ML20149J556
| ML20149J556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/03/1995 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Riggle J GEORGE MASON UNIV., FAIRFAX, VA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149J561 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501060035 | |
| Download: ML20149J556 (2) | |
Text
.
jMi ~a3 19953 -
Mr. James Riggle Institute of Public Policy Pohick Module George Mason University 4400 University Drive Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Dear Mr. Riggle:
Per our telephone conversation, please find documents and correspondence enclosed that address return of. regulatory authority to the Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission (NRC) by the States of New Mexico and Idaho and the granting of funds by the NRC for the development of an Agreement State program.
Please contact me at (301) 504-3340 if I can be of further assistance as you complete your report for the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences.
Sincerely, Original Shned By NCHARD L BANGART
. Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs r
Enclosures:
I As stated Distribution:
Dir RF RBangart PLohaus New Mexico File Idaho File-DCD'(SP01) PDR YES.'s'-
N0 n
._0_F_C_ _ OSP:D /
d
..N,M,E,4,R_B a,nga di _[,4,,,,,___,4_,,
4_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _4_ __,
_ __,,,_4,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _4_ __ __ __ _ _ _,,.
DTE ! 01/03/95 G:\\riggle.dir i
l 9501060035 950103 PDR STPRG ESGGEN PDR
p sin:vq p
UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20eetH1001 January 3,1995 Mr. James Riggle Institute of Public Policy Pohick Module George Mason University 4400 University Drive Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Dear Mr. Riggle:
Per our telephone conversation, please find documents and correspondence enclosed that address return of regulatory authority to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the States of New Mexico and Idaho and the granting of funds by the NRC for the development of an Agreement State program.
Please contact me at (301) 504-3340 if I can be of further assistance as you complete your report for the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences.
Sincerely,
/h St(
A4 di Richard L. Bangart, Direc r Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated
p
(
9 t
start or Nsw Msxico ems ortie soweinen SANTA F:
sm
- Towsy ANAYA
~
March 18,1986 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Secretary Chilk:
As you are aware, the State of New Mexico has', for the past several years, had pending before the Commission an application to amend the 1974 Agreement between the State and the Commission to cover uranium mill tallings in accordance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. $ 2021(o).
To date, the Commission has declined to approve the application for a by-product material agreement.
The Commission has properly pointed out that the existing state regulations fall to meet applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements in several respects.
As you must also be aware, under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the Commission is authorized to enter into an agreement with a state only.if certain conditions are met, one of which is "that the state desires to assume regulatory responsibility ' for such materials (subject to the proposed
{
agreement].
., 42 U.S.C. $ 2021(d).
At this time, New Mexico no longer desires to assume this regulatory nnponsibility.
Because of severe budgetary constraint., as well as other compelling reasons, the State of New Mexico can no longer assume regulatory responsibility for uranium mill tallings.
(See attached memorandum from Denise Fort to Governor Toney Anaya. )
Consequently, on behalf of the State of New l
Mexico, I am hereby withdrawing the State's pending appilcation under 42
.. U.S.C. I 2021 with respect to the regulation by the State, of uranium mill tallings.
Of course, the withdrawal of this pending application is intended to, and will, have the effect of leaving intact existing State programs under the 1974 Agreement, as to radioactive materials and devices other than uranium mliis and mill tailings.
In exercising this option to " discontinue the lidensing of uranium milling and mill tailings control, while retaining authority to license other materials licensable under,the Agreement States Program", I am acting in accord with the expressed intent of Congress when it enacted Section 204 of the Uranium Mill Tallings Radiation Control-Act of 1978.
See House Report No. 95-1480, Part 1 (p. 21) and Part 2 (p. 45), containing the above-quoted language.
i As I reiterated to the New Mexico uranium mill ownerp in my letter dated i
November 15, 1985, New Mexico and the other Agreement States are bound directly to enforce the currently applicable EPA standards promulgated in 40 CFR 192 against Agreement State licensees, under the commission's dirc:.uve to the Agreement States dated March 22, 1985.
