ML20134F703
| ML20134F703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/25/1996 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| DSI-G-3-00007, DSI-G-3-7, NUDOCS 9611070150 | |
| Download: ML20134F703 (43) | |
Text
._
vsz c; 3 f
Official Transcript of Preccedings g)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
l s
2 O
Title:
Stakeholders Public Meetings gggfygg Managing NRC Finances NOV 0 51995g g
Docket Number:
(not applicable) 8 t.
l Location:
Washington, D.C.
Date:
Friday, October 25,1996 Work Order No.:
NRC-890 Pages 1-43 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
j Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l 070018 washington, D.C. 2000s i
(202) 234-4433
\\
i E' 2 M! n i 23
\\
d OEN PDR
\\
L6/3 lb 0041in(frfiMAL hus
]
o 1
h 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
+ + + + +.
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
+++++
5 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND REBASELINING 6
STAKEHOLDERS PUBLIC MEETINGS 7
+++++
8 MANAGING NRC FINANCES SESSION 9
+++++
10 FRIDAY 11 OCTOBER 25, 1996 12
+++++
'13 WASHINGTON, D.C.
14 15 The Managing NRC Finances Session was held in 16 the Jefferson East Room of the Washington Hilton and 17 Towers at 1919 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.,
18 at 1:00 p.m., Douglas Brookman, presiding.
19 PRESENT:
20 JESSE FUNCHES 21 KEN ALKEMA 22 ROBERT ANDERSON 23 AL ANKRUM 24 RALPH ARCARO 25 DENNIS BECHTEL NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
.. -...... -. -.. - _. - ~ - -... -
. - - ~. -
4 2
1 PRESENT (Continued) :
.i 2
. RALPH BEEDLE i
~3 ROBERT BORSUM 1
l
-4 GARY BOSS i
5 JUDITH BRADBURY 6
KRISTI BRANCH 1
7 ROY BROWN 8
PAUL BUBBOSH l
1 9
DAN BURNFIELD 10 MARK BURTSCHI 11 JON CARTER f
12 NANCY CHAPMAN j
13 STEVEN COLLINS l
14 SIDNEY CRAWFORD 15 THOMAS CRITES i
16 WILLIAM CROSS 17 RAPHAEL DANIELS 18 LYNNE FAIROBENT j
l 19 DARRYL FARBER I
20 DUANE FITZGERALD l
21 JANE FLEMING 22 STEPHEN FLOYD 23 HERBERT FONTECILLA f
24 ROBERT GAMBLE 25 PAUL GENOA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23W33
. ~.
-.. -........ -.. - -. - - +
b 1
PRESENT (Continued).
l 2
MICHAEL GILBERT f
3 ROBERT GOFF 4
MARK GRACE 5
JANE GRANT l
6 KIMBERLY GREEN 7
ANN HARRIS 8
LYNETTE HENDRICHS 9
THOMAS HILL 10 CLAYTON HINNANT 11 ANNE HOSFORD 12 ROBERT HUSTON 13 ALAN JACOBSON 14 JUDITH JOHNSRUD l
l 15 PETE KOLOLAKIS 16 ROD KRICH 17 DANIEL LEROY 18 DAVID LOCHBAUM 19 RUTH McBURNEY 20 SHAWNA McCARTNEY 21 COLEMAN McDONOUGH i
22 BRIAN McINTYRE 23 PETER MURRAY 24 ALAN NELSON 25 DAVID NICHOLS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
, ~,.. _.,
. - ~..
i j
4 1
PRESENT.(Continued):
2 ROBERT O'MARA l-l 3
PHIL OLSON 4
ALEX PAUAGOS 5
SCOTT PETERSON 6
JOHN PFEIFFER 7
THOMAS POTTER 8
MATTHEW QUINT l~
9 RICHARD RATLIFF l
10 JAMES RICCIO i
1 11 A.
CARTER ROGERS 12 JOHN RUSSELL 13 WOLFGANG SCHLUMP 14 MICHAEL SCHOPPMAN 15 WILLIAM SHIELDS 16 BRYCE SHRIVER 17 JOHN STAMOS 18 JANICE STEVENS 19 ROBERT SWEENEY f-20 KATIE SWEENEY 21 ANTHONY THOMPSON 22
-TOM TIPTON 23 GARY VINE i
24 WAYNE VOGEL 25 ROBERT WALKER f
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
[
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W l
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
5 1
PRESENT (Continued) 2 RONALD WASCOM 3
CWAYNE WEIGEL 4
CLAUDE WIBLIN 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33
1 6
1 INDEX 2
Acenda Item Pace 3
Presentation by Jesse Funches, Deputy Controller 7
4 5
6 1
7 8
9 10 11 i.
12 '
13 14 15 16 17 18 l
i 19 20 21 22 l
23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(1:15 p.m.)
3 MR. BROOKMAN:
Hi, everybody.
This is Doug 4
Brookman.
5 The session, this is the direction setting 6
Issue No. 21 on fees.
Our presenter this afternoon is 7
Jesse Funches, Depaty Controller.
8 Jesse.
9 MR. FUNCHES:
Thank you.
10 Good afternoon.
I have with me today Mr.
11 James Holloway.
Jim is the writer for this issue paper, 12 and I am the sponsor.
13 I think, as maybe most of you know in the 14 room, that NRC is required by law to assess fees to 15 recover 100 percent of its budget, less the funds that 16 come from the waste fund, and we've been required to do 17 this since fiscal year 1991, so about six years.
18 Prior to that, we were required to get about 19 33 percent for a while, and then even before that we had 20 no set amounts, but as a result of the 100 percent 21 requirement, the fees for many people were increased, you 22 know, manyfold.
23 Unlike maybe some of the other issues we will 24 talk about today, the implementation of fees is something 25 that we are required to do by rulemaking.
So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33
i
)
)
8 implementation details we kind of have a history of going 1
2 out and getting public comment on, and we do it every 1
l 3
year.
So implementation details for next year, again, i
4 will be issued through public comments, and you'll have an
}
5 opportunity to comment on those implementation details.
6 The issue we're talking about today bas.. ally 1
g 7
involves more the strategy or the policy in terms of how l
8 we consider fees and how we try to make those fees as fair
)
9 and equitable as possible.
i 10 There are two separate, but somewhat related,
}
11 issues here.
The first issue relates to the consideration
}
12 of fees in the NRC decision-making process.
