, .,c , . , , r.v e , a , -- n. ,,,,s.
m,.., ,-w . -,-,n.,-r,,--,,. ,,,,nr .,n~,w,e ,r +~,,,~-,,~ce.,
- -,-,-.,5,, ,
508" (57 FR 20213; May 12, 1992). The NRC has not yet completed that evaluation. To adopt an immediate moratorium freezing fees 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 who conducts multiple activities under a single license. The commenter noted 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 licensee that is conducting multiple activities. For the same reason, the commenter indicated that this 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 OBRA-90, accompanying Conference Report, and the fundamental principles used by the commission in establishing annual fass for all classes of licensees.
OBRA-90 and the accompanying Conference-Report provide that 16 s sr+.9 9 rwe -p -----urr eg. -e--,g. en w- . +.o.-.., .*.i+- w ham-',* w ep.- e sp.*-e-Nwwm -te -m+- # t- e 1-m'y i-%,
4
.f 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 an:, 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 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 UF6 conve.sAun. HEU fuel fabrication, LEL 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.
l 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.
17
The same NRC regulations, (e.g., 10 CFR Part 40), guidance (e.g., Regulatory Guides) and policies are applicab?.e to both the license which authorizes deconversion activities (UF, to UF 4) and
) UF6 conversion and the license that only author 1.es UF 6 i
conversion. The 10 CFR Part 40 generic safety regulations are applied in the same manner to each of the two licenses in the subclass independent of the source material activities authorized by the two licenses.
The NRC costs attributable to the UF 6 subclass are more related to the fact that a license exists, not to the UF 6 manufacturing process. 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.
The surcharge portion of the annual fee includes NRC
! budgeted costs that are not attributable to the UF6 subclass.
However, it is 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 t
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, l
determines can fairly, equitably, and practicably contribute to 18 l
l
their payment." Following this guidance, the NRC decided to uniformly allocate these costs to each fuel facility resulting in the same surcharge 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 noted 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 4
interaction with the 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 general license for that site. The commenters also disagreed with NRC's i
Interpretation of OBRA-90 that in order to be billed for annual 1
fees one must be a licensee of the NRC. The commenters argued 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 licensees". That person, whether a licensee or not, commenters argued, is required to pay fees to cover the NRC's cost of providing the services or thing of value.
! 19 i
l-
Resoonse. With respect to the 10 CFR Part 170 fees 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 i
prohibited under the IOAA from assessing such Part 170 fees to Federal agencies. The fees cannot be assessed to DOE under OBRA-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 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 20 s
1 31486; July 10, 1991). The interaction that NRC has with EPA is necessary for NRC to develop and execute NRC's generic safety 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.
Resoonse. 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 that NRC collect the revised FY 1992 fees by September 30, 1992, I
and that in order to comply with the public law, fees would have
, to be assessed on an expedited basis to ensure collection of the required fees by the end of the fiscal year (57 FR 18095).
Thirty days represents a sufficient time to provide comments particularly because the NRC is not changing the approach or methodology for assessing fees that it adopted in FY 1991.
- 2. Comment. One commenter indicated that sections of the
, 21 I
i
proposed regulation should be included within President Bush's moratorium of new regulations. This commenter argued that the 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.
Rennpnse. OBRA-90 requires the NRC to promulgate each year a user fee cchedule that will result in the collection by the end of the fiscal year of a sum approximating 100 percent of a
its budget, minus the appropriation received from the Nuclear
- Waste Fund. Any delay in the publication of this rule would 2
result in the NRC's inability to meet its statutorily imposed deadline for collecting FY 1992 user fees. Therefore, the NRC 1
must publish this rule at this time.
1
- 3. Comment. Several commenters addressed the proposed y change to the 5171.16, 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 stated that because inactive mill sites undergoing reclamation do not generate uranium mill 22
4 tailings but are included in fee Category 2.A.(2) Class I, the NRC has overstated the costs for the entire category and 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 annual 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 pointed out that no other licensees or class of licensees is subject to the same exorbitant l
level of increase as fee dategory 10.B, QA Program Approval i
Holders.
Response. OBRA-90 and the accompanying Conference Report provide that to the maximum extent practicable, the annual 1
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 l CFR Part 170 license fees 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 uranium recovery class of licensees were allocated further to 23
" Class I," Class II," and "Other" facilities. 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 Class I l
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 j the eight 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 eight. licenses. The NRC has reexamined the allocation of costs to the Class-I uranium recovery facilities.
This reexamination has been accomplished within the framework of the OBRA-90, the accompanying Conference Report, and'the fundamental principles used by the-NRC in. establishing. annual' fees for all classes of licensees. The 10U0 generic and other regulatory _ costs attributable to the Class I facilities: subclass are related to the-fact that a license authorizing' operation exists,-not to'whether the mill is active or inactive.
Thus, a uniform allocation of_ costs to each license'results11n_an-annual' fee that has a reasonable relationship to the generic and other 24
l 4
I l regulatory services provided.- l
- h. .
- With respect to QA_ plan approvals, the NRC experienced-a 1
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. These QA approval holders downgraded the authorized use i
i of the plan from " fabrication and use" to "use" only. These l changes have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of i
- plans authorizing " fabrication and use" and an increase in the 1
! ~ number of plans author'izing "use only". Therefore, in order-to-i recover the costs for plans authorizing " fabrication and use" l from fewer approval holders, it is necessary to assess e.'much t-l higher annual fee than was assessed in FY-1991. Similarly, to. _
} recover the costs for plans authorizing "use only" from an j increased number of plan holders has resulted in a lower annual
- fee for_these approval holders.
l t
l 4. Comment. One commenter objected to the-!URC proposal to i
j- exempt from the FY 1992 annual fee those-licensees'who filed for i
i termination or possession only during the period October 1, 1991, i
through December 31, 1991.- This commenter indicated that it.
~
l I - . .
j appeared arbitrary to establish-such a deadline when. changes to a license occur-throughout the year and that licensees should be
, permitted to file exemption requests related:to the FY'1992 fees i
l 3
after. December 31, 1991. Another commenter indicated that in
- 25 4
~
l~ l 4
1 l-
....,..,.,;, , - . . . , , . . . . . , . ..-,_,-,,---..-w.. ~. , ...-.,,2,.n.,.,n._,, ,..,;,,..-.,,...,.,n ..
. ., a
cases where the fees have substantially increased,-licensees should now be given the option of canceling the license or 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, 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 NRC since the final rule became effective requesting further clarification and information concerning the annual fees aFsessed. 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 September 30, 1991. Therefore, based on the number of requests filed, the Commission will exempt from the FY 1992 annual fees l
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, I
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 26
l CPR 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 threshold of eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant exemptions sparingly. With respect to the comment that licensees now be given the option of canceling the i license or approval and avoid the FY 1992 fee, the NRC notes that l licensees were put on notice in the proposed rule published April 12, 1991, and hgain in the final rule published July 10, J
1991, that the NRC would assess annual fees that would significantly impact a substantial number of its licensees in 4 order to recover 100 percent of its budget authority for FY 1991 through FY 1995. The NRC mailed copies of both the proposed and final notices to each licensee.
- 5. Comment. A few commenters claimed that NRC intends to i
make the final rule establishing the FY 1992 license and annual fees effective upon publication in violation of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Resoonse. The NRC clearly stated in Section I, Background, of the proposed rule that, as in FY 1991, the final rule w eld 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, 27
1992). This fully satisfies all legal requirements.
l C. Comments Beyond the Scong.
There were four groups of comments that were not within the i
scope of the proposed rule, and therefore were not evaluated for the purposes of issuing this final rule. Briefly, they are --
l (1) The legality of the fees to be assessed by the NRC; -
{l
)
- (2) The appropriateness of the NRC budget and regulatory q program; !
1 1
I (3) The impact of the fees on licensees; and
{ (4) The annual fee should be based on the amount of u
! material, or the size-of the licensee's operation.. ;
i 1
i.
l 1. Legality of Fees. ,
i
! Comment. Commenters indicated that OBRAn90 fails to set I forth adequate standards to' guide NRC's discretion in setting annual charges under Part 171. Therefore, the fees amount to a
" tax" rather than a " fee" and NRC lacks legal authority-to promulgate and assess-the charges.
i 28
-,--,2- - _ _ _ .... _ ,_-__ _ . _ . . - - . - - . . - . , . . . . . . , , _ , - _ . . . . . _ , . . , _ , . . - - , _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . , , - _ . _ - . , . . . , __.
Response. The legat issues, including the issue of " tax" vs. " fee", involved in the assessment of annual fees were fully addressed in the final rule published on July 10, 1991 (Section III, Responses to Comments, item A., Legal issues (56 FR 31473-31475). The NRC's approach satisfies all legal requirements.
- 2. Accrocriateness of NRC Budaet and Reculatory Proaram.
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 ,vear is justified given the current size of the licensed uranium industry. These commenters noted that there are no active conventional uranium mines and mills in the United States and only three commercially operating in-situ leach facilities. They argued that the fee of $238,700 appears grossly i
out-of-line with the degree of NRC involvement for uranium recovery sites. Commenters suggested that the NRC--
(1) Freeze fees at FY 1991 levels; d
(2) Distribute copies of the NRC budget to licensees for 29
i !
j approval or disapproval; and l
I
{ (0) Appoint an outside reviewer to evaluate the scope and effectiveness of the NRC medical program because the increases are tied to unnecessary and overly expensive medical regulation.
l l !
1 .
l Resconse. OBRA-90 1equires NRC to recover 100 percent of
}
b cudget authority through fees. The fees being assessed for
- }Y 1992 fulfill this requirement. The budget is developed by the NRC, submitted by the President to the Congress, and approved by 1
the Congross. 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 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 thelNRC. activity.
Questions relating 1to the'NRC-budget approval process were.also 30 ws- y -,* a- , -n, , - ,
m., , .am,-w--r,-,m-r--,.-rvw<s--e- + e ,.,w---,. , , - -n
_ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. _ __ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ - . - _ _ . _ ~ _ _ - _
I i i
i i addressed in the final rule published by the Commission on 4 July 10, 1991, in Section III, Responses to Comments, item E, l i ,
Other comments, (56 FR 31482). !
- 3. Imoact of Fees on Licensees.
j i I Comment. Several commenters expressed concern about the 1
impact of the fees. Some commenters indicated that an exemption-
! should be offered to nonprofit medical institutions similar to 1
nonprofit educational institutions and that the previous exemption from fees for State and local governments be i
i reestablished.
i Response. The impact issues regarding the assessment of the 4
annual fees were fully addressed by the Commission in the final 4
rule published July 10, 1991 (see Section III., Response to comments, item B2. Major Policy Issues - Consideration of non-l safety impacts in assessing fees.) The NRC continues to believe i
that the previous assessment of impacts and resulting conclusions remain appropriate.
l
- 4. Fees based on material Dossessed and size of oneration.
i Comment. Commenters suggested that-the NRC assess fees based on the anornt of throughput _of material, the size of the facility, the'arount or type of material possessed, the sales 31
i l generated by the licensed location, the competitive condition of j e
certain markets including the assessment of fees to Agreement d
States and the effect of fees on domestic and foreign r competition. Another commenter indicated that it is not fair and equitable, and is contrary to the intent of Congress, to assess UF6 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 -
I percent over 1990 fee levels to some medical licensees while the j risk to the patient remains-the same. The'commenter suggested-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, i Response. The issues of basing fees on the amount of raterial possessed, the frequency of use of the material, and the size-of the facilities, were addressed by the NRC in thel Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in-Appendix A to the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31511-31513). The Commission did L 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 approximatelyfl00:
32
. _ _ . _ . . _. , . . _ ._ , _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ ,,,..; _. . ,.. .._.._.a.____
_- - - ... - ... - _-._ - _. - .. . .. _ ~ --_- - _-. - - _ _- - - . - _ -
)
i l
1 i percent of its FY 1992 budget authority, including the funding of l its office of the Inspector General, less the appropriations i
l received from the NWF, by assessing license and annual fees. '
j For FY 1992, the NRC's budget authority is $512.5 million, j of which approximately $20.0 million has been appropriated from the NWF. Therefore, OBRA-90 requires that the NRC collect I
j approximately $492.5 million in FY 1992 through Part 170 t
j licensing and inspection fees and Part 171 annual fees. The NRC f 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 l 1992. This is the result of the rule change effective May 18, t
{ 1992, which permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly 7
i rather than a semiannual basis (April 17, 1992; 57 FR 13625).
The remaining $387.5 million would be recovered through the FY 5
l 1992 Part 171 annual fees.
i The Commission has not changed the basic approach, policies, '
or methodology for calculating the Part 170 professional hourly rato, 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' provided an opportunity to comment fully on the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in the July 10,-1991,-final rule.
33 4
a
--_ . - , , , , - - ,-v-.ev - e- ,,,',.--e- , .- ---,-e.,-- w-- - y -
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 --
(1) NRC's budget has increased. This has resulted in a corresponding increase in thn professional hourly rate; and (2) Approximately 2,000 licensaec 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.
Imnort and ExDort Licenses, and Other Reculatory servicgs.
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 cost to the NRC of all identifiable regulatory services each applicant or licensee receives.
34
First, the agency-wide professional hourly rate, which is used to determine the Part 170 fees, is increased from $115 per 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 budget that is not recovered _through the appropriation from the 4
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 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 Acerovals-and Government Aaencies Licensed by NRC.
35
Five amendments have been made to Part 171. First, SS 171.15, and 171.16 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 from the NWF. It should be 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 is 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 36
_ _ _ _ _ a
.-. --. ~ _- - _ - . . - . - - . . . . . . . - - . . . . - . . . .- _-_ -- . _.
i grant exemptions sparingly. ;
i The NRC notes that during the one-month period from the
- publication of the FY 1991 final rule on July 10, 3091, to the it effective date of the rule on August 9, 1991, many licensees i
i filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject to the FY 1991 annual fees. Many other licensees have either J
called or written to the NRC since the final rule became effective requesting further clarification and information l concerning the annual fees assessed. The NRC is responding to 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 f'iled, 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.
l l
Fourth, S 171.19 is amended to credit the quarterly partial l
payments made by certain licensees-in FY-1992 toward their FY 1992 annual fees.
37 l
, _ - - , - - .m- _ - , _ , mm.. , , _ _ . , . _ _ , . . , , , , , _ _ , - - _ , _ , . _ , , , _
Fifth, 5 171.5 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 analysis, the NRC is continuing for FY 1992 a maximum annual fee 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 and became effective on 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 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 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 38
principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditures of the agency's resources should pay the greatest annual fee." 136 Cong. Rec., at H12692-93.
C. FY 1992 Budoeted Costs.
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 Estimated Amount Recovery Method (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 1/Includes $6.2 million that will not be recovered from small materials licensees because of the reduced small entity fees.
39
1 4
i j 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
- ,
f $25.1 million to operating power reactors; j $1.9 million to fuel facilities; and s
i i
i $1.9 million to other materials licensees.
i
- 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 foe of $400 for certain l licensees. In order'for the NRC to recover 100 percent of its i
j budget authority in accordance with OBRA-90, -the NRC will recover i
$5.4 million of the $6.2 million from operating power reactors and the remaining $.8 million from large entities that are not i
! reactor licensees.