Three of our five " active site" licensees have responded to my letter and to your directive by stating h y]$0l$ L
March 18,1986 Page 2 that they dispute the legal power of the State directly to enforce such federal requirements, and.that they do not intend to comply with such federal requirement unless and until they have been incorporated into State law through formal rulemaking by the Environmental Improvement Board.
In view of this posture on the part of several New Mexico licensees, the public interest would not be served by a
protracted transition period.
Consequently, 1 must request that the Commission complete whatever steps are required to resume federal regulation of uranium mill licensees in New Mexico no later than May 1,1986.
We will continue to work with you after that date, but for legal purposes the program should be considered transferred at that time.
I assure you that' the State of New Mexico stands ready to assist the Commission in its assumption of licensing and regulatory activities with respect to uranium mills and mill tallings in New Mexico.
I am informed that 42 U.S.C. l 2021(i) provides authority for the Commission to contract with the State "to perform inspections or other functions on a cooperative basis y the Commission deems appropriate." As you know, the State has a number of experienced and skilled employees who might well be utilized on a contractual basis under i 2021(l), in the event that the Commission should deem it advisable to seek such expert assistance in its uranium milling and mill tallings program in New Mexico.
We would be pleased to explore this possibility with you at any mutually convenient time.
With regard to the mechanics of transferring the uranium program from the State to the Commission, we will make every effort to see to it that the i
transition is accomplished with a minimum of disruption to licensees and to the public.
I suggest that you communicate directly with the Director of the New Mexico Environmental improvement Division, Denise Fort, concerning how the transfer is to be accomplished.
[
in closing, I wish to express my appreciation for the assistance and l
cooperation that the State has received from the Commission over the years.
l We look forward to similarly good relations with the Commission, as the State continues to discharge its obligations under the existing 1974 Agreement.
l If you have any questions about this letter or its implications, please feel free to contact me at any time.
Sincerely, A
. > W.
w.
g_
TONEY A A
Governor TA/ddf/jdv Attachment cc: Ms. Denise D. Fort, EID Director Mr. Wayne Kerr, Nuclear Regulatory Commission t
e e TONEY ANAYA aE Ea GOVERNDR N
- r..C sE m
DENISE D. PDM STATE OF NEW MEX3CO 4~
H J
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT DIVISION e
O
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,n,,,,m,,i,,,,,
l MEMORANDUM T0:
Toney Anaya, Governor. State of New Mexico FROM-Denise Fort Environmental Improvement Division. Director DATE:
March 19, 1986
$UBJECT:
Continued State Administration of the Uranium Licensing Program 1.
Introduction.
In the early 1950s uranium was first discovered in 'the Grants region.
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) opened a branch office in Grants in 1950 and prospecting began in earnest.
In 1955 uranium ore was discovered in Ambrosia Lake some 25 miles northwest of Grants.
Prior to 1940 the world's entire production of U 038 had been little more than 7,500 tons; by 1960 the San Juan Basin alone produced more than 7.800 tons.
In 1977 the Basin's production of ore amounted to 46 percent of the national production of 16.700 tons; in 1978, the Basin produced 475 of the U.S.
total of 20,200 tons.
At this time, seven companies were actively operating thirty ur'anium mines and four major mills:
- Anaconda, Quivira.
Nomestake Mining Corporation, and United Nuclear Corporation..
In 1974 the State of New Mexico became an ' Agreement State" with the AEC and assumed jurisdiction for licensing by-product material excluding mill tailings.
In 1976 the State exercised authority over mill tailings with the consent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the successor agency to
,the AEC.
In 1978 Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), that amended the Atomic Energy 'Act of 1954, and allowed the State to enter into an amended agreement with NRC if it wished to continue regulating mill tailings.