Over time, I
]
13 because of the controversial fees and people being 1
14 concerned about paying fees, the issue sometimes creeps 15 into the decision:
well, you know, if I can't get to the i
16 exact person who's going to pay this fee, should I be i
i l
17 doing this function at all?
I 18 And so the first issue deals with that t
[
19 question.
t 20 The second issue that's on the next chart i
l-21 addresses basically the question of what should we do to
)
4 22 make fees as fair and equitable as possible if we are to I
e 23 assess fees or what are the alternative funding mechanisms J
j' 24 that NRC could pursue, in addition to annual 25 appropriation, to make fees more fair or more equitable.
l 1
l NEAL R. GROSS i
i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
d 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 23M433 I
~ _. _
9 J
l.
1 A related question, and it has to do with the J
2 second means of NRC's funding, and it's through i
3 reimbursable, that question relates to if we are to i
4 perform activity on the reimbursable, how do we deal with 5
the question of ceiling on the number of people that j
we 1
i 6
can have.
That ceiling is imposed by OMB, and it 7
typically is imposed as it relates to appropriated funds.
?
j 8
The key factors that surround this issue are, 9
first, as I mentioned, NRC gets its funds from two places:
}
10 one, from appropriation, and the second place we get funds k
11 is through what we call reimbursable agreement.
12 The appropriations that we get are -- you i
13 know, the budget goes to OMB and goes to Congress.
1 14 Congress has hearings, and then ultimately they 15 appropriate funds to NRC.
j i
)
4 16 The second means from which we get funds would l
17 be from reimbursement or from others for the performance 18 of certain activities that are not required to be funded
'l 4
19 through appropriations, and no reimbursements are added to l
j l
20 the appropriations.
So the total amount of funds that we 21 do have to spend is the sum of the' appropriated fund plus 22 the funds we receive through reimbursement.
4
)
23 The type of funds we receive through 4-24 reimbursement could include a cooperative research J
25 agreement with a foreign country.
We receive those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
~
t 10 i
1 monies, and we retain those funds, and we use for the f
2 purpose that We receive them for.
We also will do a f
3-3 reimbursement work, say, for the Department of Energy or k
l 4
for NASA.
i
]
5 Although Congress appropriates funds to us, we f
6 are required to recover those funds through fees.
We 7
don't keep the fees.
We collect the fees, and we give i
)
8 them to Treasury, which then in their accounting i
i 9
mechanism, they offset our budget, but the amount of funds 4
j 10 we have to expand on a year is the amount that we get
}
11 appropriated.
12 Over the omnibus budget reconciliation of 1990 t
l 13
-- and I think that's the basic factor that'causes a lot
?
j 14 of the issues that we'll be talking about today --
j i
j 15 requires us to get 100 percent of our budget by assessing 16 fees.
It requires us to use type types of fees to receive I
17 those funds.
f 18 The first type is what we call fee-for-t 19 service.
If I perform an inspection or issue a license, 20 then there is a fee that is paid for that.
21 The second type of fee is what we call an 22 annual fee.
That annual fee makes up the difference 23 between 100 percent and what we get through these fees for 24 services.
25 The annual fee, in essence, recovers the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W-(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
11
'l generic type of activities that are not recovered through 2
the fee for services.
3 The laws have certain constraints that they 4
place on NRC in recovering fees.
For example, the law 5
that gives us authority to recover a fee for service says 6
we cannot recover a fee for service from another federal 7
agency.
8 Likewise, the law over telling us to assess an 9
annual fee, it tells us we can' only assess fees to 10 licensees.
11 As a result of these constraints, one of the 12 issues that has come up is not all beneficiaries of NRC 13 services-pay a fee, and this has led some people to'say 14 that they are paying a fee for things that do not benefit 15 them.
16 So this controversy, as a result of people 17 believing that they're paying for services that don't 18 benefit them, plus the fact that once we went to 100 19 percent it was a quantum jump from what people had been 20 paying before, and they did not see, quote, an added value 21 at that time because they were receiving the same value.
22 There was a lot of controversy in the early days about 23 fees.
We received probably about three or 4,000 comments 24 on the rules that we've had.
We have had hundreds of 25 letters from Congressmen as it relates to fees, and l
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
)
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
i (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 2000M701 (202) 234-4433 l
l
~.
12 1
primarily revolving around those two areas.
2 As a result, Cong.:e s s, in the Energy Policy 3
Act of 1992, requested that we perform a study of how to 4
make fees more fair and equitable, and during that study, 5
they requested that we go out and obtain comments from the 6
public.
7 We did that, got over 500, I believe, comments 8
from the public.
Based on those comments, our own evaluation of lessons we had learned in the earlier part 9
10 of implementation of the fees, we wrote a report and sent 11 it to Congress.
12 One of the key recommendations in that report 13 was that the amount -- we have about 50 to $60 million or 14 about ten percent of NRC's budget -- that was not being 15 paid for by the people that were necessarily benefitting 16 from those, and we recommended that that amount be taken 17 off the fee base, that is, that we recover approximately 18 90 percent of our budget as opposed to 100 percent.
19 We testified to Congress.
The Chairman at 20 that time testified to the Senate and, again, made the 21 recommendation.
We subsequently also had discussion with 22 OMB concerning the recommendation, and as of this date, no 23 legislation has been enacted as a result of that 24 recommendation.
25 Given the legislation that was enacted, about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCF'83ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433
f.-
)
l 13 I
I i
1 two years ago we looked to see if we could, within the 1
2 existing constraints, make the collection of that 50 to 3
S60 million more equitable, and what we did basically was 4
looked at it and said we would treat it similar to i
i l
5 overhead and prorate it to all fee paying licensees based i
6 on the amount of fee that they were paying otherwise.
)
7 The options that we looked at in relation to i
8 these issues, in developing the option, especially in 9
regards to how we consider fees in making decisions about 10 what we do, we divided our activities up into two i
11 categories.
The first category is what we call mandated 12 activities.
These are activities that we are, quote, i
13 mandated to do either because of -- I shouldn't say the
{
14 activity, but either the activity we are performing in i
l 15 response.to mandates.
For example, we license plants in 16 response to the Atomic Energy Act.
We do certain things 3
17 in response to treaties.
We do other things in response i
18 to executive orders, et cetera, but things that are 19 mandated to us to do.
20 That was the first category of activity.
Then r
I 21 the other category is the opposite of that.