This distribution results in an additional charge (surcharge) of approximately $272,000 per operating power l reactor; $155,100 for each HEU, LEU, and UF, fuel facility; 2
$38,800 for each other fuel facility license and waste disposal license in Category-4A; $1,600 for each materials' licensee in a category.that generates a significant amount of low level waste; j and $150 for other materials licenses. When added to the base 40 G
V
--..m.-a---,...,--,-.--,,---,-.mm-w n,r,-,,,- <, o,,,- e+m,-w,,,,. m , , , - - -.n-.-,ng,.-am-,v,--n,, - -,n- -.n.wn.-- e n----,v ve-, - + - -r-
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 on the fee category (ies) assigned to the license.
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 NRC 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 Public Law 101-508 have acknowledged the D.C. Circuit's holding that the Commission was within its legal discretion not to impose. fees on all licensees.
I l IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 41' l
-'Y*4 v 7 t- -vy -
y v'ww-Tm 74y T--a twp 9'--'sF' 'Nn-47e y ', T'- ## 4 t 2
4 i
1 i l i
l The following analysis of those sections that are affected under this final rule provides additional explanatory j
information. All references are to Title 10, Chapter I, U.S.
code of Federal Regulations.
Part 170 Section 170.3 Definitions.
The definition of a nonprofit educational institution is added to more specifically identify those applicants and licensees that are exempt from fees under 5 170.11 (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 a
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 awardsJacademic degrees,'and whose educational programs are available to the public.
4 42
+ w , -- er--- w. me , -mm - 9m.r r e -. .y .m- ,' e m o e>y>g e 4 -
-wrp- = . -
i i
Section 170.20 Average cost per professional staff hour.
1 This section is amended to reflect an agency-wide professional staff-hour rate based on FY 1992 budgeted costs.
i Accordingly, the NRC professional staff-hour rate for FY 1992 for '
all fee categories that are based on full cost is $123 per hour, or $214,509 per direct FTE. The rate is based on the FY 1992 direct FTEs and NRC budgeted costs that are not recovered through the appropriation from the NWF. The rate is calculated using the
, identical method established for FY 1991. The method is as follows:
- 1. All direct FTEs are identified in Table II by major program.
43
4 <
J I
Table II l Allocation of Direct FTEs 1
} by Major Program i
- Number i Major Program j ofd{7ect FTEs_
z i Reactor Safety & Safeguards Regulation . . . . . . . . 1070.4 i i j Nuclear Safety Research . . 154.1
! Nuclear Material & Low-Level Waste Safety &
Safeguards Regulation . . 294.5 Special and Independent
. Reviews, Investigations, an'd
- Enforcement . . . . . . . 71.0 3 Nuclear Material Management
- and' Support . . . . . . . 23.0 t
Total direct FTE . . . . . . -1613.01/
1/ FTE (full time equivalent)-is one person working for a full year. Regional _ employees are counted in the office of the -
l program each supports.
2/ In FY 1992, 1,613 FTEs of the total 3,261 FTEs are considered to be in direct support of NRC non-NWF programs. - The remaining 1,648 FTEs are considered overhead and general and administrative.
I
- 2. NRC FY 1992 budgeted costs are allocated, in Table III, to the.following'four major categories:
l l
(a) Salaries'and benefits.
(b) Administrative support.
44-iD-_.-,: _ . , .. _ ... - ;,_ , _._.:._..__.-.._._.,._. ._..._,__..__.;~_____.___..
l r
(c) Travel.
(d) Program support. l
- 3. Direct 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 for G&A activities) represent "in-house" costs and are to be-collected by allocating them uniformly over-the-total-number of direct FTEs.
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 allocated uniformly to the direct FTEs (1613) results in a rate of $214,509
~
per FTE.for FY 1992. The Direct FTE Hourly Rate is $123 per hour (rounded to the nearest-whole dollar). This rate is calculated by dividing $346.0 million by the number of direct FTEs (1613 FTE) and the 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 />) l l as indicated in OMB Circular A-76, "PerformanceLof' Commercial-Activities."
45-I
--.-...-.,,-....,,,-;.-~--- .u,.-,-- , _ . - - , , ,, ...-.,,,,- . --. ,,. --.---..- . ,_ ,--,_,.2
.u.--.,_ ~- -
1 1
? J
, i I
j- i Table III l FY 1992 Budget Authority by Major Category j (Dollars in millions)
! Salaries and benefits . . . . . . $238.4 ,
l' Administrative support . . . . . 86.5 Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Total nonprogram support j obligations . . . . . . . . . $338.3 Program Support . . . . . . . . . 154.2 j Total Budget Authority . . . $492.5
- Less Program support l (Direct Program) . . . . . . . 146.5 ,
I Budget Allocated to Direct FTE $346.0 Professional Hourly Rate . .
$123/ hour 4
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.
- 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 providing licensing and inspection services to 5
identifiable recipients. The fees assessed for services provided 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 46 4
<*-, ,.---,e y-, -- -,---,-,,e-v-- ,.>me- , ~c- on -,,my< w - m -- m e- o s
-- ,.,n me n. e ---,,,--wwe w -,,-r,-y,-r ,n , 7 -,r
1 1 I
I
! expended on or after the effective date of this rule would be 1
] assessed at the FY 1992 rate shown in S 170.20.
i Since July 10, 1991, the NRC has continued to receive i comments regarding the fees assessed for import and export j licenses in accordance with 5 170.21, Facility. Category K. Based 1
j 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.
4 Footnote 2 of S 170.21 is revised to provide that for those l
applicatic'as currently on file and pending completion, the i
professional hours expended up to the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the professional rates established for.the f
l 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 4
which review costs have reached the applicable fee ceiling
, established by the July 2, 1990, rule, the costs incurred after I
any applicable ceiling was-reached through. August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional hours expended for the review of topical report applications, amendments, revisions or supplements to a topical report on or after August 9, 1991, are assessed at the applicable rate established j by S 170.20.
47
, t
. . , , _ . __ __ .. __ . , , _ . _ _ , . - _ _ , - , , _ _ , , ~ . . , _ . . . . . . _ _ . .
J l
l j Section 170.31 Schedule of Fees for Materials Licenses and ;
other Regulatory Services, including Inspections and Import and i Export Licenses.
- i 4
j The licensing and inspection fees in this section are i modified to recover more completely the FY 1992 costs incurred by the Commission in providing licensing and inspection services to ,
)
identifiable recipients. These flat fees, which are based on the j average time to review an application or conduct an inspection, 1
are increased by seven percent across the board to reflect the j 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 i
percent increase to the flat materials fees, the amounts were 4
rounded, as in FY 1991, by applying standard rules of arithmetic j so that the amounts rounded would be dominimus and convenient to the user. Fees that are greater than $1,000 are rounded to the l nearest $100. Fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10.
For example, an industrial radiography licensee (Category-3.0.) will pay revised license and inspection fees as follows:
Current j Tvoe of Fees Fegs Increase FY 1992 Fees Application $3,000 7% $3,200 l Renewal 1,800 7% 1,900
! Amendment 490 7%- 520 Routine Inspection 1,200 7% 1,300 l Nonroutine l Inspection- 2,500 7% 2,700 48 i
i
. - - - - _ - - - . . - _ . - . - - . . . --. .- -.---.._-= . - . . -- -
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 i
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 S 170.20, applies to those professional staff hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule.
I Part 171-l Section 171.5 Definitions.
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 1
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 49
l i
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 i
! accrediting agency or association, who is legally authorized to j provide a program of organized instruction or study, who provides 1
an educational program for which it awards academic degrees, and whose educational programs are available to the public.
1 Section 171.11 Exemptions.
Paragraph (a) of this section is amended to require that requests for exemption from the annual fees 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 NRC is, therefore, limiting the filing of exemption requests to the-90 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 NRC, in making this change is not intending to change its exemption policy. As in FY 1991, the NRC plans to continue a very high eligibility threshold for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant exemptions sparingly.
50 r c 1.w-.,., m,.-y- _-r--y. w--, - -- -y< -
,,v., -%.e.,, -,-rr e m -a *we---= e e e m -r w - re .w.r -+-w =%-,ree ,.
Therefore, the NRC 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 tu 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.
The NRC 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 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 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 September 30, 1991. Therefore, based on the number of requests filed, the NRC is exempting from the FY 1992 annual fees those licensees, and holders of certificates, l registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of l their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/ storage l
only licenses during the period October 1, 1991, through l 51 l
l r - , m , ,-..-w . , . . . . . . _ _ -
I l
December 31, 1991. All other licensees and approval holders who held a license or approval on October 1, 1991, are subject to the j l FY 1992 annual fees.
- Section 171.15 Annual Feet Reactor operating licenses.
s 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 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. On 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 amount shown in the proposed rule. The decrease in. power reactor 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, i
52 l
I I i
i l
i 4
Table IV 1
]
ALLOCATION OF NRC FY 1992 BUDGET TO POWER REACTORS BASE FEESI 3
i Program Element Allocated to Total Power Reactors
} Program Program i Support Direct Support Dir.:ct ~i 3 iS.K1 _III._ .LS,d,1 fig i:
. REACTOR SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS REGULATION (RSSR) i i
Power Reactor Applications Reviews- $1,100 14.9 1,100 14.9 i Standard Reactor Designe Reviews 2,438 56.4 2,438 56.4 ;
Other Reviews _350 8.2 -- 5.9 Reactor License Renewal 1,913 13.7 1,913 13.7 Improvements to Regulations 2,800 14.5 2,800 14.5
{
Reactor Performance Evaluation 718 33.2 718 33.2 Evaluation of Licensee Performance 600 33.4 600 33.4 Reactor Accident Management 400 10.1 400 '10.1 Human Performance Evaluation 600 3.2 600 3.2 Reactor Operator Examinations 6,620 55.9 6,255 53.7 Resident Inspections -- 203.9 --
203.9 Region-Based Inspections 5,258 285.7 5,258 280.5 l Specialized Inspections 3,197 69.5 3,197 69.5 Project Management --
156.6 --
156.6 Licensing Activities safety. 6,816 87.0 6,816 87.0 Evaluations l
Regulatory Improvements 335 24.2 335 23.1 RSSR PROGRAM TOTAL .532,430 1,059.6 1
l 53 ,
i
.'. 1 r-,-., ,-;. - . , , - - . . . . , ~ , . , , - - ~ ,._ , . ~ .,- . . - , - - ..+ - ~ , = .. . . , , - . - _ -
j._. _ ... . _ _ _ _ . . _ - .._._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-
t i
i s
I' j Table IV i (Continued) t-l Total Allocated to a Program Element Power Reactors.
l Program Program
, Support Direct Support Direct-l ($,K) FTE ($,K) FTE
] NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH (NSR) l Integrity of Reactor Components $27,650 17.5 26,150 17.4
! Prevent Damage to Reactor Cores 19,655 26.5 19,455 25.2 1
4 l Reactor containment Performance 13,922 10.5 -13,922 10.5 i
Advanced Reactor Research 13,050 22.5 -13,050; .22.5 i Generic Safety Issue Resolution 4,313 24.1 4,313 24.1 i
l Developing and Improving Regulations 6,450- 22.0 5,200 13.4 i
j Severe Accident Implementation 2,125 6.0 2,125 6.0 Radiation Protection / Health Effects 6,285 17.5 3,119 8.6
+
i NSR PROGRAM TOTAL $87,334 128.7 l NUCLEAR MATERIAL & LOW LEVEL WASTE. SAFETY &' SAFEGUARDS REGULATION i Safeguards Licensing and Inspection $465 8.8 .1 l
Threat & Event Assess./ l 1
4 International Safeguards 525 13.2: 405 6.8' Decommissioning 1,000 28.1 125 3.7-NMLLWSSR PROGRAM TOTAL $530 10.6 4
54 1
1
. _ . - - _ . _. .-. ..- - ..- . . .. - . -.- . - . . - - - . . ...- ._ . . . . . - . - . ~ , . - . .- -
, 1 l Table IV 4
J (Continued)
! Total Allocated to Program Element Power Reactors
[ _______________ _____________
_ Program' Program l Support Direct. Support Direct (S,K) FTE ($,K) FTE
{ _____ _____ _____ _____
i SPECIAL AND INDEPENDENT REVIEWS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND ENTORCEMENT l
Diagnostic Evaluations $350 7.0 $350. 7. 0 -
e f
i Incident Investigations 50 3.0 50 3.0 t
NRC Iacident Response- 1,980 27.0 1,980 27.0 i
l 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 1
t l
TOTAL S127,824 1,267.9' L
TOTAL BASE FEE AMOUNT-ALLOCATED TO POWER REACTORS- $399.8 millionE LESS ESTIMATED PART 170 POWER REACTOR FEES. -90.2 million-i ______
l PART 171 BASE FEES FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS S309.6 million d
- Base annual fees include all costs attributable to the operating power
} reactor cla.s of. licensees. The base fees-do not include costs : al:.ocated to l pcwer-reactors for policy reasons.--
, l' Amcunt'is obtained by multiplying the direct FTE times'the rate'per-FTE and-adding the - pmgram ^ support funds.
1 1
-55 k2 e
1--
t yq -+- eag go -w e4. - p y syyp -y y t-p g,gwr -w wgww.etpgr gerw-- p= >qg 7p1 9, w g- we9 g g
< l 1
1 i
Based.on the information in Table IV, theLbase annual! fees i to be assessed for FY 1992 are the amounts shown-in Table V below for each nuclear power operating license.
i TABLE V BASE ANNUAL FEES FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS I
Reactors Containment Type Annual Fee i
[ Westinghouse:
, 1. Beaver Valley 1 PWR Large Dry $2,855,000 Containment
- 2. Beaver Valley 2 " "
2,855,000 4
- 3. Braidwood 1 " "
2,855,000-i i 4. Braidwood 2 " "
2,855,000 i
- 5. Byron 1 " "
f 2,855,000
)
- 6. Bryon 2 " "
2,855,000
- 7. Callaway 1 '" "
2,855,000 l 8. Comanche Peak 1 " "
2,855,000 i
{ 9. Diablo Canyon 1 " "
2,849,000
$ la. Diablo Canyon 2 " "
2,849,000 l 11. Farley 1 " "
2,855,000-
- 12 . . Farley'2 " "
2,355, C 00
- 13. Ginna " -"
2,855,100
- 14. Haddam Neck " "
2,855,000-
- 15. Harris 1 -" "
2,855,000
- 16. Indian Point 2. " " '2,855,000
-17. Indian Point:3 " "
f 2,855,000
- 18. Kewaunee " "
~ 2,8!i5,000 I 19. Millstone 3 ~ "' "
2,855,000 56 4
J v
e - +-,N-r.e,, -- - e e,c ,
3 ii i
- 20. North Anna 1 $2,855,000 i
- 21. North Anna 2 2,855,000
-22. Point Beach 1- 2,855,000l Point Beach 2 " "
- 23. 2,855,000
]
1 j 24. Prairie Island 1 " '"
2,855,000 i
I 25. Prairie Island 2 " "
2,855,000 4
- 26. Robinson 2 " "
2,855,000
- . 27. Salem 1- " "-
2,855,000 f 28. Salem.2- " " 2,855,000' i
j 29. San Onofre 1- "- "
2,849,000-l '30. Seabrook 1 " "
2,855,000
- 31. South Texas 1 " "
i .2,855,000 i
l 32. South Texas 2 " -" '2,855,000 l 33. Summer--1 " " 2,855,000
- 34. Surry 1 " "
f 2,855,000 ,
- 35. Surry 2 " " 2,855,000
- 36. Trojan- " "
2,849,000-i j 37. Turkey Point 3 " "
12,855,000 1
- 38. Turkey. Point 4. " " '2,855,000 l
- 39. Vogtle 1 ~" "
2,855,000 l 40.--Vogtle 2 "
.- '" 2,855,000 1
- 41. - -Wolf' Creek'1 " "-
2,855,000 _
- i. '
L. 42. Zion-1 " "
2,855,000
~
- 43. Zion " - "- 2,855,000
- 44. Catawba 1 -PWR ---Ice Condenser- 2,850i000-
- 45. Catawba 2 " "
3 2,850,000 1'
57 b -
.. ._., , , : J,.- , - -.._;.~..... - . . . ,__.----.a.,._,2._..._;_.-...~
_- . .. _ _. . . _ . _ . . .._ _ . - ._ ._ _ .__ .. .. . _ _ , _ _ . _ ~ . . . . . .._. _ ._
i Cook-1 " " $2,850,000
. 46.