UMTACA was designed to address problems with both " inactive" uranium tailings piles (Title !) and " active" piles and milling operations (Title II).
The " inactive" piles are specifically listed in the legislation.
Remaining piles, whether the company is in operation in 1986 or not, are considered " active" within the meaning of the statute. Under Title !! of the Act the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was mandated to promulgate generally applicable standards for active uranium mills and mill tailings.
These standards were then to be implemented through licensing and rule-making activities by the NRC and by so-called " Agreement States",
including New Mexico, which opted to regulate uranium mills and mill tailings.
eauu, onmemwn oma
Memo to Governor Anaya
. March Ig, 1986 Page 2 In October, 1985 NRC finally promulgated its revised regulations which established minimum federal standards.
New Mexico is required to conform under the " Agreement State" provisions of UMTRCA with these federal standards; it has not adopted conforming regulations, and does not have an approved agreement pursuant to UMTRCA.
All vranium recently mined and milled in New Mexico comes from the Grants Mineral Belt, an area of about 2,500 square miles stretching north and west of Grants.
There are five active uranium mill subject to regulation under Title II of UMTRCA: tailings piles in this area, Homestake Mining Company (HMC) near Milan, New Mexico, with 22 million a.
tons; b.
Anaconda Minerals Company near Bluewater and Grants, with 24 million tons; Quivira Mining Company at Ambrosia Lake, with 34 million tons; c.
d.
United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) northeast of Gallup, with 3.6 million tons; and Schio-Western (K'ennecott/L-Barl near Seboyota, with 3.3 million tons..
e.
All of the five Title II sites have documented ground water contamination due to seepage from unlined tailings ponds.
Two of the sites. Homestake and UNC, are on the National Priorities List for federal Superfund treatment, primarily because of ground water problems.
Homestake has installed a new public water supply at its own expense and implemented a pump back system, augmented by a fresh water injection process in an attempt to reclaim the polluted aquifer.
EPA has not yet determined what remedial action will be required at UNC's tailings pile.
Currently, all of these five sites are required to comply with State Water Quality Control Commission regulations, which are less stringent than those adopted by the EPA and currently applied by the NRC.
d The uranium industry is going through a transition phase at the current time t
since the majority of the companies are no longer milling ore and stabilization and reclamation has not yet begun.
The need to stabilize and reclaim proceeds from the federal regulatory scheme, which controls releases of wind blown tailings, radon gas, and ground water contamination.
The current regulatory issues no longer focus on environmental control during operations; the long-term requirement of. stabilization is the standard by l
which the program must be measured.
i II.
Scope of the problem.
The State's regulation of uranium licensees has not been very effective during i
the 10 years that the State has operated the program.
Much evidence could be I
cited to support this statement.
Most importantly environmental problems are occurring at every site; the sites do not have approved stabilization plans; the sites do not have adequate sureties to protect the State in case of default; the applicability of federal regulations has not been settled; license renewals are long overdue; and the adoption of new State regulations
\\
will require hearings with the potential of protracted appeals.
-Memo to Governor Anaya March Ig, 1986 Page 3 Second EID's budget has been severely reduced in the last few years.
The Division has been plagued with constant and disruptive staff turnover, the need to redace positions in the agency and uncompetitive salaries.
In 1 addition, several companies have refused to accept the applicability of i
federal regulations.
The disagreements between industry and the State over applicable standards have already consumed inordinate staff time and could l
easily consume several more years as hearings are held, appeals litigated and issues retried.
With the potential costs incurred in hearings to develop regulations and the litigation which has accompanied and will presumably continue to accompany almost every regulatory development, there ic no way this agency can continue to bear the costs of this demanding program.
Thi rd,
I seriously question whether the State's regulatory system can withstand the pressures which will result from imposition of high costs on a nearly defunct industry.
Had regulatory development not been forestalled at the State and federal level during the boom years, the costs could havj been properly internalized by the industry.