It is non-22 mandated activities.
There basically these are activities t
23 that we perform as a service to another agency or another
'l 24 entity that we are not performing in response to a f
?
25 mandate, but in response to a request, and typically these i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433
i 14 l
l.
1 activities are performed under what is called the Economy i-2 Act within the government.
It basically says that if you l
3 have a capability that another agency can use cost f
l 4
effectively, then you are allowed to provide that service, i
l 5
but you're not required to.
6 The first option we had was to say for 7
mandated activities, we would not consider fees in making 8
decision for most mandated activities, and for non-9 mandated activity, we would consider. fees.
10 This is, in essence, what we are doing today, i
11 and I think the key word there is "most."
From time to l
12 time, as issues arise, I think the Commission was finding t
i 13 itself having one factor, who's going to pay for it, built 14 into it as opposed to the question of:
do I need to j
15 perform this function?
Is it for effectiveness of my 16 regulatory program or in support.of my regulatory program l
17 or in my mission?
l 18 The second option is basically no 19 consideration of fees for mandated activities and for non-20 mandated activities, we would consider fees, and we 21 requested the requester to reimburse the NRC for 22 performing the activity.
23 In essence, the only difference between the l
24 first and the second option is in the second option it i
25 wou'.d be a clear decision that our decision on whether or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(
.(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
1 15 1
not to perform the activity that's mandated would be based i.
2 on the merits of performing the activity as opposed to
?
3 who's going to pay for it.
4 The next option is one where we say we won't 5
consider fees in making decisions by the NRC's activity, mandated or non-mandated, and this is, in essence, where e
1 7
we were before we had 100 percent.
Basically we would 5
8' decide whether it was something in the government 9
interest, and we would go ahead and do it without 10 considering fees.
J l
11 Obviously, you know, the 400 percent fee was a 1
12 big factor in the decision anyway.
So this would be a j
13 step back to where we were in the past with 400 percent.
14 The last option is what we call a fee-for-l 15 service option.
It's basically to say we would consider I
16 the payment of fees in making all our decisions, and it I
17 would be more like anything that we do we would consider i
18 who's going to pay for it and would only do it if we could T
l 19 get the person to pay for it.
l 20 Obviously this option would require us to have 3
21 legislation because, as I mentioned earlier, there are 22' some things that, for example, we can't charge now for a-i i
23 license that is being issued to a VA hospital, the-
)
24 issuance of that license.
I 25 If we were to go with this option then either, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 1
4
16 we would have to be relieved of our responsibility or 1
- one, 2
the VA couldn't have a license, or we would have to get 3
authority to be able to charge them.
4 So implementation of Option 4 would require 5
that we have some type of legislation either to give us 6
more authority to charge fees or say if you can't charge 7
fees, you're not required to perform the function for your 8
mission.
9 Under each of these four options, the payment 10 of fees would be considered when we would add new 11 responsibilities, such as when new responsibility would be 12 given to NRC, such as with what was done when we were 13 given a responsibility to oversee the uranium enrichment 14 facility that DOE had.
As part of the legislation giving 15 us that authority, Congress explicitly said you now can 16 charge DOE for any activity you perform for those 17 facilities.
18 Recently, in the fiscal year 1997 19 appropriation, DOE had also come forward and asked us to 20 do some work at Hanford.
We had two choices there.
One 21 is to do it through reimbursement or to have it taken off 22 the fee base.
23 As part of our appropriation request, with the 24 agreement of OMB we requested that the money for those 25 activities not be included in the fee base, and as part of l
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33 i
l
17 1
the appropriation that was recently passed, Congress had 2
removed that amount of money from the fee base.
So in 3-this case, they made the consideration as part of the 4
appropriation bill, and they gave us the -- they did not 5
require us to recover those funds from other licensees.
6 The next set of options talks about a funding 7
mechanism for recovering fees, our recovering NRC's cost 8
or_ not recovering NRC's cost, and I think we look broadly 9
here from recovering the cost of taxes all the way up 10 through recovering the cost through fees or reimbursement.
11 The first funding mechanism is to recover the 12 cost of providing requested service from the requested 13 user fees or reimbursable agreements, and costs of 14 activity that serves the collective interest of the 15 general public would be recovered from general revenues 16 raised by taxes.
17 This, in essence, is the recommendation that 18 we had made to Congress as part of the report we had sent 19 to them in response to the Energy Policy Act.
In essence, 20 we were saying that those activities associated with the 21
$50 million or so were definitely not directly related to 22 the licensees that we had and, therefore, should be, you 23 know, considered in response to the collective interest of 24 the public and, therefore, should be taken off the fee 25 base,-which would imply it should be funded through taxes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1
So in essence, that was the alternative we 2
reccmmended as part of the fee policy report.
3 Alternative 2 would be, in essence, what we 4
are doing today.
We would charge all applicants and 5
licensees, would continue to pay for 100 percent of the 6
appropriated budget, and would use reimbursable agreements 7
to fund all non-mandated activity.
That, in essence, is 8
the current situation, and that's Alternative 2.
9 Alternative 3 would give us more flexibility 10 to assess fees and, therefore, give us more authority to 11 assess fees to other entities, thereby removing what might 12 be considered some fairness and equity concern by those 13 who are currently paying fees, 14 And the last alternative is what we would call 15 basically you would go back and you would fund all NRC's 16 activities through general revenues, and you would request 17 Congress to rescind the Independent Office Appropriations 18 Act, which gives us the authority to charge our fee for 19 service and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, 20 and then fully fund the NRC through taxes.
.1 Obviously if that option was picked and 22 enacted, the concerns that we're talking about here would 23 go away.
24 I'm going to read from the summary on the 25 Commission's preliminary views.
In this case the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
g --.
19 2
1 commission did provide, you know, a fairly clear rationale 1
2 for their decision, and I'd like to read that rationale 3
just for a few minutes just to give you a basis for the 2
4 Commission decision, especially on the consideration of f
5 fees in making the decision.
4 6
What the Commission said was, "The commission 4
7 believes that the NRC public health and safety mission 8
must be the foundation for decision-making activities i
{
9 about activities that'the agency should perform.
In i
10 making decisions on the work which the NRC would perform,
)
11 the Commission does and will continue to consider the cost f
12 of this activity and consistently examine ways to i
4 1
13 accomplish its mission with a responsible budget.
i "Whether the NRC's budget-is funded by the 14 15 public through taxes paid to the Treasury or by licensee i
16 fees paid to the Treasury, the NRC's decision about its 17 program should be the same.