F
- 47. Cook 2 " " _2,850,000
- 48. McGuire 1 " " 2,850,000 l 49. McGuire 2 " "
2,850,000
- 50. Sequoyah 1 2,850,000
- 51. Sequoyah 2 " "
2,850,000 combustion Engineering:
I
_1. Arkansas 2 PWR.Large Dry Containment $2,850,000 Calvert Cliffs 1 " "
- 2. 2,850,000
- 3. Calvert_ Cliffs 2 2,850,000
~
- 4. - Ft. Calhoun 1 2,850,000 4
- 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' 4
- 12. . San Onofre 3- -" "
2,844,000
- 13. St. Lucie 1 " " - 2','8 5 0 , 0 0 0
- 14. St. Lucie-2 "- -"- 2,850,000
- 15. Waterford_.-3 " "
2,850,000 Babcock.&-Wilcox:-
- 1. Arkansas 1- " "
l - $2,866,000 V .
i
- 58 l
9 9, _9 9--...q.--ps--.m- =y., ,, ,m p. .,A,%,,.., y. ,,, , , , yp., ,..p.4
,, ,.y-9 %,p...,, ,_. ,.,.,4p. ,,qa,, ,w,, 9 ,,q g9m.pe-y ,.,4.ee_qy,%g,
s 2
Crystal River 3 " "
2.. -$2,866,000 Davis Besse 1 " "
- 3. 2,866,000 1 4. Oconee 1 " "
2,866,000 l 5. Oconee 2 " "
2,866,000 i
- 6. Oconee 3 " "
2,856,000 4
- 7. Three Mile Island 1 " "
2,866,000 General Electric
- 1. Browns Ferry 1 Mark I $2,810,000
- 2. , Browns Ferry 2 " "
2,810,000 3.- Browns Ferry 3 "- "
2,810,000 4.- Brunswick 1 " "
2,810,000
- 5. Brunswick 2 " "
2,810,000
, 6. Clinton 1 Mark III 2,810,000 i
j .7. Cooper Mark I 2,810,000
- 8. Dresden 2 " "
2,810,000
- 9. Dresden 3 " "
2,810,000
- 10. Duane Arnold " "
2,810,000
- 11. Fermi 2 " "
12,810,006
- 12. Fitzpatrick " "
2,810,000
- 13. Grand Gulf.1 Mark III 2,810,000
- 14. . Hatch 1 Mark I '.2,810,000
- 15. Hatch 2 " "
2,810,000
- 16. Hope Creek 1 " "
2,'810,000
- 17. LaSalle 1 Mark II 2,821,000
- 18. LaSalle 2- " "
2,821,000 59
.- , .;,~-, . . - - . . .- - - . , . . . . - . ,-.,J , . . , ,n,
" " $2,821,000
- 19. Limerick 1
" " 2,821,000
- 20. Limerick 2
- 21. Millstone 1 Mark I 2,810,000
" " 2,810,000
- 22. Monticello
" " 2,810,000
- 23. Nine Mile Point 1
- 24. Nine Mile Point 2 Mark II 2,821,000
- 25. Oyster Creek Mark I 2,810,000
" " 2,810,000
- 26. Peach Bottom 2
" " 2,810,000
- 27. Peach Bottom 3
- 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
- 34. Susquehanna 2 " " 2,821,000
- 35. Vermont Yankee Mark I 2,810,000
- 36. Washington Nuclear 2 Mark II 2,814,000 Other Reactors:
- 1. Big Rock Point GE Dry Containment 2,810,000 i
- 2. Yankee Rowe Westinghouse PWR 2,855,000 Dry Containment
- 3. Rancho Seco B&W PWR-Dry Containment 2,860,000
- 4. Three Mile Island 2 B&W PWR-Dry Containment 2,866,000 The "Other Reactors" listed in Table V have not been 60
4 included in the fee base because historically they have been granted either full or partial exemptions from the annual fees.
j_ With respect to' Big Rock Point and Yankee Rowe,-the NRC, in this
! final rule, hereby grants partial exemptions from the FY 1992 i
annual fees based on requests filed with the NRC in accordance 4 '
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 surcharge. The NRC, in this final rule,_hereby grants full exemptions from the FY 1992 annual fees for Rancho Seco and Three Mile Island 2 based on the fact that these reactors are either permanently or prematurely shutdown and do not intend to operate in the-future.
1 i
j 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 reactor-shown in-l Table V. This surcharge recovers those NRC budgeted costs that l are not directly or solely attributable to operating power l reactors, but nevertheless must be recovered to comply with.the
- requirements of OBRA-90. The NRC has continued its previous
- policy decision to recover these costs from operating power reactors.
i The FY 1992 budgeted' costs.related to the additional charge and the amount of the charge are calculated as follows:-
61
., . ,_.~v -. . .<, .__n y . ,. ,-- - , , - ,
FY 1992 Budgeted Costs Cateaory of Costs (S In Millions)
- 1. Activities not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee:
- a. reviews for DOE /DOD reactor $4.1 projects, West Valley Demonstration Project, DOE Uranium ill Tailing Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) actions;
- b. international cooperative safety 7.9 program and international safeguards activities;
- c. 60% of low level waste disposal 5.8 generic activities; and
- d. uranium enrichment generic activities. .7
- 2. Activities not assessed Part 170 licensing and inspection tees or Part 171 annual fees based on Commission policy:
- a. activities associated with 6,6 nonprofit educational institutions; and
- b. costs not recovered from Part 171 5.4 l for small entities.
Subtotal Budgeted Costs $30.5 Less amount to be assessed to small older reactors with partial exemption under Part 171 .8 Total Budgeted Costs $29.7 i The annual additional charge is determined as follows:
l Total budaeted costs =
$29.7 million = S272,000 per Total number of operating 109 operating power power reactors reactor On the basis of this calculation, en operating power reactor, Beaver. Valley 1, for example, would pay a base annual-fee of $2,855,000 and an additional charge of.S272,000 for a 62
~~ .
total. annual foe of 53,127,000 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 as sessed for each major type of operating power reactor.
l l
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, i
and Government agencies licensed by the NRC.
l The introduction to paragraph-(c) is being revised to include educational institutions in the list identifying the types of small entities that may be eligible to pay a reduced annual-fee. -The change-in-this paragraph is necessary because educational institutions were inadvertently omitted from the final rule published on April 17, 1992 (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.
~
63
- - .~ ... . - . . . . - . - , .
Paragraph (d) is revised to reflect the FY 1992 budgeted costs for materials licensees, including Government 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 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 licensees 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 with uranium 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 those 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 determine whether there is a significant difference 64
4
}- between the. regulatory' services-provided to operating-in-situ l facilities that do not generate mill tailings as compared-to 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 i
facilities that do not generate uranium mill tailings because 4
there are generic regulatory activities (e.g.,' Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40) that are-necessary'to regulate uranium mill l tailings.
5 j- 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 researc'h, licensing, and inspection..
e t
65 -
-, . , . _ . , ....: . . , - . ., . - .. - -.-. , . . _ . . . - = , _ - ,
1
]
l I
I I
Table VI ALLOCATION OF NRC FY 1992 BUDGET TO FUEL FACILITY BASE FEESY Total Allocated to Program Element Fuel Facility Program Program Support Support S,K FTE S,K FTE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH Environmental Policy and $2,675 8.5 5180 .6 Decommissioning NSR PROGRAM TOTAL $180 .6 NUCLEAR MATERIAL & LOW LEVEL WASTE. SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS REGULATION Fuel Facilities Lic./ Inspections $2,460 39.1 $1,260 27.2 Event Evaluation -- 25.0 --
3.6 Safeguards Licensing / Inspection 665 21.9 615 16.7 Policy, Threat and Event Assessment 525 13.2 45 .6 Decommissioning 1,000 28.1 54 4.7 l
l ______ ______
NHLLWSSR PROGRAM TOTAL S1,974 52.8
====== ......
TOTAL $2,154 53 4 TOTAL BASE FEE AMOUNT ALLOCATED To FUEL FACILITIES S13.6 million E l
- LESS PART 170 FUEL FACILITY FEES 3.7 million PART 171 BASE FEES FOR FUEL FACILITIES $9.9 million 1/ Base annual fee includes all costs attributable to the fuel facility class of licensees. The base fee does not include costs allocated to fuel facilities for-policy reasons.
2/ Amount is obtained by multiplying the direct FTE times the rate per FTE and adding the program support funds.
66 l
9
Table VII ALLOCATION OF FY 1992 BUDGET TO MAIERIAL USERS BASE FEESU Allocated to Total Materials Users Program Program Support Support S,K FTE S,K FTE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH MISSION AREA Human Factors S5,750 5.2 $180 .3 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 Licensing / Inspection of Materials S2,190 110.5 $1,'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) S100 E i
j TOTAL $6,374 143.5 l
BASE AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO MATERIALS USERS (S,M) 537.1 million'd LESS PART 170 MATERIAL USERS FEES S5.8 million PART 171 BASE FEES FOR MATERIAL USERS S31.3 million 1/
Base annual fee includes all costs attributable to the materials class of licensees. 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
F The allocation of the NRC's $9.9 million in budgeted costs to the individual fuel facilities is based', as in FY 1991, primarily on the conferees' guidance that licensees who require the greatest expenditure of NRC resources should-pay the greatest ,
annual fee. Because the two high-enriched fuel manufacturing facilities possess strategic quantities of nuclear materials, more NRC generic safety and safeguards costs (e.g., physical security) are attributable to these-facilities.
Using this approach, the base annual fee for each facility is shown below.
Annual Fee (S in Thousands)
~
Hiah Enriched Fuel Safecuards Safety Total l
Nuclear Fuel Services $1,073 $1,097 $2.170 Babcock and Wilcox 1.073 1.097= 2.170 l
Subtotal '$2,146 l2,194 $4,340 Low Enriched Fuel Siemens Nuclear Power $150 $533 $683 Babcock and Wilcox 150 533. 683 General Electric 150. 533 683 Westinghouse . 150 533 683
' Combustion Engineering 150 533~ 683 (Hematite)
Combustion Engineering 150 533 . 681 l (Windsor) l Subtotal $900 - $ 3 ,19 8 - $4,098'
~
68
f UE Conversion Allied Signal Corp. $-- $381 $381 Sequoyah Fuels Corp. --
381 .381 Subtotal S-- $762 $762 Other fuel facilities (9 facilities at $72,000 --
$648 $648 each)
Total $3,046 $6,802 $9,848 4
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 licensees who do not generate uranium mill tailings (Class Il facilities). The remaining 20 percent is l
l allocated to the other uranium recovery facilities (e.g.
l extraction of metals and rare eart:1s) . The resulting annual fees for each class of licensee are:
l
)
Class I facilities $167,500 Class II facilities $73,200 Other facilities $58,800 i
l For spent fuel storage licenses, the generic costs of
$172,000 has been spread uniformly to those licensees who hold 69
1 4
y specific or general licenses for receipt and-storage of spent j
fuel at an ISFSI. This results.in an annual fee of $43,000.
To equitably and fairly allocate the $31.3 million attributable to the approximately 7,100 diverse material users
, and registrants, the NRC has continued to base the annual fee on the Part 170 application and routine inspection fees. Because the application and inspection fees are indicative of the i
complexity of the license, this approach-continues to provide a
, proxy for allocating the costs to the diverse categories of j licensees based on how much it costs NRC to regulate each i
l category. The fee calculation also continues to consider the-inspection frequency because the. inspection frequency is indicative of the safety risk and resulting reguAatory costs associated _with the categories of licensees. In summary, the
, annual fee for each category of license is-developed as follows:
Annual Fee = (Application Feel + Inspection Fee / Inspection Priority) x Constant + (Unique Category Costs)
The constant is the multiple necessary to recover $31.3 million and is 2;8 for FY 1992. The unique costs are'any special-
! 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' identified as being attributable'to radiography licensees; 4
and about $100,000 was identified as being attributable to 70
- _ . . . . , _ .- ., _ _ . . . . _ _ , ._. . . ~ , , _ , .
l t
irradiator licensees. On the average, the materials annual fees-for FY 1992 are increased about 50 percent above the FY 1991 annual fees. The reason for this significant increase is 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 fees in FY 1992 has decreased about 21 percent below the FY 1991 levels (from about 9,000;to about 7,000). The materials fees l must be established at these levels in order to comply with the mandate of OBRA-90 to recover approximately 100 percent'of the
, NRC's FY 1992 budget authority. A materials licensee may pay a reduced annual-fee if the licensee qualifies as a small entity -
under the NRC's size standards and certifies that it is a small 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 transportation casks under Category 18. -The remaining transportation costs for generic activities-($3.8 million) are allocated to holders of approved QA plans. The annual fee for-approved QA plans is.S62,800 for users and fabricators and'$1,500 for users only.
The amount or range of the FY 1992 base annual fees for all materials licensees is summarized as follows:
71
, . - , _ . . _ . , . . _ - . _ . _ _ . , - . ~ - . . . _
Materials Licenses Base Annual Fee Rances C,ateaory of License Annual Fees Part 70 - High enriched fuel $2.2 million Part 70 - Low enriched fuel $683,000 Part 40 - UF 6 conversion $381,000 i
Part 40 - Uranium recovery $58,800-$167,500 Part 30 - Byproduct Material $430-$16,400 1/
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 of broad-scope issued to Government agencies which is
$300,000.
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. T)-is surcharge continues to be shown, for-convenience, with the applicable categories in paragraph (d).