The threatened imposition of these costs has already resulted in a 1986 legislative memorial, disapproving the very regulations the NRC has directed that we impose.
While you. have '
supported federal legislation to help producers with these costs, in the absence of legislation the State is caught between federal requirements, environmental protection and the position of many legislators.
III. Enforcement problems.
1.
Protracted Litigation.
Two licensees. HMC and Quivira, are currently pursuing license renewal.
Requests by the State for revised stabilization plans that address federal standards have drawn responses from these two licensees that federal standards are not enforceable by _ the EID.
These licensees have indicated that they will fight State implementation of the minimum federal requirements and will litigate those requirements if adopted as State regulations.
The cost of litigation will be in addition to the cost required for adoption of the requirements. and this litigation may result in a delay of several years in the enforcement of State regulations.
2.
Financial Sureties.
Existing financial sureties for mill tailings reclamation are inadequate to ensure reclamation even to existing State standards, and they appear woefully' inadequate to meet federal standards.
The State requirements for interim financial sureties currently stand at
$25,000 per acre.
By contrast, the most recent studies indicate the need for $250,000-$350,000 per acre to address the problem realistier11y.
As an example the current surety amount for Quivira Mining Company is $8.75 million, whereas the Department of Energy's estimate for the site is
$123.75 million.
Without sufficient financial sureties, the taxpayers of New Mexico may ultimately bear the costly burden of clean-up.
3.
Longevity.
With respect to engineering design, the longevity requirement of the existing State regulations requires stabilization of the tailings piles for only 200 years.
Federal regulations require stabilization for
Memo to Governor Anaya March Ig, 1986 l
page 4 j
1,000 years, unless it can be demonstrated that a shorter period should be allowed, but in no case less than 200 years.
4 Radon. Radon emanation rates are not addressed in the existing pC1/mgtate regulations, while the federal regulations establish a 20
/Sec standard.
Elevated levels of radon gas have been associated with an increase in the incidence of lung cancer, and the health risks of radon were a primary concern when Congress enacted UMTACA.
5.
Ground Water Protection.
EPA standards specify that background concentrations of most constituents will not be exceeded in ground water.
These standards are substantially more stringent than existing state requirements.
IV.
Reasons for Returning the Program to NRC.
1.
More Effective Environmental Regulations. The NRC and EPA regulations are much more effective than those of the state for mill decommissioning, tailings stabilization, clean-up of properties contaminated by uranium mills, and ground water protection.
Specifically, NRC standards would have to be addressed adequately under the federal regulations with respect to engineering design, ground water protection, long term stabilization, radon barrier thickness, and resistance to long-term flooding.
With the full force of the federal government behind these regulations, effective environmental and health protection standards would be enforced.
2.
Financial sureties.
The federal regulations would immediately require modification of the existing inadequate financial surety arrangements to ensure that uranium mill tailings are reclaimed to the federal standards if abandoned by the mining companies.
The State now stands a
substantial risk of having to clean up abandoned tailings piles, with sureties many millions of dollars below estimated costs.
This risk is one we must take every step to prevent.
3.
High staff turnover.
High staff turnover has been a problem in the Uranium Licensing Program since 1974.
Lack of continuity has drastically affected this program, as relatively long periods of familiarization with specific licenses are required before effective licensing decisions can be made.
The difference in salaries paid by the E!D and those by private industry and nearby national laboratories has primarily contributed to the rapid turnover in this area.
The problem is not likely to be resolved in the near future.
4 Lack of Resources.
The Uranium Licensing Program has had to rely on outside consul tants to do some of the detailed engineering / design evaluations on reclamation pl ans.
Staff turnover have exacerbated the need for such outside help, yet the division has had to cancel outside contracts as a cost savings measure.
n Memo to Governor Anaya March Ig. 1g86 Page 5 5.
gudget savinos.
The State is performing a federal responsibility at State expense and without any federal funding.