The Commission believes that 18 fees should not be the primary factor in determining work 19 to be performed in response to NRC's health and safety i
- 20 mission.
It is the Commission's decision that 21 programmatic decisions should not be fee driven and should i
22 be based on their contribution to public health and i
1
]
23 safety."
24 That was the Commission, and essentially they 4
i 25 adopt Option 2, that is, programmatic decisions in l
l 1
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33 l
t
b i
20 1
response to NRC mandate would not be driven by fees.
3 1
2 Specific activity conducted by the NRC would be evaluated i
3 for effectiveness and efficiency, and I think what you've 4
4 heard today in terms of evaluating our activity for 5
effectiveness and efficiency are set on a path that would 6
give us the most bang for our bucks, is consistent with 3
7 this.
i 8
The Commission decision on the funding a
j 9
mechanism is that the commission basically picked 1
10 Alternative 2.
It would continue the agency's current j
11 approach whereby applicant and licensees would pay 100 j
12 percent of the appropriated budget authority.
i 13 Reimbursement would be used to fund non-mandated I
j 14 activities.
i 15 The Commission did go on to say that they
'6 would continue to.look for ways to make the fees fairer 5
L j
17 and equitable and, in fact, encourage the stakeholders in J
18 this process or in written comments to provide any i
19 suggestion that they may have,that would do that.
4
}
20 In relationship to_the FTE consideration given L
i
[
21 that funding approach if we are going to do reimbursable, 22 there is activity within the government to try to look at 23 ways to -- call them enterprise works -- but look at 4
4 j
24 certain activities, business-like activities, and under 25 those circumstances look at the-potential for relieving j
NEAL R. GROSS
\\
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 f'
-.. - -. ~.. _
_ -. - ~. - - -. - - - -. -..
s 21 1
the agency of the FTE ceiling that is normally associated 2
with the appropriation, and the Commission decided that 3
they would support the agency moving forward to work with 4
OMB to try to relieve that constraint.
5_
That'_s a summation of the issue paper.
I l
6 guess there's one other point that I'd like to make that's 7
not on the chart that is a very important external factor,-
8 and it's been talked about, I think, throughout this i
9 stakeholder conference, and that is that budget will be 10 constrained.
11 I'm going to state it a little bit different.
12 The way I like to state it is one constraint is that t
13 Congress and the administration will continue to place l
14 emphasis on balancing the federal budget, and I think that i
i 15 has two implications.
16 The first implication is that they would 17 continue to like revenues to come in, and the second 18 implication is obviously, you know, they would tend to 19 drive the budgets down.
20 So I think particularly as it relates to this 21 issue, the external factor of balancing the federal budget i
i 22 is one that has to be factored in as we try to come to a 1
23 decision on how to proceed.
24 With that, I turn it back over to you, and I 25 encourage suggestions that you might have on either of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
_. ___. _. _ _.. ~. _. _ _. _ _ _... _.
22 4
j 1
two issues and any comments that you might have.
2 MR. BROOKMAN:
Questions about the I
i 3
presentation?
4 I thought the presentation was clear, but it's i
~
5 a fairly complicated picture.
3 6
MR. FUNCHES:
Right.
1 7
MR. BROOKMAN:
Questions about the content of f
[
8 this presentation?
9 Not so many.
As I understand it, this issue i
10 has been afoot for a while.
11 MR. FUNCHES:
Yes.
(
Q 12 MR. BROOKMAN: 'And there has been a lot of I
- 13 exploration of this issue.
J 14 MR. FUNCHES:
Yes.
15 MR. BROOKMAN:
But based on your comment here,
[
j 16 the report that you issued to Congress in 1994, I. don't j
17 expect you to have a crystal ball, but it doesn't sound as e
18 though you are especially optimistic that the Congress is 3
19 going to provide you relief for this 50 to 60 million off 20 your fee base.
'l l
21 MR. FUNCHES:
I don't want to say no because 22 we continue to get questions about it.
23 MR. BROOKMAN:
Okay, and obviously you're j
24 continuing to gin up interest on it.
4 q
25 MR. FUNCHES:
Right.
Recently we had a 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
4
.l,
_m.
_.__..__m 6
23 1
question about, you know, the report, and the idea of, you 2
know, do we still support it, from Congress, and I don't 3
think the final answer has gone out, but I think the 4
Commission's answer would be, yes, we continue to support i
5 that report.
6 f
Do I have -- you know, I think there's some 7
chance, but I think the chances are, you know, slim.
The 8
chance.of not passing it is a lot greater than the chance 9
that you will get something through without, you know, 10 something else happening.
11 MR. BROOKMAN:
Okay.
Let me turn to the s
i 12 options and the option that the Commission has 13 preliminarily favored, chosen.
What about option 2?
Let l
14 me ask those of you in the audience.
Are you comfortable 15 with the choice?
Do you think there's a better one?
Is i
j 16 there a different way to look at this?
l j
17 Yes.
18 MR. HILL:
I'm Tom Hill, representing the 19 Organization of Agreement Statements and the Conference of 20 Radiation Control Program Directors, both, on this issue 21 here today.
l 22 You asked about Option 2, and we support 23 Option 2.
24 Let me, before I get down to that particular 25 point, let me get a few other-introductory comments, and i
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS '
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-M33 i
1
24
}:.
1 also I understand the constraints that have been placed on i
]
2 the agency, you know.
Nevertheless, I will make some of r
3 these comments that may say, You don't understand that,"
4 but that's okay.
I do.
e i
f-5 (Laughter.)
i 6
MR. BROOKMAN:
That's fine.
i a
7 MR. HILL:
State radiation control programs l
8 face the same type problems that NRC faces in fee 9
collection.
Several states have been directed by their a
10 legislatures to collect fees equal to 100 percent of their l
t 11 radiation. control budgets also, and here, too, we assess 1-12 fees to our licensees and registrants for all of our t
j 13 regulatory costs.
14 Like NRC, we must also recover costs for i
j 15 regulatory activities not attributable to licensees and 4
j.
16 registrants.
1 i
17 One question that came up, and I'm not j
j 18 necessarily asking this question for an answer here today, i
j 19 but it was one in reviewing this.
Is NRC unique in the l-20 federal government in that it's the only agency being 21 required to collect 100 percent of its budget through 22 fees?