The additional charge recovers approximately 40 percent of the NRC budgeted costs of $3.8 million relating to LLW disposal generic activities because-40 percent of the LLW is generated by these licensees. Although these NRC LLW disposal regulatory activities are not directly attributable'to materials licensees, the costs nevertheless must be recovered in order to comply with 72
i l
~
l the requirements of OBRA-90. The Commission has continued the previous policy decision to recover approximately 40 percent of these LLW costs from materials licensees. The FY 1992 budgeted costs related to the additional charge and the amount of the charge are calculated as follows:
FY 1992 Budgeted Costs Cateaory of Costs ($ 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 UF 6 facility and $38,800-for each of the other 9 fuel facilities. The remaining 50 percent 4
($1.9 million).are allocated 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. The surcharge for Categories 4A and 17, which also generate and/or dispose--of-low: level waste,-is $38,800 for._ Category 4A-and
$36,000 for Category 17..
Of the $(.2 million not recovered from small entities, S.8-
~
73
million is allocated to fuel facilities and other materials licensees. This renults 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 of $1,750, for a total annual fee of $13,950 for FY 1992.
Section 171.19 Payment.
This section is revised to give credit for those partial payments made by certain licensees in FY 1992 toward their FY l 1992 annual fees. The NRC anticipates that the first, second, and third quarterly payments for FY 1992 will have been made by 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 l 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 the rule.
74
l J
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) .
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental impact assessment has 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 l
e With respect to Part 170, this final--rule was' developed i
pursuant to Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act-I 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 l March 4, 1974, in its-decision of National Cable' Television
! Association. Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 36 (1974) and i
Federal Power Commission v. New Encland Power-Comoany, '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 tolthe recipient" 75.
l -. . -- - - - -- - , -- - - - - -- -- ,, ~ ~ - -
of the agency service. The meaning of the IOAA was further clarified on December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, National Cable Television Association v. Federal _ Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1976); National Association of Broadcasters
- v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir.
1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1976) and Capital Cities Communication. Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1976). These decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop fee guidelines that are still used for cost recovery and fee development purposes.
The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mississinoi Power and Licht Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Reculatory i
l 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 i
! costs of providing routine inspections necessary to ensure a l licensee's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and with l
i applicable regulations; (3) the NRC could charge for costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews required by NEPA; (4) the NRC properly included the costs of uncontested hearings '
( and of administrative and technical support services in the fee
( --
schedule; (5) the NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license 1
i to operate a low-level radioactive waste burial site; and (6) the l l
76 i
i 1
-. - . _ . . . . . . .- - ~
l NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.
With respect to Part 171, on November 5, 1990, Congress passed Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBLA-90). For FYs 1991 through 1995, OBRA-90 requires that approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority be 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 l Compliance, registrations of sealed source and devices and QA l
l program approvals, and Government agencies. OBRAL90 and the l -
Conference Committee Report specifically state that (1) the annual fees 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 i
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
of facility or approval and the classes of the licensees.
Part 171, which established annual fees for operating power reactors effective October 20, 1986 (51 FR 33224; September 18, 1986), was challenged and upheld in its entirety in Florida Power and Licht Company v. United Statgs, 846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir.
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 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.
This final rule establishes 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
entities'under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, is includer. as Appendix A to this final rule.
IX. Backfit Analysis l
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, I
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 of or additions to systems,-structures, components, or design of a facility or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility.
List of Subjects 10-CFR Part 170-l l
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear-power plants and reactors, Source material, special nuclear material.
-Annual charges, Byproduct material, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 79
- . . . - . _ _ ~ . . - . . . _ _ - - - _ _ _ .-
I l power plants and reactors, source material, Special nuclear material, Holders of certificates, registrations, approvals, Penalties.
l 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. 551 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments 1
to 10 CFR Parts 170,'and 171.
l PART 170 -- FEES FOR FACILITIES, MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORT LICENSES, AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED l
- 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).
1~
- 2. In'S 170.3,'the definition nonorofit educational-institution is added to read as follows:
S-170.3 Definitions.
Nonorofit. educational institution means'a public or non-
'80-l.
profit 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.
- 3. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:
l S 170.20 Averaac cost oer Drofessional staff-hour.
Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special )
projects, Part 55 requalification and replacement examinations l I
and tests, other required reviews,. approvals, and inspections i 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
a 4
i r
J E 170.21 Schedule of fees for oroduction and utilization facilities, review of standard referenced desian acorovals.
- soecial oroiects, insoections and import and exoort licenses.
1-
, Applicants for construction permits, manufacturing licenses, operating licenses, import and' export licenses,-approvals-of- L facility standard reference designs,-requalification and
' replacement examinations for reactor operators, and special projects'and holders of construction permits, licenses, and other
[
f approvals shall pay-fees for the following categories of
. services.
Schedule of Facility Fees i
l (see footnotes at end of table)-
j Facility Categories and Type of Fees Fees1 / 2/
I h K. Import and export-licenses:
i i-e
{ Licenses fornthe import-and export only of-production i
4 and utilization facilities orfthe import.and export-
- 1. -
only of components'for production and' utilization
-t j facilities issued pursuant tof10.CFR:Part 110.
1 I. 1. _ .
Application for import or'exportfof reactors and. s I
82 a
+
i
. . . . - . ~ . . . . , _ . , _ , _ . , , _ , - , - . _ , .- . , , .-_.,,,...a, ..,_,...,-_.,,,.,,.....-.-......_...m _ . , . . . . . - . _ . . . . , . ~ _ , , ,
$ I i
1 i >
1 other facilities and components which must be i reviewed by the Cc.nnission and the Executive !
l 4 i j Branch, for example, actions under 10 CFR .,
i 110.40(b). :
}
i j Application-new license . . . . . $8,000 J
] Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,000 j i
i l
- -2. Application for import or export of reactor components and initial exports of_other equipment l requiring Executive Branch reva.ew only, for
! example, 'those actions under 10 CFR 110.41(a) (1)-
] +
l 1
(8).
s l Application-new license . . . . . $4,900 i
i Amendment . . . . .. . . . . . . $4,900- '
i l-l 3. Application for export of components requiring k foreign government assurances only. ,
i l-Application-new license . . . - . . $3,100 i
j- Amendment-, . . . . . . . . . . . $3,100 l' 4. Application.for export.or import of other' facility :
- components and equipmentinot requiring Commission
- review, Executive Branch review or foreign l
government. assurances.
i-
- - 83
] Application-new license . . . . . $1,200 1
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 t
S. Minor amendment of any export or import license to l
f extend the expiration date, change domestic 5
1 information, or make other revisions which do not
{
! require analysis or review.
! Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $120 l 1/ Feen will not be charged for orders issued by the commission 1
pursuant to S 2.202 of this chapter or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of such commiusion orders.
Fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific I exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under Title 3 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g. SS 50.12, 73.5) and i
- any other sections now or hereafter in effect regardless of l
whetner 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 are initially. issued for j- . .
- j. less than full-power are' based on review through the issuance of
, a full power license (generally full power is' considered 100% of ,
the facility's full rated power). Thus, if a licensee received a l
h low power license or a temporary license for less-than full powera 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 i
l' 84 4
_w.,.,,y,.. , , , , w, -. y % m cr . * , --y b y y .w-. , -,.g., m. - *,,.,y7--,-.,%,7 +
i l 1 i i i i
power operation. If a situation arises in which the commission i determines that full operating power for a particular facility 1
should be less than 100% of full rated power, the total costs for l the license will be at that decided lower operating power level ,
and not at the 100% capacity.
i 2/
) Full cost fees will be determined based on the profesalonal 1
j i
staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended.
For those applications currently on file and fer which fees are-j determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the j professional staff hours expended for the review of the 1
l application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 4
1984, January 30, 1980, July 2, 1990, and July 10, 1991 rules, as I appropriate. For those applications currently on file for which 4
i review costs have reached an applicable fee c. lang established 6
by the June 20, 1984, and July 2, 1990, rules but are still j
i pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any j applicable ceiling was reached thre gh'Junuary 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours l expended above:those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will
! bs assessed.at the applicable retes established by S 170.20, as -
appropriate, except for topica] reports whosa costs exceed e .$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, Larough l
i August-8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any 85
__ . - _ . . . ._ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . , . - . - , _ _ _ , _ . _ . . . . _ . , _ - _ . , _ _ . - . . - . , , . ~ , ,
professional hours expended on or after Auguct 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.
l
- 5. Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:
E 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other Leculatory services. includina insoectinns, and import and exoort licenses.
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.
l 1
i l
l l-86
i SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES (See footnotes at end of table)
Catecorv of materials licenses and tvoe of fees1/ .f33 2/' II i
- 1. Special nuclear material:
A. Licenses for possession and use of 200 grams or more of plutonium in unsealed form or 350 grams or more of contained-U-235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more of U-233 in unsealed form. This includes applications-to terminate licenses as well as licenses authorizing possession only: 1 1 ,
{
License, Renewal, Amendment-. . .. . . . Full: Cost Inspect' ions:
Routine . . . . .. . . .. . . Full cost ,
Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost l
1 B. Licenses for receipt and storage'of spent fuel at an independent spent fuel _ storage installation (ISFSI):
License, Renewal, Amendment . . -.= . ..
Full Cost l
87 r.- , _ , ... ... .%,.-... - , , , . . . . - - _ ~ , ., . . . . - - , _ _ _ _ , . . - , . . - - , , . . , _ . . . . , , , -
. - - . . . - - . - . .- - .-. - -..._-_- . _ . _ - -._ - _ .. - - .-. - _=..-_.--..
4 1
4 4 J
i 4 Inspections:
4 Routine . . . . . . . . - . . . . Full Cost 2
~
Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full cost h
4 4
{ C. Licenses for possession and use of
, special nuclear material in sealed s . ,
sources contained in devices used
! in industrial measuring systems, i
t including x-ray fluorescence analyzers:l/
l.
1 Application - New license , -
. . . . . $540 ;
i a
Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. $540 t
Amendment . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . -
$410 J
! Inspections:
j Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . ' $490 1
1
, Nonroutine . . . - . . . . . . . $1,400
- D. All other special nuclear material licenses, s
i except licenses authorizing special nuclear '
j material in unsealed form in combination that
- would constitute a critical quantity, as defined in 5 150.11 of this chapter, for which .
the licenses shall pay the same fees as those j for' Category 1Asil Application - New license . .- . . . - . - . _ $740.
~ Renewal . . . - . . .. . . . . . . - . ..$740 .
t
[ 88 7 ,.y-9 7 . ~41,-v---% , -r-r-+,...,., y w,-,erm, --,r-1y ,- -
+p , v e-c.- y-#-4, ....,,, enow,i ...m,e., ,v-e,,,--,s +,-v...,ve--=,me. - -,-e.--r-+-. ,e,-m-e-c.+- . ww+ -.
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 -t 7
l- Inspectionst l Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . $740 i
- Nonroutine . . . . . . . - . . . . $860 i
4 j E. Licenses for construction and operation of i a uranium enrichment facility.
i
, Application . . . . . . . . . . . $125,000 License, Renewal, Amendment . . . Full Cost Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost 4
f
- 2. Source material:
A A. Licenses for possession and use of source I
material in recovery operations such as-i milling, in-situ leaching , heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, 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 i
possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery 8 9 '-
q- g .-miww y g .-y y.7y e vig 9 ,.p p soy yg g wg gy,,i g.g,y .p y 9 7g_.yg,99._9y.gp.-pg.pg.-g.gt qs + ,, p g-9 yag, 9 ,4-,.A,g9g-w g y g, w ai,, ggy _ gy,p9,,__,.L,.9 p.:sg Q7s,p -ngg-p,,-
Y i i :
4-t !
1 i
j- operations, as well as licenses authorizing i
j the possession and maintenance of.a facility 1 .
I I
in a standby mode:
4 1
i i
License, Renewal, Amendment . . . . Full Cost I
4 t j Inspections: '
1
- Routine . . .. . . . . . . . . Full Cost I
s l Nonroutine -. . . . . . . . . . Full Cost I
,i
?
j B. Licenses for possession and use of source j material for shielding:-
i 4
i Application - New license . . . . . $120 j - Renewal . . . . . . . . . . .- . . .. $120 l
! - Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $120 s
b j Inspections: ,
j . Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $310 l Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . .- . $370-i j C. All other source material licenses i
1
!- Application - New license- . . . .-. $850-1 lL Renewal . . .. . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . -$800 i
l- Amendment- ... . . . = . 1 . -- -. , . - - .-
$480 Inspections:
i i
Routine . . . .-._. . . . - . . . . $860 Nonroutine .... . . .._-_. . $1,600 l
l t
90 i
l
[n
. . , . - - - - - , - - - , , , . . . _ , . . . . . . , . , _ .,._..__..__,.,_,;_,,.,,........4_.....s.,, , _ , , , . -_ a , ,, ., _.,-.u..,,~.,L__,..,;<,.,,-,,;.
- 3. Byproduct material:
A. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use 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:
l i
Application - New license . . . . . $2,500 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 i
Inspections:El
, Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $2,200 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $2,200 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 byproouct material for i commercial distribution:
Application - New license . . . . . $1,400
, Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,500 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $590 Inspections: U
, Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,100 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $2,100 i
91
C. Licenses issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators,. reagent kits and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material:
Application -Hew 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 j redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, i
j generators, reagent kits and/or sources or l devices not involving processing of byproduct j material:
Application - New-license .-. . -. . $1,200 l Renewal . . . . - . = . . . , . .l. . . .- $540 1
Amendment . .: .. . . . . . . . . . - . .. $330--
Inspections:
Routine'.. . . . . .. . .- . . . .. $860' 92
. - _ - . _ , . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ , _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . __, ... _ .._ .. , - ~ ., . . _ . _ . . . ~ . _ - , , , _ _ _ _
_. _ _-__ _ =._ _ -- _ _ ._._ .___.._.... _ . _ _ . _ . . _._ . . _ _ ._ _ _ . . _ - .__ _
)
a 1
i t
l Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 i
1 E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct l material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed i
i from its shield (self-shielded units): ,
I l Application - New license . . . . . . $540 i
I Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $510
- Amendment . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . $270 j- Inspections
t l Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $490
]
}. Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740
.I i
1
, F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 i
- curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for
)
{
irradiation of materials in which the source is j exposed for irradiation purposes:
l Application - New license . . . . . $1,300 f Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . .
$430 i
. Amendment . . . . . . . .- . . . . .- . $370 4-Inspections:.
- - Routine . . . . .- .- . . . . .- ,- $620 4
, Nonroutine .-. . .- .- . . .- . .: $1,400 4
G.. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or-more of byproduct material in sealed sources 93J 3
=,..__~.._.- . _ . . _ . , - . . . . --
. . _ . . . . - - . . ~ . - , _ . . . _ , _ . , . . , - . . . _ _ . - _ , . , , , . . _ . . _ . . . - . _ . . ~ . . . . , . _ , - - . . . - . .
1 4
1 for irradiation of materials in which the source
. is exposed for irradiation purposes:
1 4
1 4
- Application - New license . . . . . $4,900 1
Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,000 I Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $490 l Inspections:
j Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,100-Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,500 i
t H. Licences issued pursuant to Subpart A of Part 32' of this chapter to distribute items containing 2
- byproduct material that require device review to i persons exempt from the licensing requirements of i.