If the program were returned to the NRC. the State would save at least 4 FTE. travel, training and outside contract costs annually.
Conclusion I would not dispute that there are some benefits to continued State administration of the program.
Certain of the mill tailings piles represent major environmental problems for the State and loss of direct State control, however problematic its exercise has been, is always subject to question.
Moreover, the companies may benefit from EID's geographic accessibility.
In my mind three factors tip the balance towards the resumption of MRC control.
Our agency budget dictates that we seriously question each and every program we administer in terms of net environmental benefit. Second, the State is now dangerously unsecured in the event of abandonment of the mill tailings piles. With NRC administration, f3deral regulations including the surety provisions, will insiediately be effective.
Finally I believe the expertise and political support needed to better protect the
)
gnvironment and administer the program is found within the NRC.
For.these reasons I recommend we initiate action to return the program to the NRC.
DF/MB/cvg 9 9 9
O 9
I e
i
e,,
r' WesTap sTATts g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY N
~
mam es m ou,a c.asm s
{
9
\\.....
ney n. nses g
C Y,c'$?? -
p a
The Mesorable Toney Anaya
.. ed g
Governor of New Mexico G
Santa Te. New Resico 87503
Dear Governor Anaya:
- 18. 1986 the Commission As a result of your letter of March today agreed to reassert its licensing and regulatory authority ever eranius and thoriva milileg activities and the alli, l
h tailings produced by these activities.
The effective date for resumption of NRC regulatory sethority is d
In the next few days we espect to tssee a public June 1. 1986.
^
in conjunction with issuance of the enclosed ameoencement Federal Register notice.
Ms. Denise Fort. Director of the Enviremmental Improvement informed of the decision. I understand that Division has been she is asking arrangements for transfer of the appropriate files and other material to the NRC.
tie appreciate the State's cooperation in this matter and leek i
forward to continuing our cooperative relationships en the g
O reonising portion of the State Agreement program.
j~
gi Sincerely.
j s
s i
I Nunzia ladino
Enclosure:
As stated g
l 4
I 4
O D
g
a.
P' p'
Nuclear segulatory Coseilssion meassertion of Certain mogulatory Authority in the St. ate of New Mexico my letter dated March 18, 1996 Governor Toney Anaya of New Mexico, roguested that the BAC reassert its authority over uranium milling and mill tailings in New Mexico. The Governor stated that hecesse of severe budget constraints, as weil as other compelling reasons, the State can so longer assume The other h
regulatory responsibility for aranium mill tailings.
N reasons fomed compelling by Governor Amaya related to legal probleums in attempting to enforce Federal requistions directly, i
dif ficulties anticipated in upgrading the New Mexico regulations and mili eurety arrangements and high staf f tornover. A copy of the Governor's letter is on file in the Commission's Public f
Di Document Boom at 1717 N Street, WW, Washington, DC.
y 4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Weclear Regulatory reumalasion granted the Giovernor's request. The Commisalon found that it is necessary to ter1minate t'ast part of New Natioo's agreement relinguishing NRC anthority over uranium and thorium milling 8
activities and mill tailings and to reassert NBC litenming sad regulatory authority over these activities and the mill tailings glaia prodeced in order to protect the public health and safety.
D finding ensures that there will be no lapes of licensing sad 8
regulatory authority over these activities and materials uPon A? !, /?
! !... m =s i
f I
a v -
t;y vs e.
.~
3
- h f
! relinguishment of this authority by the state of lesw Mexico.
reassertice of authority will became effective on June 1, His This action does not affect the remaining portion of the 1986.
New Mexico Agreement State Program whicds covers regulation of byproduct material (as defined in Section 31(e)'1) of the Atmic knergy Act), moucce meterial, and special maclear material is g
questities not enfficient to form a critical smass.