4 i-l 23 We couldn't name another.
j-24 MR. FUNCHES:
Yeah, if I can answer, I don't 25 think we are the only agency.
I know, for example, the NEAL R. GROSS j
^
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 2%M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33
,,,.-,-,,.,g e.,.
3 m
r y-
25 1
Patent and Trademark -- I think their requirement is like 2
98 percent, and I don't know why they got picked for 98 3
percent, but their fees, for example, are set in the 4
legislation.
5 There was recent discussion -- and, Jim, 6
please chime in here -- there was recent discussion, I 7
think, about FERC increasing to 90 percent.
8 MR. HOLLOWAY:
Yeah, I'm Jim Holloway.
9 It's my understanding that FERC, the Federal 10 Energy Regulatory Commission, charges 100 percent of their 11 budget through fees, fee assessments.
12 MR. FUNCHES:
And I know the Securities and i
13 Exchange Commission assesses fees for 100 percent, but 14 they've got a little bit different legislation.
They can 15 retain some of their fees and hire extra inspectors, but I 16 think they can only use the money that they retain to hire 17 extra inspectors.
I think that's the way, but I do know 18 that the Securities and Exchange commission is 100 percent 19 fee because for a while they were getting more than 100 20 percent, as I recall.
21 MR. HILL:
Well, we couldn't think of any, and 22 I appreciate that.
23 MR. FUNCHES:
Okay.
24 MR. HILL:
It's our opinion that Congress 25 should recognize and appropriate NRC funds for areas for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
m._
26 I
which fees should not be collected from licensees, such as 2
agreement state oversight and international programs.
3 As I stated, we support Option 2 because 4
payment of fees should not be considered in deciding 5
whether or not to perform mandated activities.
6 Funds for mandated activities were-initially 7
allocated from appropriations.
Therefore, recouping the 8
costs of performing those activities should not be a i
9 determining factor.
10 As stated in the discussion of this option, 11 training for agreement states is a mandated activity.
NRC 12 should not consider charging the agreement states for 13 training or other services provided to the agreement 14 states, such as technical assistance.
Doing so would only 15 force the agreement states to adopt the same philosophy 16 and charge NRC for services provided.
17 That was talked about yesterday under DSI No.
18 4 for tit-for-tat, I think was the way it was worded then.
19 State radiation control programs have, for the 20 most part, technical competence and adequate resources to 1
21 address problems that arise in the states, but 22 occasionally technical assistance from NRC is necessary.
23'
.However, if NRC chooses to charge for this 24 service, state programs would be inclined to charge NRC i
25 for any technical assistance we provide.
An example of L
I l
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
27 1
technical assistance we've provided is the assistance in 2
the survey and coordination work done-by the states during 3
the Mexican steel contamination incident and during the 4
polonium air ionizer incidents.
5 Further, states would need to charge NRC for 6
rule development done on the well logging and industrial 7
radiography rules that were used as models for NRC rule
)
8 promulgation.
-9 And I believe also yesterday in the DSI-4 10 discussion, we listed several different other activities
'll also.
12 The funding mechanism for fee recovery should 13 remain as current.
However, it seems that the NRC -- and 14 here's where I may depart a little bit from the 15 constraints -- should be charging fellow federal agencies 16 for regulatory costs incurred.
This should be done either 17 as contract work for special projects or, if the federal la agencies function the same as licensees, VA hospitals, DOE 19 facilities, U.S. Army, et cetera, the applicable license 20 fee should be charged.
21' Interagency contracts are used in state 22 agencies to account for work done and costs incurred.
In
-23 many states, fellow state agencies that function as 24 licensees and registrants are charged the applicable 25.
license or registration-fee.
Our state Departments of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 23M33
28 1
i L
1 Transportation use moisture density gauges to pay fees to i
l 2
our programs.
Our universities, state universities with I
3 broad licenses for their medical academic research, et j
4 cetera, pay fees.
l l
5 Even though at times payments involve simply a 6
movement of state funds, it represents an accurate I
7 accounting and cost for all agencies.
We encourage NRC to 8
develop such cost accounting rather than passing on the
-t i
9 cost of regulating federal agencies and institutions to i
e t
-10 the fee paying licensees.
11 As an example, in our program, our lab, i
12 environmental lab, is in the same branch that our program 13 is, and we invoice them for the annual fee, licensing and
'I 14 inspection, and they call accounting, and they transfer i
1 15 the fees.
You know, so it's accounted that way, f
16 In addition to those comments for OAS and f
i 17 CRCPD, I would like to add another comment on behalf of l
i 18 the agreement states.
19 For the agreement states, there is an issue of-l 20 practicality of funding for out-of-state travel for l
21 training.
Staff of many radiation control programs f
22 frequently can receive authorization for out-of-state 23 travel only when the travel is funded by sources outside i.
24 the state government, whether that's NRC, CRCPD, FEMA, EPA i
a 25 or whoever.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
l m __
l' 39 1
MR. BROOKMAN:
Would you be a little more 2
specific about that?
It's only to attend training offered 3
by or authorized by or --
4 MR. HILL:
It could be training; it could be 5
meetings; whatever.
To get out-of-state travel, period, f
1
'6 for whatever reason, whether it's training or whether it's i
7 to attend a meeting or a workshop or whatever, if.it's 8
funded by outside the state agency, then you can receive l
9 authorization to travel out of state.
I f
10 MR. BROOKMAN:
I see.
You covered a lot of l
i l
i f
11 ground there.
Do you have more to contribute?
12 MR. HILL:
That's what I had unless there was l
'13 an explanation or clarification that I might give to what i
14 I've said.
15 MR. BROOKMAN:
I.noted that, for example, one 16 question I had; you said that you charge all licensees 17 and registrants, or something like that, and, Jesse, I L
19 wanted to ask you:
licensees pay the bulk of the fees, is and there's a class of facilities for which there are no 20 fees.
j 21 MR. FUNCHES:
Right.
Let me just -- I think 22 the question of -- I'll make two comments.
23 The question, obviously the Commission has 24 solicited comments on the question of the agreement state 25 training, traveling, tech, assistance, and I really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 R1(ODE ISLAND AVE,, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
30 1
appreciate those comments, and I think, you know, again, 2
they'll feed into the commission decision on DSI-4 as it 3
relates to that, and I appreciate those, and I think it 4
will be very useful to the commission in, you know, 5
revisiting its preliminary decision and making a final
)
6 decision.