Part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses-authorizing redistribution of items that=have been l authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of.this
- chapter
i i
i
! Application - New license ....
1
. . . $2,200 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 i
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $270 J.
Inspections:
, Routine . . . . .. . . . . . . $740 l Nonroutine .- . ... . . . . . $740 1
I; Licenses issued pursuant _to1Subpart A of Part 32 l 94 i
t 4
_ . _ . . , . _ . _ _ _ _ , . - . - - - _ _ _ . - _ _ -~ _ _ _ - . __
of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct L material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements 1
of Part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that t i ,
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 l
l l
J. Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute 'tems i containing l byproduct material that require sealed source i
and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of-this chapter, except specific l
l licenses authorizing redistribution of items that t=
l have-been authorized for distribution to persons l
generally licensed-under Part 31 of this chapter:!
l Application - New license . . . . . $2,700 Renewal . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . $620 95 l
o
l i
i Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $420 1
4 Inspections:
I
< Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $740
] Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740
)
I K. Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing 3 byproduct material or quantities of byproduct .
I material that do not require sealed source and/or l device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of.this 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 . . . . . $2,000 Renewal . . . . .. . . . . . . -. . . .$1,000 ,
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $310 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $740 Nonroutine . .. . . . . . . ... $740 L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issuedLpursuant to:-Parts 30 and:
33 of_this chapter for research and development that:
do not authorize commercial distribution:
Application - New license . . .:. .. $2,500-96
_ _ _ ._ . . _ . _ - . , . . - _ , - __ . .c. . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . , _ -__. __., _ ..,. _ _. - ._ ._
Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,100 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $540 1
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 Renewal . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $670 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . $860 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $1,000 1
- 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, 4B, and 4C
Application - New license . . . . . $1,500 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $860 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $430 97
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:E/
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . $1,300 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . $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
1 4 i I
i
' i 4
)
] A. Licenses specifically authorizing the-receipt of l waste byproduct material, source material, or special j nuclear material from other persons for the purpose i
j of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by '
the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency
! storage of low level radioactive waste at the site of l
} nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of i
J waste from other persons for incineration or other l treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, i and transfer of packages to another person authorized i
l to receive or dispose of waste material i
! License, renewal, amendment . . . Full Cost
- Inspections
Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . Full Cost i
i B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of '
waste byproduct material,-source material, or i
special nuclear material from other persons for 4
, the purpose of packaging or repackaging the-
!~
material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to i
- receive or dispose.of the material
Application - New license . ... S3,000 Renewal . . . . . . . .. . . . . $2,000-Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . .-$210 t
99
. , , .- . - , . . . - ,- . - . . . . . - _ , ~ . - . _ . . . - - - - - - .- . . . . - . . . . - - , -
Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . $2,200 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . $1,700 :
l C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other. r persons. The licenses will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material Application - New license . . . . $2,000 Renewal . .' . . . . . . . .. . . $1,000 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 i
Inspections:
l i
Routine . . . . . . . . . . $1,700 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . $2,200
- 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: '
Application - New license . . . . . $3,600 Renewal . . . .. . . . . . - . . .. $2,100~
Amendment . . .. . . . . . . .. . -$580 100 $
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:
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 Nonroutine . . .. . . . . . $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 material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New license . . . . . . $2,500 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,200 Amendment .. . . . - . . . . . . . $390 i
Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . .'$1,700 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . -. .$1,900 C. Other licenses issued l pursuant to-psrts 30, 35, 40, 102
. - - . -. .~, .:.- - _. ;-. :, . - .....--,.:.....-.,a.-,-..,-..--.,- -
I and 70 of this chapter for human use of~ byproduct material, source material, and/cr 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 i
Nonroutine . . . . . .- . . . $1,600
- 8. Civil defense:
A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities:
Application - New license . . . . . . $620-Renewal . .. . - . . . . . . . . . . . $430 Amendment . . . . .. . - . . . . .. . $330 Inspections:
Routine . . . - .- .- . . .- . . .~$740 Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . $740'
- 9. Device, product, or sealed-source safety evaluation:
l i
103 i
1
i .
i -
2 4 !
i
'l i A.- Safety-evaluation of devices or products
! l i
4 containing byproduct material, source material, or f 1
special nuclear material, except reactor fuel t i devices, for commercial distribution:
1 i
J j Application - each device . . . . $3,500 1
J Amendment - each device . . . . . . $1,300 .
Inspections:
i 1
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost I Nonroutine .-.. . . . . -. . . . Full Cost s
l 1 l
- B. Safety evaluation of. devices or products l containing-byproduct material, source material,- f or special nuclear material i nanufactured in f
l accordance with the unique specifications of, i.
i and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices:
i i
o Application - each device . . . . $1,700 I
t Amendment - each device . . . . - . $620 j'
j Inspections:-
, Routine . . . . . . . . . . .
Full Cost
+
{- Nonroutine . -
. . . . . . . . Full Cost i i-C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing-j byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for i
! commercial. distribution: ,
- 104 -
+
n e w w.ye-E- w- v y ,' ryiv- ww -wvvv - -y ,, g
- w . =e ow -s y r w =megr7 +e-ea t-~ n we e ew rr --rw-y , ~ w - rr-w = v ,~+>e- --+nr,-ww.=,. we<w.-- tew n r-4-- e v v o ,h --* - ** t wer r
- -> r w or -v v >- e--4 v w
1 1
m I
Application - each source . . . . $740 l
Amendment - each source . . . . . . $250 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost I 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 i
by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel:
Application - each source . . . . . ^$370 Amendment - each source . . . . . . $120 Inspections:
I j 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
_ , _ , ~ - , - - _ . . . . , _ . , . _ , . - . . . . , - . . ~ . - _ . . _ . . _ . . . , - . . . . . - _ . . _ . . , _ . . . _ . .
- - - _ = _ . .. . - - - - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ -. --- _- . _ _ . -_
B. Evaluation of 10 CFR Part 71 quality assurance programs:
Application - Approval . . . . . . $250 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $250 Inspections:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost
- 11. Review of standardized spent fuel facilities:
l Approval, Renewal, Amendment . . Full Cost Inspections . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost i
l
- 12. Special projects:
Approvals and preapplication /
licensing activities . . . . . Full Cost Inspections . . . . . . . . . . Full cost
- 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate I of Compliance:
Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Amendments, revisions, and supplements . . . .. . . .. . . Full Cost 106
d 4
Reapproval . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost
]
B. Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance:
i Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost 4
C. Inspections related to storage of spent fuel 3 under S 72.210 of this chapter:
Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . F'ull Cost 4
i Nonroutine . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost 1
4
- 14. Byproduct, source, or specia) nuclear material licenses i
and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, or site restoration I
activities pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 l.
of this chapter:
Approval, Renewal, Amendment Full Cost Inspecti>n:
I Routine . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost Nonroutine . . . . . . . . Full Cost
- 15. Import and Export licenses
Licenses issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 110 of this chapter
-107
J for the import and export only of special nuclear material, source material, byproduct material, heavy water, tritium, or nuclear grade graphite.
i 1
A. Application for import or export of HEU and other 1
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 0 requiring Executive Branch review only, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.41(a) (2)-(8) .
I 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
D. Application for export or import of other materials not requiring Commission review, Executive Branch review or foreign government assurances.
Application-new license . . . . . $1,200 Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200 E. Minor amendment of any export or import license to extend the expiration date, change domestic information or make other revisions which do not require analysis or review.
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . $120
- 16. Reciprocity:
Agreement State licensees who conduct activities in a non-Agreement State under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR 150.20.
Application (each filing of i
l Form 241) . . . . . . . . .. . $640 Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'N/A 1
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A Inspections:
l Routine and nonroutine . . . Fees as l
specified in appropriate fee categories in this section.
109
. . __. ._ _ . ,_ -- .u -
l l
e i
1 i
I 1/Tvoes of feqa - Separate charges as shown in the schedule j will be assessed for preapplication consultations and reviews and 1
j applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new j 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:
i i
(a) Aeolication fees - Applications for new materials licenses and approvals; applications to reinstate expired licenses and approvals except those subject to fees assessed at i
full cost; and applications filed by Agreement State licensees to i
register under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 150.20, must be accompanied by the prescribed r4pplication fee for each category, except that: 1) applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source l
i 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 i $125,000.
- (b) License /anoroval/ review fees - Fees for applications l for new licenses and' approvals and for preapplication i
j consultations and. reviews subject to full cost fees (fee Categories 1A, 1B, 1E,-2A, 4A,-5B, 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).
3 (c) Renewal /reanoroval f,ggs - Applications for renewal of-licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed t
! renewal fee for each category, except thet fees for applications j .for renewal of licenses and approvals subject to full cost-fees I
(fee Categories 1A, 1B, 1E, 2A, 4A, SB, 10A, 11, 12, 13A, and 14) t are due upon notification by the Commission in-accordance with-l 5 170.12(d).
l (d) --Amendment fees -
l l
l . (1) Applications'for. amendments to licenses and_ approvals,
! except'those subject to fees assessed at full costs, must be accompanied by the proscribed amendment f.'a for.each license.
affected. An appli ne. tion for an amendme.it to : a license .or :
approval classified in more taan one fee'cutegory;must be accompanied by the prescribed amendnent 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 l
the: highest fee category would apply. For.thoseLlicenses:and-i-
approvals subject to full. costs-(fee Categories 1A, 1B,-1E,- 2A, 1 4A, SB , - 10A, -.11, o 12 ', 13A, and'14),.7 amendment fees are due upon notification:by the CommissionLin accordance with-S1170.12(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 ~ __ _~_ _ _ . , . _ . . _ . _ . . . - . . . _ . . _ . . - . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ . - . _ -..;.__a.~...
category or add a new fee category must be a: companied by the prescribed application fee for the new category.
(3) An application for amendment to a license or approval unat would reduce the scope of a licensee's program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.
(4) Applications to terminate licenses authorizing small materials programs, when no dismantling or decontami.tation procedure is required, are not subject to fees.
(e) Insoection 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 of 10 CFR 150.20. Inspections resulting from investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and 1
nonroutine inspections that result from third-party allegations are not subject to fees. If a licensee holds more than one materials license at a r: ingle 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 fees are 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 112
i wi'.1 be added. Licenses covering more than one category will be
$ .:harged a fee equal to the highest fee category covered by the 4
license. Inspection fees are due upon notification by the
{ commission in accordance with S 170.12(g). See Footnote 5 for other inspection notes.
f i
' Il Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the 4
! Commission pursuant to 10 CFR=2.202 or for amendments resulting i
! specifically from the requirements of such Commission orders, j However, fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a j specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations j under Title 10 of the Code of' Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR i-
] 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other sections now cr j hereafter in effect) regardless of whether the approval'is in the e
form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety
} evaluation report, or other form. In addition to the fee showr, an applicant may be assessed e additional-fee for sealed c,urce and device evaluations as Jun.a in Categories 9A through 9D.
.i i
I/ Full cost fees will be determined based.on the
! professional staff time and appropriate contractual support j services expended. For those applications currently on file and j for which fees are determined based on the full cost' expended for
+
the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review l of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be o
I determined at the professional rates established for the' June 20, 1984, January 30, 1989, July 2, 1990, and July 10, '
991, rules,
, 113
,-,--,-w - , * - ~ , - - 4 # , - . ,-,
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 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, 1985, 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 i
not subject to fees under Categories 1C and-1D 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 3icense. Applicants for new licenses or renewal of existing licenses that cover.both byproduct material and special nuclear maturial in sealed sources for use in gauging devices will pay the appropriate application or reneual fee for fee Category 1C only.
114
. - . - . - ~ . - - . - - . . _- -. - . . - - - . -
El For a license authorizing shielded-radiographic installations or manufacturing. installations at more than one address, a separate fee will be assessed for inspection of each location, except that if the multiple installetions 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 CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY THE NRC.
- 6. The authority citation for Part 171 is. revised to read as follows:
1 Authority: Sec. 7601, Pub. L.99-272, 100 Stat. 146, as amended by sec. 5601,. Pub. L. 100-203, 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.i2213); sec. 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201(W) ) ; sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242'as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).-
l
- 7. In 5 171.5 the definition nonorofit. educational institution is added to-read as follows:
l; l
l 'S171.5 Definitions.
L 1
115
.- .- . . - .- . .-- - , - , , - - . . - . - . . . . - . - . . - - ~.
Nonprofit educational institution meann a public or nenprofit 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 wh3 ch it awarr:s academic degrees, and whose educational programs are available to the public.
T s
- 8. In S 171.11, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
i 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 authorizov 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 establishing 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
. . _ _ -- = . . -- . - - _
!4 4
date would not be considered. The filing'of an exemption request
] does not extend the date on which the bill is payable. Only the j timely payment in full ensures avoidance of interest and penalty l
charges. If a partial or full exemption is granted, any overpayment will be refunded.
I 1
4 h
- 9. In S 171.15, paragraphs (b) (3 ) , (c) (2) , (d), and (e) are revised to read as follows:
d
- E 171.15 Annual Fees
- Reactor operatina licenses.
4 (b) ***
l (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 PY 1992 annual i-fees'for each operating power reactor' subject to fees under this a
section and-due before September 30, 1992, are shown in paragraph
- (d) of this section.
-(c) ***
\
g (2) The FY 1992 surcharge to be added to each operating-power reactor is $272,000. This amount is calculated by dividing-i 117
i 1 l
- l
< the total cost for these activities ($29.7_million) by the number j 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 j (Fees in Millions) i
[ Base Added- Total Estimated
- Reactor Vendor Number Egg Charae- Egg Collections i Babcock /Wilcox 7 $2.866 .272 $3.138 $22.0 l Combustion Eng. 15 2.850 .272 3.122 46.8 GE Mark I 24 2.810 .272 3.082 74.0-I GE Mark II 8 2.821 .272 -3.093- 24.7 GE Mark III 4 2.810 .272 3.082 12.3 Westinghouse _11 2.855 .272 3.127 159.5 i
Totals 109 $339.3 l
I t
Fees-assessed by reactor vendor will vary for plants west of -
i the Rocky Mountains and for Westinghouse plants with ice condensers.
I (e) The annual fees for licensees authorized to-operate a -
~
l nonpower-(test and research) reactor licensed'under Part 50 of i
this chapter except for those reactors exempted from fees under S 171.11(a), are'as follows:
Research reactor $55,700 i Test reactor $55,700 i-l *****
f I
118 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:
d 4 171.16 Annual Fees: Materials Licensees. Holders of Certificates of Compliance. Holders of Sealed Source and Device Recistrations. Holders of Ouality Assurance Procram ADorovals and Government acencies licensed by the NRC.-
i (c) A licensee-who is required to pay an annual fee'under-this section may qualify.as a small entity. If aclicensee qualifies as a small entity and:provides the Commission with the proper-certification,-the licensee may pay' reduced. annual fees for FY 1992 as follows: j
-i l- Small Businesses and Small Maximum' Annual--Fee Not-For-Profit Oraanizations Per Licensed Catecory-(Gross Annual Receiets)
$250,000 to $3.5 million L$1~,800
-Less than-$250,000 .$400 i Private Practice Physicians ~ l L
o (Gross-Annual Receints)
$250,000 to $1.0 million $1,800 Less than $250,000 $400 l
l-L 119 i
t
Small Governmental Jurisdictions (Includina oublicly suonorted educational institutions)
(Population) 20,000 to 50,000 $1,800 Less than 20,000 $400 Educational Institutions that $1,800 are not State or Publicly Supported. and have 500 Employees or Less.