7 Go back to the charging a federal agency and 8
make one clarification.
We do charge a federal agency an i
l 9
annual fee, and this again is a quirk of the law.
We can 10 charge them an annual fee if they have a license.
So we 11 are now charging them all annual fees.
12 What we're not able to charge them is the fee 13 for service because the fee for service is established by 14 another law, and that explicitly says that you will not 15 charge.
16 We can't do the work with them on the 17 contract, and I don't want to sound like I'm being a la bureaucrat, but we can't do the work for them under the 19 contract because the appropriation la says if as part of 20 your mission or as part of your enabling legislation 21 you're required to perform a review of a license for --
22 and we'll just use VA hospital as an example -- but of a 23 VS hospital and they must be licensed by NRC, then I'm not 24 going to put that in an appropriation.
I'm going to get 25 that money from somewhere else.
I can't say I'm going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23m33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
1 l
31 1
go and do it under reimbursable or do it under contract.
2 And the reason I can't is basically what 3
they're saying is you can't supplement your appropriation 4
for the authorized mission I've given you to do, and so 5
we're kind of caught in the middle.
We have gotten -- I 6
mean we didn't get legislation.
When they gave us TVA 7
facilities, they basically said, "You don't have to follow 8
that."
So we charged TVA.
When they gave us USCC, they 9
also gave us an exemption for USCC.
10 So I think to implement what you're saying, 11 and I'm, you know, not disagreeing with you, I think 12 you're saying that maybe we ought to go to get something 13 that would allow us to charge other federal agencies, even 1
14 though you're moving money from one account'to another, 1
15 but you know, that's to kind of place accountability where j
16 it is, and if you're using the service, you_ pay for the 17 service, and that's the way I understand the-comment 18.
you're saying, and that's the way we would have to 19 implement that.
20 I think, you know, it would be good if we had 21 some other flexibility, but we have looked, and we don't 22 have it right now.
I think that, you know, the 23 temperament of that option would require us to go get 24 legislation, and I'll take that comment from that 25 perspective.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 32 l
1 MR. BROOKMAN:
Okay.
Thank you.
2 MR. FUNCHES:
Thanks, again, for your comment.
3 MR. BROOKMAN:
Did your last comment address 4
his point about cost accounting?
l 5
MR. FUNCHES:
Yeah, I think that's what you're 6
saying.
You get the legislation, and what he's basically 7
saying even though you're moving money from DOE account to 8
NRC account and it's all within the big checkbook of the 9
government, it still puts some accountability on the 10 person who is requesting the services.
11 MR. BROOKMAN:
Okay.
How about some of the 12 rest of you?
We have both the mandated activities for 13 which the review has chosen preliminary Option 2, and then 14 the funding mechanism, Number 2, the current approach.
15 Since they did provide you the ability to --
16 did you say it was assess fees for USCC?
17 MR. FUNCHES:
Yes.
16 MR. BROOKMAN:
Does that seem to be a trend
]
19 and do you think that's likely to continue?
20 MR. FUNCHES:
It's definitely a trend that for 21 any new work they give us, part of the alternative is that 22 we will push to explicitly have them address fees.
23 I mean we might say, "Well, we've addressed i
24 them, and the answer is we're not going to allow you to 25 charge them," but we would push to explicitly request that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1
Congress and the administration who will pay for the 2
activity.
3 And I think if you sat through the DOE -- oh, 4
it's the regulatory oversight or DOE issue paper -- that's 5
a big concern for us as part of that issue.
That is, if 6
we are given responsibility for regulatory oversight of i
7 DOE, we must address the fees question or basically where 8
the money comes from to do such regulation.
9 It would, you know, be unfortunate if we say 10 you got another S200 million -- I'm just picking a. number 11
-- but program, and then you have to try to assess that to i
12 the existing licensee.
So we have explicitly addressed 13 that in the comments, that we are going back and that that 14 issue must be addressed.
15 And there's two ways to deal with the issue, j
16 One is to do like they did for USCC and basically say 17 you're allowed to charge them.
Another one is to say, 18 okay, that amount of money will not be part of your fee 13 base.
We'll take it from the Treasury, and therefore, the 20 issue goes away, and we don't have a strong view either 21 way.
You know, there's some benefits both ways.
22 But either one of those options would solve 23 the problem.
24 MR. BROOKMAN:
I see.
Two other issues that 25 you referenced were how to recover in a fair and equity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISMND AW., N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1
way.
2 MR. FUNCHES:
Right.
3 MR. BROOKMAN:
And the other one was related 4
to FTEs.
Maybe we could go with the first one first.
I l
5 was wondering if the organization of agreement states had 6
additional ideas, for example, on how to recover these 7
fees in a fairer and more equitable way, just to put you 8
on the spot.
9 MR. HILL:
Thank you for that.
10 I guess our thought is that the mandated 11 activities that, like international programs, like i
1 12 oversight, should be removed from the fee base, j
13 MR. FUNCHES:
So you would --
14 MR. HILL:
I think it should be, and that FTE 15 should be removed from it.
16 MR. BROOKMAN:
Can you give us a sense of your 17 rationale?
18 MR. HILL:
Well, I will go back to a little 19 bit of NRC's comments and positions, as I understsnd some l
l 20 of them have been, that they are mandated by the Atomic l
l 21 Energy Act to have a national type program, and so l
l 22 activities that are performed by the agreement states 23 helps NRC in meeting that mission, protecting public 24 health and safety on a national basis.
25 And so that, I think, is the simplest way, a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 F
i' 35 1
kind of a baseline rationale for that.
2 MR. FUNCHES:
And I believe that's more like 3
Option 1 on the funding mechanisms, I guess, funding 4
authority Mechanism 1 where we would say those types of l
5 activities would be in the collective interest of the
)
6 public and, therefore, should not be funded through fees, 7
but through -- yeah.
8 MR. BROOKMAN:
Can you say just briefly?
You 9
chose funding Mechanism 2.
Kind of some of the tension 10 between two and one at the Commission level.
11 MR. FUNCHES:
We recommended one.
We went 12 forward with the study to Congress basically, and that was 13' a Commission recommendation.
I can't, you know, under 14 this particular funding mechanism.
The Commission didn't 15 state their rationale, but I could probably say some of 16 the factors that obviously they would have considered'in 17-making that decision.
18 And one is I think one actually factor that is 19 there, and it was presented in a paper, was the fact that, i
20 you know, there's this tension to balance the federal 21 budget and that means revenues plus decreases, and I think 22 when we made the report to Congress and when we actually 23 testified, I think, you know, Congress being sympathetic, 24 they asked for the study.
They had the report.
They 25 asked for the hearing, and I think I can remember one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
36 I
comment during that hearing was like, "Well, if I take P
2 this revenue off, where do I make it up?"
or stated 3
another way, they're dealing with what they call caps on l
1 4
the amount of budget they can handle for discretionary, 5
and if NRC is bringing revenues in and offset, if I stop r
6 those revenues from coming in, then they've got to find a i
7 cut somewhere else.
l l
8 And the question was:
well, if I have you i
9 that S50 million fee base, where do I find the $50 million 10 from?
And I think that's the tension that Congress was 11 going through when they were looking at this.
i l
12 You know, from a practical point of view 1
l l
}
13 obviously has made the recommendation a couple-of times, I
14 and at that point nothing had happened, but you know, e
L 15 specifically why they picked this one, you know, I don't t
i 16 vant to speculate because I wasn't, you know, involved in 17 the detailed discussion at the Commission level.
18 MR. BROOKMAN:
Are there other ideas on how to 19 recover fees in a fair, in a more fair, I guess, and 20 equitable way?
Other ideas from individuals or groups?
21 What about the question of FTEs?
I note in i
22 your paper you list three different types of work that the 23 NRC performs.
Do you need to have or does that then mean 24 that you might have a different perspective with respect 25 to full-time equivalents for each of the three?
NEAL R. GROSS 4
l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS.
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
_. ~..._.
_= -._..-. -.........~
37 1-MR. FUNCHES:
I think the FTE question really j
f 2
boils down to or again it's back to again I can get money 3
to fund these things as somebody asked me to do.
If -- I 4
don't know -- NASA comes in and says, "I have a space 5_ mission that involves -- I don't_know ---a nuclear source, s
6 and I'd you to help me review it," and they say, well, j
7-NASA has billions of dollars here, So, you know, $200,000 8
to go do it.
9 That's good if I can go contract another 10 agency, you know, contract for that because then they can l
11 get the expertise and there's no cost, but if I'm limited 12 to the number of people that I can have, if my limitation
}
[
13 is to the number of people, then it causes a concern in i
14 that if I use that person, even though I've got the money l
15 to pay that person or extra money to pay for extra people, 16 then I've got to take that person off some other work, and 17 it creates a -- you know, you have to make a priority 18 decision, especially if you are really constrained by the 19 number of people you can have on board.
As the FTE i
20_
ceiling gets lower and lower, those constraints become 21 more of a problem for us.
22 And what it does is puts you in competition 23 for delivered FTEs, not the fact that you couldn't fund 4
24 more.
It's just you don't have the numbers there, and OMB 25 controls us by the number of FTEs.
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i ~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 2000# 3701 (202) 234-4433 i
i
38
)
1 MR. BROOKMAN:
Yeah.
2 MR. FUNCHES:
There were some proposals in the 3
past that, hey, don't worry about the FTEs.
Just worry 4-about the dollars, and I think it was made by the National 5
Performance Review Group, but that so far has not been 6
agreed to by the administration.
7 MR. BROOKMAN:
I see.
I was wondering if the i
8 agreement states or other people thought there were-
{
~9 additional funding mechanisms that the NRC could pursue 10 that they haven't yet pursued, if there are other ways to 11 fill the coffers, add to the coffers.
12 MR. PEVELER:
This is Ken Peveler.
I'm 13 speaking as a private citizen here.
14 I had a whole bunch of thoughts here.
They're j
a 15 probably rambling.
So maybe I'll just provide some food i
16 for thought for others here.
i l
17 We're talking about collecting fees.
What j
18 we're really talking about is collecting money to perform 19 a task.
The task is a mandated effort to protect the 20 public health and safety.
21 In collecting fees, where does the money come 22 from?
It comes from the consumer.
Tax on the utilities, 23 so to speak, for the fee only causes us as a utility to l
24 pass on that funding request to the consumer, which is 3
25 basically equivalent to a tax that the government would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
39 1
collect.
2 So, in essence, all we've done is rearrange 3
what we call it to collect the funds to support an 4
activity.
So I guess along that thought, to me the i
5 beneficiary is the public, and the public is the one who's 6
paying the price.
7 How are you going to tie it back to the 8
mission and making sure that the activities we're 9
performing are those necessary to meet the mandate of the 10 mission?
11 So it seems to me that this DSI would tie it 12 back to the risk and performance based regulation, the 13 role of industry, et cetera.
It probably ties back to all 14 of them.
15 And when you asked the question of reputable 16 collection, and if you look at the industry and the way 17 it's evolving right now, I think you're really putting the 18 nuclear industry in an anti-competitive position to a 19 small degree.
It's not a large cost, but it is a cost.
20 It is a delta in the cost between a fossil plant and a 21 nuclear plant, and therefore, you continue to drive the 22 nuclear industry in a negative direction.
23 So I think as we see more plants go down, your 24 fees are going to go up because you're going to have less 25 plants to pull the fees from.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
... _. -... - =
- l 40 1
So I think we've got to be concerned a little 2
bit about our mix of electric generation to some degree 3
and the way we're driving the industry.
4 Thank you.
1 4
5 MR. FUNCHES:
Yeah, I appreciate that comment.
6 Early on I.now that a similar discussion / debate was going 4
3 7
forth to Congress after the earlier days are over about 8
the -- and it really is a public policy question of how i
9 you raise revenues.
You know, we were kind of given a 10 mandate from, say, for this industry you're required to i
11 collect fees, and how they approach the other industry, 12 you know, I guess they don't charge fees for the people 4
13 that regulate coal.
i
~
14 But it is a factor, I think, that's important 15 in the public policy debate about how you assess fees or i,
16 do you assess fees or do you recover costs through taxes, r
17 and I appreciate the comment.
18 MR. BROOKMAN:
From the standpoint of the j
19 consumer, certainly, fees are not as straightforward as --
20 I mean the taxpayer -- not as straightforward as taxes.
21 MR. PEVELER:
They don't seem as 22 straightforward.
23 MR.-BROOKMAN:
Exactly.
24 MR. FUNCHES:
Right.