(4) The maximum annual fee (base annual fee plus surcharge) a small entity is required to pay for FY 1992 is $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 i'
fees under this section are as follows:
l SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRC (See footnotes at end of table) 1 2, 3 Annual Fees ,
Catecorv of materials licenses
- 1. Special nuclear material:
A.(1) Licenses for possession and use 120
,. , . -. . _ -. _ _ . _ _ . . . ~ . - . _ _ _ _
4 i
~
i
} of U-235 or plutonium for fuel -
l fabrication activities, a
l- Hiah Enriched Fuel License No. Docket'No.
! Babcock and Wilcox SNM-42 70-27 $2 170,000
! Nuclear Fuel Services SNM-124 70-143 2,170,000 Low Enriched Fuel B&W Fuel Company SNM-1168 70-1201 $683,000 Combustion Engineering (Hematite) SNM-33 70-36 683,000
{ Combustion Engineering
- (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-t
, Surcharge . . . . . ; - . . . . $155,250 i
i
! A.(2) All other special nuclear i
l materials licenses not included in 1. A. (1) above for possession 3
- and use of 200 grams or.more of J
plutonium in unsealed form or 350
, grams or more of contained-U-235
} .
- in unsealed form or 200 gramsuor; j noreEof U-233 in unsealed form.- .$72,000 l Surcharge . . . . - . . . . - .$38,950 i
I B.- Licenses for receipt and-storage of spent fuel'at.an. independent speri l fuel storage installation (ISFSI). l$43,000 121 3.
-. ..,-< ., -., c.-r - , , , = , . - - . . . .....-*-..-~.n,.,,,--..,~,. , m..w.y.-.. + , a
f -- ,
} Surcharge . - _ . . - . - ' . '
... $1,750 i
h-C. Licenses for possession and use.of L
I special nuclear material:in. sealed l- sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including
- x-ray fluorescence analyzers.
- $1,700 i
i j Surcharge . . . . . . . .. $150 i-
- t l
D. All other speci'alinuclear material l -
licenses, except licenses. authorizing j special' nuclear material:in unsea'ed- l l
form'in combination that would constitute t
a criticalfquantity, as defined int -
4 S'150.11 of this chapter,-for which 1
the licensee shall-pay-the same fees
- as those for Category'1.A.-(2).. -
~$2,300:
3 i- -Surcharge ~. . . . . . . . ..
.$1,750l -
l --
1 - .
. - z E.
- - Licenses for.the operation of a uranium enrichment? facility.1
~
- $ N/AE
)'
- 2. Source. material: '
- -l .
122-.
. -..._: -- . ... . - . . . - . . . ~ . . . , , _ , . , , , . . - - , = . . . . . , . , ,
A.(1) Licenses for possession and use of source material for refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride. $381,000 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $155,250 (2) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, ore buying stations, ion exchange facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or therium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery l operations, as well as licenses authorizing i
the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode.
Class I facilities' . . . . . . . $167,500 l
Class II facilities' . . . . . . . $73,200 l
Other facilities . . . . . . . $58,800 123
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150-B. Licenses which authorize only the possession, use and installation of source material for shielding. $430 Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . $150 C. All other source material licenses. $3,000 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750
- 3. Byproduct material:
i A. Licenses of broad scope.for possession i
and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts-30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproductimaterial for commercial distribution.- -$9,400 Surcharge . . . . . . . .. $1,750 r
B. Other licenses 1for_ possession and use.
of byproduct material issued-pursuant to Part 30 of this. chapter for processing'or-manufacturing of items.
containing byproduct material for 124
- n
. .- -~-. . _- . .. .- . - . _ _ . . .- ...-- . . _ . . .
commercial distribution. -$4,600 f
Surcharge .'. . . ..- .. . . $1,750 i
C. Licenses issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing the processing.or_ -
manufacturing and distribution or redistribution-of-radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or' sources and devices'containing byproduct material.
This category also includes the possession and use of source material'for-shielding authorized pursuant to Part:401of-this i i 1
! ~
chapter when included on:the same--
license. $10,900 j I
1 i
Surcharge . . . _ . - .. .. . $1,750 1 l
D. Licenses and approvals-issued pursuant to SS 32.72, 32.73,-and/or_32.74 of
.this chaptercauthorizing'distribu-tion or redistribution of radiophar-maceuticals,igenerators,-reagent kits and/or sources or; devices;not involving ~
processing of. byproduct ~ material'.- This-
~
category also includes the possession
-and use of-source material for shielding 125'
_~
'I authorized pursuant to Part 40 of this chapter when included on the same license. $3,800 Surcharge . . .. . . . . $150 E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources ;g 3
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-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. S16,400-126-
i l'
Surcharge . . . . . . .. $150 d
i H. Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A i
j of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review;to persons exempt l from the licensing' requirements of Part 30 i
of this chapter, except specific licenses
{ authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to
, persons exempt from the licensing a
requirements of Part 30 of this j chapter.- $6,300 l
i
(
! Surcharge .. . . . . . . $150-l
- I. Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A-of Part 32 of this. chapter..to distribute f items containing byproduct material or .
quantities of byproduct material that:
! do not require device evaluation to i
persons exempt from the. licensing 1
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 127-
i of Part 30 of this chapter. $7,600 I
l Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 1
l J. Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B I
of Part 32 of this chapter'to distribute l
} items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device l
i j review to persons generally licensed
$ under Part 31 of this chapter, except i-
!' specific licenses authorizing i
- redistribution of items that have i
4 been authorized-for distribution to i persons generally licensed under i
Part 31 of this chapter. $7,500 i
Surcharge . .. . . . . . $150 I
j K. Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 31'of this' chapter to.
distribute items containing-byproduct i: material or quantitiesoof byproduct
- material that do not require sealed source and/or. device review to persons i
. generally licensed under Part~31 of this.' chapter, except-specific licenses o
- authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution 4
128 l
1
' , , , , ,4 .1,,.. ...,... . . , _ . . . .. , . , , . . . _ . , .--,s.,,e, ,.m4.., ., -,..4.~.-- ,
to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter. $6,000 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 i
L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. $7,400 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 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. $3,700 Surcharge ._. . . . . . . $1,750 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 129
services are subject to the fees specified ;
in fee Categories 4A, 4B, and 4C. $4,400 i
Surcharge . . _ . . . . . . $1,750 i
i O. Licenses for-possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for-shielding-authorized pursuant to Part 40 of this chapter when authorized on the same license.. $12,800 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150-l l
l l- P. All other spocific. byproduct material licensei, except those in Categories 4A through 9D. $2,100 Surcharge . .. .. .- . . . -$150 L 4. Waste. disposal and processing:
A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct' material,. -
source; material,~or special nuclear -
I .130 l
.- . . . - , - - - - . , . . - - . . ,, ..,..-.c.-n...,~, .- . , - , - , . . . . . , , - , - , .
l l
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 4
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 receive or dispose of waste material. $84,500E/
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $38,950
, B. Licenses specifically authorizing the l receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the i
purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to l
j receive or dispose of the material. $13,800 l
l 131
( .- . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . - . . - . . . . .- . . .. - . . - -. . . .- - - . - .
i i
L a =!
I' l l ,
l Surcharge-. . . - . . . - . . $1,750L i s f
l C. Licenses specifically authorizing the i
l receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct
- - material, source material,-'or special=
1 l_- nuclear material from other persons.
The licensee will dispose of.the
- material by transfer to another j person' authorized to receive-or--
i-l dispose of the material. $7,600 k
4.
l l Surcharge . - -
$1,750.
l-i-
- 5. Well logging:.
)s i
- A. Licenses for-possession and'use of byproduct material, - source material,.
- _ and/or special nuclear material for well-
[ . logging, well surveys,.and-tracer' studies 1other than field flooding- '
- tracer-studies. $10,300 l
i j Surcharge . . . -.- - . . _ . .- $150-
{ B. Licenses for. possession =and use~of=
l byproduct material forifield" flooding t
tracer studies. $15,000 i
l l ' 132-
?
I
-y,- 1, vr - - , , - , v, , h ,m,, - - = 4- . ,-se - a ac ,', ea-w-_ da --e + w-e #. - - - -wy,- w * + - ha e=~-'
i l
Surcharge . . . . . .. . $1,750 j 6. Nuclear laundries:
i l A. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, 4
l or special nuclear. material. $5,100 1
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 i
i
- 7. Human use of byproduct, source, or special~ nuclear
{
- material.
e i
I I
A. Licenses-issued pursuant to Parts 30, i
- 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, I
j source material,.or special nuclear' l
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 i
Surcharge.. . . . . . .. $150 i
- . B. Licenses of broad scope issued to 4
7 medical institutions or two or more
- 133
-_. . - ~ - . - . . -. . . . - -. - - .- . .. -
i a
physicians pursuant to Parts 30, 33,
- 35, 40 and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, i including human use of byproduct j material except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources i
l contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession l and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.1/ $12,200 4
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $1,750 l
! C. Other licenses issued pursuant to
- Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this j chapter for human use of byproduct j material, source material and/or i
! special nuclear material except
) -licenses for byproduct material, 4
l source material, or.special nuclear
-material in sealed: sources containedL in teletherapy-devices. .This .
I category also includes the possession j
i and use of source material for shielding when authorized-on the i same license.1/ $4,600 134
- -_ . . . . . _ - . _ . - _ . _ .__ . . _ . . . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . - _ . . . . . . . __.
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150
- 8. Civil defense:
4 A. Licenses for possession and use of 4
byproduct mar.erial, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities. $1,900 d
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. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material l 135
i a
manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices. $4,500 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 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 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 D. Registrations issued for the 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 1
by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel. $990 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150
- 10. Transportation of radioactive material:
136
A. Certificates of Compliance or other package approvals issued for design of casks, packages, and shipping containers.
Spent Fuel, High Level Waste and N/AE/
plutonium air packages Other Casks N/AE/
B. Approvals issued of 10 CFR Part 71 quality assurance programs.
Users and Fabricators $62,800 Users $1,500 Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150 l 11. Standardized spent fuel = facilities. N/A5/
- 12. Special Projects N/Ai/
- 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate N/AE/
of Compliance.
l l
L B. General licenses for storage of $43,000 spent fuel under 10 CFR 72.210.
137-1
Surcharge . . . . . . . . $150
- 14. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear N/All material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation or site restoration activities pursuant to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 70, and 72.
- 15. Import and Export licenses N/A E/
- 16. Reciprocity N/AE/
- 17. Master materials licenses of broad $300,000 scope issued to Government agencies.
l Surcharge . . . . . .. .- $36,150
- 18. DOE Certificates of Compliance . . . . . $1,200,00019/
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 dn amendment or revision is issued to increase or decrease the 138
l l
scope prior to October 1 of each fiscal year.
If a person holds more than one license, certificate, registration, or approval, the annual fee (s) will be assessed for each license, certificate, registration or approval held by that 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 ausessed 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.
l 2/
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.
1/ For FYs 1993 through 1995, fees for these materials licenses will be calculated and assessed in accordance with S 171.13 and will be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment.
1 Al 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. An "other"' license includes 139
i
- i licenses for extraction of metals, heavy metals, and rare earths.
I 1/ Two licenses have been issued by NRC for land disposal of i Once NRC issues a LLW disposal license i special nuclear material.
1 l for byproduct and source material, the Commission will consider i
establishing an annual fee for this type of license.
i 4
I il Standardized spent fuel facilities, Part 71 and 72 Certifi-
- i. cates of Compliance and special reviews, such as topical reports, l are not assessed an. annual fee because the generic costs of i
4 regulating these activities are primarily attribut.able to the users'of the designs, certificates and topical reports.
I l
1/ Licensees in this category are not assessed an annual fee-4 because they are charged an annual fee in other categories while
- they are operating.
i El l
1 No annual fee is charged because it is not practical to i
i administer due to the relatively short life.or. temporary nature I of the' license.
i
[ 1/-Separate annual fees will-not be assessed for. pacemaker l
j licenses issued to= medical institutions'who also hold nuclear:
?
medicine licenses under Categories 7B or-7C.
i 12/ This. includes all certificates of compliance issued to DOE..
[
4
- 140 i'
i
. ,, - . ,- , ,,.,.-,.,.,.._;--,,,,,a.-- .. .. . . . . . . - . ~.....:-.
= _ _ _ _ - - - - - -- . -
11/ 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 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 been added to fee 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.,
S.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 $150 has boon added to each fee Category, except Categories 1E, 10.A., 11., 12., 13.A., 14., 15.,
16., and 18. Licensees who qualify as small entities under the provisions of S 171.16(c) and who submit a completed NRC Form 526 are not subject to the $150 additional charge.
- 11. In Section 171.19, paragraph (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
E'171.19 Pavnent.
141
(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 certificate, registration, or approval of a QA program will be i
sent a bill for the full amount of the annual fee upon l 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 Taarterly installment is due on October.1, '
t
) January 3, April 1 and July 1 of each fiscal year.
Annual fees f -f less than $100,000 shall be paid once a year.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this [ day of. (.sd , 1992.
FortheNuclearRegulatyp d maission.
e i
u
- Jm 'M. Tay p r, j
x utive-Director for Operations.
o 142
)
I 1 l 1 l i '
I APPENDIX A TO THIS FINAL RULE l REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE
\
j i
AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 170 (LICENSE FEES) AFD
)
1 10 CFR PART 171 (ANNUAL FEES)
I i ,
j I. BACKGROUND L
i The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et i
i seq.) establishes as a principle of regulatory practice that l
l agencies endeavor to fit regulatory and informational-t j requirements, consistent with applicable statutes, to a scale 1
- commensurate with the businesses, organizations, and government .
I jurisdictions to which they apply. To achieve this principle, i
the Act requires that. agencies consider the impact of their
{
actions on small entities. If the agency cannot certify that a .
9 j rule will not significantly impact a substantial number of small i
entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis-is required.to examine the impat.a on small-entities and the alternatives to t
minimize these impacts.
i j To assist in-considering th6ac impacts under the-Regulatory j Flexibility Act, the NRC adopted size standards for determining f which NRC licensees qualify as small entities (50 FR 50241; _
i December 9, 1985). These size-standards were clarified i
4 November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56672). The NRC size standards are as follows:
i j (1) A small business is a business with-annual receipts of i
143 L
... - -y.. , , ,n .-
, ,s,. .,,,,~-m.,,-,--.. ,-..,~...,
.,,.,m... ,%... .,.,,,...s........_,2 ,..,.m, , , , , . , , . - , . , . , , , - . , , , . , , _ .,
i-4 1
i j $3.5 million or less except private practice physicians for which 1
1 the standard is annual receipts of $1 million or less.
i i
(2) A small organization is a not-for-profit organization which is independently owned and operated and has annual receipts 1 of $3.5 million or less.