[
25 (Laughter.)
4 NEAL. R. GROSS a
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 4
41 1
MR. BROOKMAN:
A notable distinction.
i 2
Additional thoughts on either the question --
3 I'm not sure we finished fully or covered fully the 4
question of FTEs.' I thought your explanation was good, 5
I'm wondering if there are other alternatives to be 6
explored there or are there thoughts.cn1 the question 01 7
fair and equitable?
8 MR. FUNCHES:
You know, I think most of the 9
people here, we have opportunity to communicate once a 10 year, and over time, you know, a lot of issues have been 11 dealt with as it relates to fees, and I'll say I 12 appreciate those comments also, sc metimes as hard as they 13 were.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. BROOKMAN:
As an outside observer,.it t
i i
16 seems as though your understanding of these in the 17 exchange is pretty mature at this point.
You know, that's 18 how it strikes me.
19 Okay.
Yes.
20 MR. HOLLOWAY:
One added comment.
Jim 21 Holloway.
22 When the report was sent to Congress, as Jesse 23 said, we had congressional hearings on that subject.
Not 24 only did we go down and testify, but the utility industry 25 was there and made comments, as well as the National NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000>3701 (202) 234-4433
~..
s 42 1
Mining Association, if I recall.
4 2
MR. FUNCHES:
Right.
i 3
MR. HOLLOWAY:
So there was input from 4
industry, about the same as we get.
Take ten percent of j
i t
5 the money off the fee base if you really want to be more f
6 fair and equitable in assessing fees.
So there was input 7
from the industry at the time.
}
8 MR. BROOKMAN:
Let me just turn --
\\
9 MR. FUNCHES:
No, I was just -- that was a j
10 good point.
11 MR. BROOKMAN:
Just to the larger issue paper, 1
12 as I think about these four questions, let me ask you i
13 collectively if you think.any major consideration have t
14 been omitted or if major important internal or external i
15 factors haven't been considered here, or if you think the 16 issue paper does actually respond well to the current 1
I 17 environmental and challenges.
\\
18 Let me just toss those out for your 19 consideration.
Any omissions?
Does this really speak to
+
i 20 the current environment and challenges?
And does this l'
21 really adequately address the internal and external 22 factors?
i 23 (No response.)
24 MR. BROOKMAN:
I don't see anybody saying 25 anything additional.
I guess you guys must have done a i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
. ~ -. _ _. -. -.. _ - -
5 43 1
1 1
good job.
1 l
i 2
MR. FUNCHES:
Oh, thank you.
3 (Laughter.)
4 MR. BROOKMAN:
I'm getting the sense, Jesse, 5
that you've gotten the input that you're going to get from
+
5 6
this group.
j 7
MR. FUNCHES:
And I appreciate it, and thank i, -.
8 you very much for the comments, and you know, the i
9 Commission will continue to deal with this issue, I'm I
4 10 sure, in the future.
11 MR. BROOKMAN:
Thanks to all of you very much j-12 for your comments.
i 13 (Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the Managing NRC 1
14 Finances session was concluded.)
d
)
15 e
i 16 1
17 18 i
19 i
}
20 I
t 21 i
e-i-
22 i
l i
23 i
l 24 4
l 25 i-
)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 i
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding:
STAKEHOLDERS PUBLIC MEETINGS i
MANAGING NRC FINANCES Docket Number:
N/A Place of Proceeding:
WASHINGTON, DC were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court i
reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
]
r n]
)
Jeffrd97 6arnell
\\
official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co.,
Inc.
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW
~
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
r i
i I
l' a' 3,
Direction Setting Issue No. 21 Fees
.. Jr UE l-
.g :
)
l l
i October 2c25,1996 Sponsor: Jesse L. Funches, OC Writer: James Holloway, OC i
/
l
l
\\
DSI21 i
f gi In Making Decisions About What Activities f
the NRC Shouk Perform in Support ofIts i
Mission, to What Extent Should Fees Be J*
Considered?
.a i
^
l l
/
k
i 4
Other Issues
\\
q
- What Funding Meclanism Shoulc NRC Pursue, in Addition to Annual Appropriations With Fee Recovery, to Fund
.e H Activities That Are Not Required to Be l
pv i
Funded Through Appropriations?
r l
- In Performing Reimbursable Work, How Should NRC Address the Full Time i
Equivalent (FTE) Consideration That Limit j
/
the Number of NRC Staff?
k
Key Factors 4
- NRC receives funds from appropriations j
and reimbursements from others.
q
- Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
~
g: Jj 1990 (OBRA-90) requires NRC to recover approximately 100 percent ofits budget authority by assessing fees.
- Fees have been highly controversial.
i
- Report to Congress in 1994.
t l
Options
- For most mandated activities, do not i
consider fees in making decisions; for non-s mandated activities, consider fees in making n;
decisions.
'j w.u
"
- No consideration of fees for mandated 1
activities; for non-mandated activities, requestor will reimburse the NRC for cost of performing activities.
f
/
i
1 Options (cont)
- No consideration of fees in makmg i
decisions about any NRC activities.
=a
- 1.
- Consider the payment of fees in making l
decisions about all activities performed by
'4
~
l the agency.
i I
(
't Alternative Funding Mechanisms Recover the cost of providing requested l
10 services from the requestor using fees and j
reimbursable agreements. Cost of activities 6.,
3,,'
- rn that serve t1e collective interest of the general public would be recovered from general revenues raised by taxes.
i
/
l
Alternative Funding (cont) f
- NRC applicants and licensees would continue
";;j to pay for approximately 100 percent of the J
appropriated budget authority. Reimbursable
.o agreements would be used to fund all non-mandated activities.
f
- Amend OBRA-90 and AEA Act of 1954 to give XRC maximum flexibility to assess fees.
- Rescind IOAA of 1952 and OBRA-90 so that NRC would be fully funded through taxes.
f k
1
I Commission's Preliminary Views
- Programmatic decisions in response to NRC 3
mandates will not be driven by fees and should be based on their contribution to s.
ne i
P'L public health and safety.
r I
l Commission's Preliminary Views (cont) j
- Continue agency current approach whereby applicants and licensees continue to pay for approximately 100 percent of the
[Ni appropriated budget authority. Reimbursable 1
agreements would be used to fund non-mandated activities.
l
- FTE consideration - support removing FTEs associated with reimbursable work from the NRC ceiling.
f h
-