I l (3) Small governmental jurisdictions are governments of j cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, i or special districts with a population of less than 50,000.
I j (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.
l 1
- 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 l Nuclear Waste Fund, for Fiscal Years (FY) 1991 through 1995 by I
{ assessing license and annual fees. For FY 1991, the amount to be collected-was approximately-$445 million, and for FY 1992, the amount to be collected is approximately $492.5 million.- .
I f f I To comply with OBRA-90, the Commission' proposed amendments i
to its fee regulations in 10 CFR Parts' 170 and 171 cn1 April 12, 1991 -( 56 FR 14 87 0) . On the basis'of a careful evaluation of over 400 comments, the1 Commission issued a final rule on July'10, 1991 4
144' J
vz--,-m ,,w---y s c-. a e - - , - -
m* v ,c,, w- r~--r,+ +n -w w -ww rs~s-..y- -w, d wee >= -s- -fee"* 'a
a i
(56 FR 31472). This final rule established the methodology to be used in identifying thm 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 j 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 i . -
I established in the FY 1991 rulemaking, the NRC published a j proposed rule on April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18095), that would establish the fees to be assessed for FY 1992.
\
- l II. IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES I
- The comments received on the proposed FY 1991 fee rule l
l revisions and the small entity certifications received in
! response to the final FY 1991 fee rule indicate that NUC-1
! licensees qualifying as small entities under the NRC's size i
standards are primarily those licensed under the NRC's materials 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 i
t being charged to those individuals, organizations, and companies 4 that are licensed under the NRC materials program. Of these materials licensees, the NRC estimates that about 25 percent 4
(approximately 2,000 licensees) qualify as small entities.
Therefore, in recognition of this substantial number of small 145 4
, - - - - - , + - - - , , , , , ,-,,--,-a., ,,.-~.----.ne,-,A,. ,.,m , . , , e n,.,e,~, -,,,e , --
--r- n, , , , , - - -,-
entitles, the NRC requested comments from small entities on the i 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 further minimize the economic impact on the licensee but still meet the statutory mandate of obr.a Sus 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 on them.
However, many other materials licensees commented that the new annual fee would have a negative economic impact on them.
Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis prepared for the 4
July 10, 1991, final rule, as well as this regulatory flexibility analysis, concentrates on the annual fee.
The commenters on the FY 1991 proposed fee rule indicated the following results if the proposed annual fees 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 146
_ - - _ . . - - - - . . . - - - - . .~ ..- . - _ . - - - . - - - - - - - -
fee, while a large corporation would find it easier.
Another commenter noted that the fee increase could be more easily absorbed by a high-volume nuclear medicine i
clinic. A gauge licensee noted that, in the very j competitive soils testing market, the annual fees would put it at an extreme disadvantage with its much larger competitore because the proposed. fees would be the same for a two-person licenseeins-for a large firm with thousandr, of employees. 1 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 soil 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
- I I
I I
1 i
i -
Some companies would have budget problems. Many i
i medical licensees commented that, in these times of
! slashed reimbursements, the proposed increase of the 1
1 i existing fees and the introduction of additional fees a
would significantly affect their budgets. Another l noted that, in view of the cuts by Medicare and other third party carriers, the fees would produce a hardship j and some facilities would experience a great deal of difficulty in meeting this additional burden.
i l
Although it was not clear to what extent these impacts would materialize at the time the July 10,-1991, final rule was j promulgated, it was clear that the assessed annual fees would be a relatively high portion of the gross revenues of some licensees i
and far less of a portion for other larger material licensees.
I After the final _ rule was published, approximately 2,000 license, j approval, and registration terminations _were requested. Although
- y some of these terminations were requested because the license was no longer needed or licenses or registrations could be combined, l indications _are-that other_ termination requests were due to the l economic impact of the fees.
- The NRC continues to receive written and oral comments from
- small materials licensees. These comments indicate _that the $3.5 l
l= million threshold for small entities is not representative of:
small businesses with= gross receipts in theLthousands~of dollars.
h These commenters believe that the $1,800. maximum 1annual fee L-L 148 l
- . . - . - = - . . - - . . - - . - .. - -, - -,-..-.-..z-
j 4
l, ,
] represents a relatively high percentage of gross annual receipts J i
1 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.
I
- Members of Congress, in rany of the more than 100 -
J ,
j Congressional letters the NRC has received since the July 10, 1991, final rule cas published, have expressed concern about the size of the NRC arnua) fees aid their economic impact on small f entitias. Some of these letters have suggested that the i
4 Commissinn should act to furtner reduce the economic impact on l those licer. sees who conduct limited operations. The Small l Business Adninisuration-(SBA),_while commending the Commission l- for complying with and using the RFA in the final rulemaking, suggested that=the Commission should act to further.allaviate the l
l impact of the fees on small businesses. -The Amerjean Nuclear
! Society (ANS) also expressed concern about the impact of the l
- annual fees on small entities and suggested that the Commission examine alternatives to further reduce the impacts. -
i Therefore, the NRC considered additional alternatives, in-accordance-with the RFA, to alleviate the_ continuing significant-j impact-of the~ annual fees on a substantial number of small
- entities.
III. ALTERNATIVES l-Commenters on-the proposed rule _ published _ April 12, 1991, r 149
_ ._ _-.-_... u . . ~ . ._ . _ . , _ _ . _ , _ , . . _ _ _ . - - . ._-._..___.m._ . _ - .
4 and comments received subsequent to publication of the final rule on July 10, 1991, and comments received on the limited amendments to the fee schedules published as a final rule on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 13625) 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 alternative 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 small entities. The NRC also believes that this approach would not result in a-fair and equitable 1
t allocation of its generic and other costs not recovered under 10 l
JFR Part 170. Therefore, the NRC rejected this approach.
150 l
. - . - - . . - . . - - _ - - - - - .- -- - - . . - . . . . - - _ ~ . . . - _ - _ . .
i i
I For similar reasons, the second suggested alternative, basing the fee on the frequency of use of the licensed j radioactive source, would not necessarily reduce the cost for >
j small entities that meet the size standards discussed earlier.
Therefore, the NRC also rejected this approach.
The last alternative would base fees on the size standards j that the NRC has used to define small entities. This alternative would ensure that any benefits from modifying the proposed fees i
j would apply only to small entities. Three basic options, each
! using the NRC size standards, were considered for modifying the i
! - annual fees imposed on small entities:
i
- 1. Exempt all small entities which meet the size standards i
j from annual fees.
i
- j. 2. Require small entities to pay a fixed percent of the amount of the fee in each of the specific material ,
license fse categories..
i 3.- Establish a maximum fee.for'small entities.
i 4-Under Option 1, all small entities would be exemptedLfrom fees. However, because small entities would not pay any of the
' generic costs attributable to their class of' licensees,Jthis option could be viewed as-inconsistent with the objectives of i
OBRA-90. Under this option,'all the annual fees attributable to-4 151 2
1 r,.,-..,,,u ,. ,,,_-.4.. ,~ .-,.,i,--- ,
j
.i j small entities would be paid by other NRC licensees.
i i
i Under Option 2, small entities would pay a percentage (e.g.,
j 50 percent) of the proposed fee for each specific category of j materials license, regardless of how small or large the fee is.
i This option could result in a reduction in annual fees that are i
already relatively small and that do not have a significant i impact on a-substantial number of small entities. However, for
}
those fee categories assessed large annual fees, the percentago j of reduction may result in assessing small entities licensed i
under those fee-categories relatively large annual fees.
1 i
1 option 3 would establish a maximum fee for all small l
i entities. Under this option, a small entity would pay either the i smaller of the annual fee for the category or the maximum small i
! entity fee. This alternative strikes a balance between the
- requirements of OBRA-90 and the RFA, which are to consider and .
l l reduce, as appropriate, the impact of an agency's regulatory i actions on small entities. Therefore, the NRC has adopted Option 3 as the sont appropriate to reduce the impact on'small entities.
- Commenters on the proposed fee rule for FY'1992 did not present
, alternatives that have not been considered previously, i
i IV. MAXIMUM FEE l To implement option 3, the NRC established a maximum annual t
fee'for.small entities. The RFA and its implementing guidance do l
s not provide specific guidelines on what constitutes a significant t-152 i
1 ;
l i
f 1
economic impact on a small entity. Therefore, the NRC has no ,
i i
benchmark to assist in determining the amount or the percent of j gross receipts that should be charged to a small entity. To determine a maximum annual fee for a small entity, the NRC examined the NRC 10 CFR Part 170 license and inspection fees
! established in 1991 and the 1991 Agreement State fees for those '
i j fee categories that are expected to have a substantial number of
- - small entities. Because these fees have been charged to small i ,
1 entities, the NRC believes that these fees do not have a j significant impact on them. In fact, the NRC concluded, in issuing the July 10, 1991, final rule, that the existing-materials license and inspection fees do not have a significant j impact on small entities.
- This conclusion remains valid for the FY 1992 fee rule.
The maximum fees per year charged in 1991 by several 4
Agreement States and by the NRC for materials license fee-categories with a significant number of small entities-are shown l- below.
1991 Maximum Average
-Total Fee Per Year
- i Washington $3,760 Texas $2,100 1
Illinois $2,000 NRC- $1,590 Nebraska $1,460 New York $1,030 153
'_.._ - - ._a.,_. .._.~...._a..-..._..._.,._,_a___._.. _ _ _ _ . _ . . - . _ . . ~ . _ . . _ , . . . _ . , - . . _
.-- .-- . __.- _--__- - . _ _ .___ - .--- - ~ _ - _ - . - - . .
i 4
Utah $440 Table 1 presents the estimated total fees (Part 170 plus Part 171) for materials licensees, assuming maximum annual fees j
for small entities of $2,000 or $1,500 and an average number of 4
licensing actions and inspections per year. If the maximum annual fee for small entities is established at $2,000, the 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 maximue Agreement State fee of approximately $3,800. If the maximum fee is reduced by $200 (from $2,000 to $1,800), then all categories i
of materials licensees, including radiographers, would pay no more for each category than the 1991 maximum Agreement State fee of about $3,800 if the licensee qualifies as a small entity.
l By establishing the maximum annual fee for small entities at
$1,800, the annual fee for many-small entities will be raduced 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) attributahde to them. Therefore, the NRC has established and will continue, for FY 1992,.the maximum annual fee (base-annual fee plus surcharge) for certain small 154
l i
entities at $1,800 for each fee category covered by each license issued to a small entity. Note that the costs not recovered from f
small entities are allocated to other materials licensees and to operating power reactors.
4 i
While reducing the impact on viny 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
- naterials licensees with annual gross receipts in the thousands of dollars. Therefore, the Commission has further reduced the i
impact on small entities with relatively low gross annual receipts.
4 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 155 4
.,,y ,. , , . .
I 1
q 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 establishing reduced annual fees based on gross receipts (size) is the most i
appropriate approach to minimize the impact on small entities.
Consistent with this approach, the commission will continue the i
$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 dath from an NRC survey of materials licensees and the Department of Cominerce industry census, the.
l l
following data shows the distribution of-businesses with annual l gross receipts of less than $3.5 million.
Annual Gross Department Receints NRC Survey of Commerce Less than $250K 45% 55%
$250 - $499K 14%. 22%
$500 - $749K 8% 6%
$750 -$999K 19 % 6%
$1,000 - $3,500K 24%. '11%
As shown, 45 to 55 percent (or about 50%);of small businesses with gross annual receipts of less than $3.5 mill-ion ,
have gross annual receipts that are less-than $250,000. Thus, by B
defining relatively small gross annual-receipts as.less than-
$250,000, a significant number of small. entities would be I
eligible for a further reduction of-the impact of the annual 1
l 156
. .. ,_ - --,, ,-- .-.,, - - - - . . - , . . . . . . , , -. .- .. . . . , - , ~ , , . - -
I l
l i
2 i
fees. This level would also help ensure that those small
}
businesses which probably would be impacted the most would pay the lower fee.
1 i
i i
A similar approach was used to define a relatively small .
i 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 ,
reduced 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.
l i
Percent Pooulation 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 jurisdictions). In establishing the annual fee for lower tier small entities, theLCommission retained a balance between the 157
. _ . . _ _ . _ __ _.._..,_.-._..,..._..-......,_.___,-..._.__..u._._.. . _ - . . . _ - . . _ ,
f a
i objectives of the RFA and OBRA-90. 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 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 $5 million in the small entity subsidy. On the basis of the response to the FY 1991 billings, the NRC's estimate is now that there are about 2,000 small entities.
The following data shows four different lower tier small entity fees, their impact on the licensees, and their impact on the balance between OBRA-90 and RFA.
158
l Estimated ,
Alt
- native FY 1992 Estimated Lohm_ Tier Reduction Small FY 1992 Annual '
Small in Fee Entity Fees Paid Entity for Gauge Subsidy by Small Annual Fee Users (%) (S M) Entities ($ M)
$1,200 30% $5.0 $4.5 900 50 5.3- 4.2 700 60 5.5 4.0 400 75 6.0 3.5 Each of the alternative lower tier annual fees reduces the j
annual fee for qualifying nuclear gauge licensees. However, the 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 l 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 organizationsfwith-gross receipts that are less-than $250,000 or for_ governmental entities-in jurisdictions with a population of less.than 20,000.
1 1.
159
_ _., .._._._.._.-_,_.-u_._....-.--..-___-a. . , _ . . _ ,_ _ ,_ _ . _ _
j V. EUMMARY t
i The NRC has determined the annual fee significantly impacts 4 a substantial number of small entities. A maximum fee for small entities strikes a balance between the requirement to collect 100 percent of the NRC budget and the requirement to consider means
- of reducing the impact of the proposed fee on small entities. On
., the basis of its regulatory flexibility analysis and the April 17, 1992, final rule the NRC concluded that a maximum annual fee 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 t'han $250,000, and small governmental entities with a population of less than 4
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, the 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 rule 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
. _ _ . - _ _ .. _ _ . _ _ .. _ . _. = _ ___w____ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ . _ ._ _ ____ _ . _ _ . _
?
i 1
r Table 1 -- 1991 Average Total Small Entity Fees Per Year ,
}
j License Fee Category Total Small Entity Feeif
[
Max Annual Max Annual j
Fee = $2K Fee = $1.5K i
l Special Nuclear Material (SNH):
x ...............................................................................
d
.- IC. Industrial Gauges .$1,672 $1,672 1
, 1D. All other SNM 2,506 2,006 i
i i
1 i-
! Source Materials
.[ ,
, 2B, Shielding 463 463 2c. Other Source Materials 2,867 2,367 I
Byproduct Materials 3A. 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 i 3E. Irradiators - Self'-shield 1,699 .1,699 3F. Irradiators - < 10,000'ci 2,623 2,123 3G. Irradiators - > 10,000 ci 3,840 3,340 3H. Exempt distribution . Device review 2,815 2,315 3I. Exempt distribution -;No device review 2,682 .2,182 3J. Gen. license - Device review 2,679' 2,179 161' 4 q y - , - .r.- y ,- g -. .%,www %- - v _r , _= r . E r-9-w=-r'Y e W '- wr W = wv' ~ w v e-+ m e mW-* vv u e +-w ww-'s- % e4==wwherww-**r-e---v--+-' n ' wm w-+s.
. - _ _ _ m. __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _____ _ -. _ _ . . .
j Table 1 -- 1991 Average Total Small Entity Fees Per Year License Tee category ?otal small Entity Fee"l i i ___..___...... ___. _......
Max Annual Max Annual Fee = $2K Fee = $1.5K 1
3K. Gen. license - No device review 2,708 2,208 I
3L. R&D - Broad 3,210 2,710 3M. R&D - Other 3,050 2,550 JN. Service license 2,733 2,233
- 30. Radiography 4,050 3,550 3P. All other byproduct materials 2,120 2,120 WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSINGt 4B. Waste receipt / packaging 4,680 4,180 4C. Waste receipt - prepackaged 3,216 2,716 Well Logging 5A. Well logging 3,207 2,707 NUCLEAR LAUNDRY:
6A. Nuclear laundry 3,030 2,530 162
i 1 l
)
l N I 4 !
4 Table 1 -- 1991 Average Total Small Entity Fees Per Year i
License Fee category Total Small Entity Feel' i 4
i Max Annual Hax Annual Fee = $2K Tee = $1.5K I
f j Human Use of Byproduct, Source, or SNH
}
i 1
7A. Teletherapy 3,788 3,288-e 7B. Medical - broad 4,360 3,860 i
{
7C. Medical other 3,130- 2,630
- i. .
CIVIL DEFENSES a
i l
8A. Civil defense 1,789 1,789 q
4 4
1 Device,' Product, or Sealed Source Safety Evaluation 1
t 9A. Device / product - Broad 3,200 2,700 i .
! 98. Device / product - other 2,580- 2,080 .
}
1 i 9C. Sealed sources - Broad 1,530 1,530 1
i 9D. Sealed sources - Other t
'770 770 i
i J
Based on average 10 CFR Part 170 fees plus maximum annual fees .
4,,
- 163 4
4
'..,-,,.,.-',.,,_.._, ,L.,;----,....._--,_.4 ...m.+m,,:..w-_m.,_, v,,,,, ,,.-r . . , c ,.-.,,..,r,,_.--,-,-,,c.v_..., r,~%. ,--..,c. . ~
. ._ - _ - - - . . . _ . = =-
i 4
Resconse. g o ,rcC8 In the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31480), the NRC indicated that it is not practical to allocato 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. It must be recognized that URC generic safety and safeguards costs included in the annual l fee are not related to a specific individual licensee. Costs related to 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 allecated these i
costs to major classes of licensees. The law permits, and the i
NRC has established, a schedule of annual charges that assessua i
different annual charges for different licensees or classes of licensees.
To the extent practicable and where necessary for a 3
more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was divided into subclasses. Within a class or w subclass of licensees, the costs were uniformly allocated to each licensee 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 9
CFR 171.11. An eramption request would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
As in FY 1991, the NRC plans to continue a very high threshold of eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes 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 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 4
significantly impact a substantial number of its licensees in order to recover 100 percent of its budget authority for FY 1991 through FY 1995.
4 The NRC mailed copies of both the proposed and final notices to each licensee.
- 5. Comm_'=nt.
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 section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
I Resconse. 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,
- 27 l
l
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 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 oDeratina licenses.
- +
(b) ***
(3) Generic activities required largelyIfor 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 under this section and due before September-30, 1992, are shown in paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) ***
i (2) The FY 1992 surcharge to be added to'each operating- ' (d '
power reactor is $272,000.
This-amount is calculated by dividing 117-p.
the total cost for these activities ($29.7 million) by the number of operating power reactcrs (100).
(d) The FY 1992 Part 171 annual fees for operating power reactors are as follows: <
4 Part 171 Annual Fees by Reactor Category 1 (Fees in Millions) =
.a Base Added
'V
/
Reactor Vendor Numoer Total Estimated
,]If!E FAq Charae Egg Collections
'n Babcock /Wilcox
- y 7 $2.866 .272 $3.138 $22.0 Combustic<n Eng. 15 2.850 .272 3.122
- ;& GE Mark I 24 46.8
% 4 2.810 f
.272 3.082 12.3 Westinghouse E 2.855 .272 3.127 _11LJ.
Totrls 109 39.3 p
1 Fees assessed by reactor vendor will vary for plants west of the hocky Mountains and for Westinghouse plants with ice condensers.
(e) The-annual fees for licensees authorized to operate a nonpower (:est and research) reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter except for those reactors exempted from fees under
) 71.11(a), are a+ follcws:
Research reactor $55,700 Test reactor $55,700 118
_ - - - ^
11/
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 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.(3) and 2.A.(1); an additional charge of
$38,800 has been added to fee 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 $150 has beet,added to each fee Category, except Categories 1E, 10.A., 11., 12., 13.A., 14., 15., FA 'N 16., and 18. Licensees who qualify as small entities under the provisions of S 171.16(c) and who submit a completed NRC Form 526 are not subject to the $150 additional charge.
- 11. In Secti'n 171.19, paragraph (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
- S 171.19 Paymen_t_ .
141 i
jpa %q UNITED STATES E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ WASHINGTON. O s 20566 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Public Law 101-508, 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 throuch 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. This proposed rule was l
published in the Federal Reaister on April 29, 1992 for public comment. The comment period expired on May 29, 1992. The NRC reviewed a total of 29 comments received through June 22, 1992 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 inspection 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 rate; (3) 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 CFh Part 170, establish the amount of the FY 1992 annual fees to be assessed to operating reactors, fuel cycle licensees, including fuel fabrication faciltties, uranium recovery facilities, transportation certificate holders, and materials licensees. The FY 1992 annual fees are increased as compared to FY 1991. The FY 1992 annual fees are summarized as follows:
i
i 1
Class of licensees Ranae of Annual Fees Operating power reactors $3,082,000 to $3,138,000 Fuel Facilities $536,250 to $2,325,250 Uranium Recovery facilities $58,950 to $167,650 Transportation Certificate /
l Approval Holders $1,650 to $62,950 3 Materials Users $580 to $16,550 Other Licensees $55,700 to $336,150 Those NRC licensees that qualify as a small entity under the NRC's size i standards are eligible to pay reduced annual fees. For example, a licensee with gross-annual receipts of $250,000 to $3.5 million or a supporting population of 20,000 to 50,000 pay a maximum annual fee of $1,800 per licensed category. Those licensees with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 or a supporting population of less than 20,000 pay an annual fee of $400 per j licensed category.
Enclosed is a copy of the final rule which is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The final rule becomes effective 30 days from the date of publication.
Sincerely, Jkff
. Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller cc: The Honorable John T. Myers
Enclosure:
Final Revision to'10 CFR Parts 170 and 171
i M ao uq'%
O n UNITED STATES E E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20H6 s*,.*/
h 4
. The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman 3
Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Public Law 101-508, the-0mnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, requires that the NRC recover 100 percent of its 'oudget 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. This proposed rule was -
i published in-the Federal Reoister on' April 29, 1992.for public comment. The
- comment period expired on May 29, 1992. The NRC reviewed a total of 29 comments received-through June 22, 1992 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;1icense and inspection fees for specific identifiable services: (1) increase the cost per.
professional staff-hour for all full cost feest-(2) increase:all flat fees for.
radioisotope programs by seven percent based on the: increased. hourly rate;-(3)'
refine the categories of fees for export and import licenses; and (4) codify the definition of nonprofit. educational institution.-
l 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 19921 annual fees;to be assessed to operating reactors, fuel- cycle licensees,-
including. fuel fabrication facilities, uranium recovery facilities, transportation certificate holders, and materials licensees. -The FY 1992 annual ~ fees are increased as compared to.FY 1991. The FY ?1992 ' annual fees are-i summarized as follows:-
4 eu ,b s-- .a --
,-en - ,, - , - - - , , , -w i n- e
i Class of licensees Ranae of .innual Fees ,
l Operating power reactors $3,082,000 to $3,138,000
- Fuel Facilities $536,250 to $2,325,250 Uranium Recovery Facilities $58,950 to $167,650
- TransportationCertificate/
- Approval Holders $1,650 to $62,950.-
Materials Users $5S0 to $16,550 Other Licensees $55,700-to $336,150 Those NRC licensees that qualify as a small entity under the NRC's size
, standards are eligible to pay reduced annual fees. For_ example,'a licensee with gross annual receipts of $250,000 to $3.5 million or~ a supporting population of 20,000 to 50,000 pay a maximum annual fee of $1,800 per licensed category. Those licensees with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 'or a supporting population of less than 20,000 pay an annual' fee of $400 per licensed category.
L Enclosed is a copy of the final rule which-is being transmitted to the Office i of the Federal Register for publication. The . final rule becomes effective 30 days from the date of publication.
L Sincerely, i
l Dennis K. Rathbun, Director-Office of Congressional: Affairs i
u cc: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson
Enclosure:
Final Revision i
to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 i
i L
i
-...._.._..~.__..a. .u.....
. - . - . . , __ , . , . .~._ .
I 1
s I IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT T0:
The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce
- United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc
- The Honorable Carlos Moorhead The Honorable Peter H. Kcstmayer, Chairman Subcommittee en Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Af's;rs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: The Honorable John J. Rhodes The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: The Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Tbc Ponorable John T. Myers The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Chairman Committee on the Budget United States House Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: The Honorable Willis D. Gradison, Jr.
The Honorable Jim Sasser, Chairman Committee on the Budget United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: The Honorable Pete V. Domenici DISTRIBUTION: OC R/F, OC S/F, DRathbun, EDO R/F, JHolloway, JFunches, RScroggins, LH'ller, DDandois, GJackson, DWeiss g OFFICE :OC
[ :O :OC g :CA NAME : Joway :J ches :RS hgins :DRathbun DATE :7/ /92 :7/ h2 :7/g92 :7/ /92
l
- NRC REVISES FEE SCHEDULES a
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is' revising its lican a 19, inspection and annual fee schedules to permit recovery of approximately 100 percent of its fiscal year'1992 budget.
The revisions implement the requirements of the omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 which requires the NRC to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less i appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund, for fiscal years 1991 j
through 1995 by assessing license and annual fees .
The amount to be recovered in fiscal year 1992 is $512.5 million less the i amount appropriated from the Department of Energy-administered Nuclear Waste Fund which is $20 million.
The revisions include an increase in the amount of annua fees assessed licensees operating nuclear power plantsrf omabout
- S2.8 to about $3.1 million and increase the annual fees to paid by other NRC licensees.
- In addition, the amendments:
- 1)
' increase the agency-wide professional hourly rate which ,
is used to determine part 170 licensing and inspection fees , from
$115 to $123 per hour; 2)
. increase the current licensing and inspection fees for J
^ all applicants and licensees by;seven percent; 3)
) 'further refine the existing fee categories for import f
and export license applications-and amendments; 4) further refine the uranium-recovery classes of' 4 licensees; 4
4, , w aww .-....,,+_m-w- a,e, ,+ y y + . , , ,y e -- , y- -
r,-
1 l
l i I
l 5) require licensees who wish to be considered for an l
.xemption from annual fees to file an exemption request within 90 days from the effective date of the amendments; and-l
- 6) define a " nonprofit educational institution".
The amendments to Parts 170 and 171 of the Commission's regulations will becoma effective on (date).
i
-c-. , -
, ,. .-,.r wr, , _ . , , , + . . . . .r..,,- a d.. _I',- ,g....,$o .,, c. -e-.,.----,--. . ~ , , , -.-
T- TEL ND:301 492-7197 n284 P02 l
l Acoroved for Publication I
' The Commission delegated to the EDO (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, 038, 039 andOffice 0310.of the Executive Director for Operations, Paragraphs 0213, 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 of policy. contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8 or 9 Subpart C concerning matters 1, therefore, find that this rule is within the scope of my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
7k/p.
Dato J
$ f[
M. Tayloy (x utive Dirfctor for Operations l
l l
l l
I' i
4 DAILY STAFF NOTES TO THE COMMISSION '
I 0FFi:E OF THE CONTROLLER
?
4 Final Rule Sianed by E00 On L., T li92- 1992, the Executive Director for Operations approved a final rtle that amends 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171. These amendments to the i
Commission's fee regulations are necessary to implement the requirements of i
Public Law 101-508 to recover 100 peccent of the FY 1992 budget authority
- through fees.
The final amendments to Part 170.(1) amer.d 6170.20 to change the cost per
- professional staff-hour from $115 per-hour to $123 per hour;-(2) increase all j flat fees for radioisotope programs by seven percent based on the increased i hourly rate;-(3) further refine the existing fee categories for export and i import licenses; and (4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational institution" that.has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption 4
i requests, t
i The final amendments to Part 171 (1) increase the amount of the annual fees assessed-to operating reactors, fuel cycle licensees and materials licensees; i- (2) further refine the uranium recovery class of licensees by dividing Class 1 facilities into two classes to be consistent with exemption decisions that j
- recognize those licenseen who do not generate uranium mill tailings; and (3) amend the exemption provisinns of-9 171.11' to require that licensees who wish to be considered for'an exe.nption from the annual fees must' file-the exemption request within 90 days fiom 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.
The FV 1992 fees for most licensees have increased compared to FY 1991 fees
~
, because:
j (1) The amount that must be recovered has'in'reased'from c approximately l $445M'to $492.5M.
1 (2) Fewer licenseer arv available to-pay. for-the higher costs;of j.
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
'FY .1991 final rule was adopted in July 1991;; and one of = the~ three -
l HEU- fuel facilities has requested a possession-only license-(POL)- .
o L .. _ __ _. _ . . . . ._ . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ --. _ _ _ _ _ .
j .. , -
4
[
I i
i i
j -
2- t 1
1 The FY 1992 annual fees are compared to those assessed for FY 1991 in the following table:
i-4 Ranoe of Annual Fees l Class of Licensees FY 1991- -FY 1992-i-
- i Operating Power Reactors $2.8M to:53.1M $3.0M to-$3.1M j Fuel Facilities $0.7M to $1.6M- L$0.5M to $2.3M Uranium Recovery l
e Facilities $67,100 to $100,100 $58,8001to $167,500 Transportation Approval
' Holders $1,800 to $29,100
$1,660 to $62,960 i- Materials Usars (small i entity) $1,800 $400-to $1,800 Materials Users-(other) $390 to $10,800 - $580 to $16,550 l - Other Licensees $50,000 to $222,500 .$55,700 to $336,150J
!- This notice informs the Commission that, in'accordance with the authority i delegated forward ~ ittoonthe EDO, the EDO has signed this final rule andLproposes to J ut, 10-1992-j - publication, unless otherwise directed by thel Commission.to the Office of the' Fe l
o i
i l
r lJ l-i B
- . <,w'. , w + , ,, y< +.wn, , ory * ~y , - + 'we--*, ,, --c,-- r - * * ' -
- r~ c- - w c- -