Persons seeking licemees for activities within New Mexico involving byproduct meterial as defined in section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as - W, or activities resulting in the production of such byprodect material should ille such applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission, f
Uranium Becovery Field Of fice, som 25325, Denver, Colorado g
80225, Attention R. Dale Smith, Director.
- 5 Esisting orasium milling licensees in New Nazico are being Puresamt to a advised of this change in regulatory authority.
r-1esion order published with this antice, estating Bev mexico 8
licenaea af fected by this change will beamme effective NItc licenses under conditions set forth in the order.
(
9 h
e
)n.
. For information regarding this reassertion action contact. the BBC's Of fice of State Programs, Mr. Donald A. Nessbausser
{301-492-7767) or John F. Kendig (301-492-9886).
8" Fo the C issios 1
hilk's M _ _O
'J.
g
([ f ^ seimme yetary Of the Censsissics.
8 Dated at Washington, DC thiskday of IAAy 19ss Yn z
d
($
R H
8 ed
f 4
United States of America Muclesr hem Iatory Cceaniseio ( g.>
f.'
i s
Nunzio J. Falladino, Chairman 6,
ggy 4
Thoesan M. Roberts 6
. Tames E. Anselstine s '*" *'* W4 t
Frederick M. Pernthal
, \\ sp 1.ando W.
Rech, J r.
y/,
g R the Matter of the Governor
)
~' /.
g
~
of Mew Mexico's requer,i to
)
reters to the United States the )
New Mexico progras for the i
licensing of entraction or i
Q3 concentration of source
)
g W
metertal tram source material I
ore and the resulting byproduct 1 matierial
)
=
E ORDER CL1-86-10 Pursuant to Section 274)(1) of the Atomic F.nergy Act cf 3 M4, as amandad, the Commission grants the request of the revernor of the New Mexico for the Nucitar Regulatory r* mission to accept g
u) return of authority over the licensing and regulation in New z
d Mexico of the extraction and concentration of source material d
from source material ore and the management and disposal of the i
resulting byproduct material as defined in Section 11et2) of the Act.*
The Ccumniselon finds that this action is required in the interent of the public health and safety.
By letter dated May 8 19B6, a Wear Mexico lawyer, Michael S.
Yesley, provided to the Chairman and requested t. hat he circulate to other C4mnissioners an unsigned memorandum that Mr. Tesicy said outlined the reasons why the NBC should af ford a hearing on the Commission's action la response to
{
Governor Anaya's request.
Mr. Yesley's letter does not appear to constitute a hearing request, but the Commissinc.
,y believes in any event that no hearing is required when the 0
ccomission reasserts its regulatory authority in an Agreement State at the request of the Governor of that state.
,r-
Wem paesico is as; Agreement State, but its Agreement does not include e needed amendment to cover t.hc continued regulation trj the St ats o1 the byprnduct material (as defined in Section 13c(7) of the Arti produced by the ext.ract los or concentration of source matettial from source material ore.
For this and other reasons, the Governor of the State has advised the Commission the State is no longer in a position to administer that that portion of its Agreement State program and has requested it s return to Coassission jurisdiction. Under current Federal law, g
the extractice of source material frous source material ore and the ennagement and disposal of the resultant byproduct material cannot t e lef t unregolated. Accordingly, the Comunission finds it necessary to accept the return of that portion of the New Since the State will continue to license and Mexico program.
regulate source material for other uses, no revision is needed d
in the present text of the New Mexico Agreement.
It is alcc j
I pertiment to note that the returned portion of the program does remnve f ron the State any nothority with respect to the not mining of source material ore. The Nuclear Regulatory I*
Consission <*oes not regulate the minina of source material cre.
g 8
The Coussissioc stafi has reviewed the files of the New Mexico Environmental 1sprovement Division and has identified all In relevant licensing documents for transfer to the Coassission.
9, l
i
,'t*
j l
{
e e
i 3
order to aid in a Neusth transition, howfYCr, the CoAmeiG8 ion essential to maintain continuity in the the licensing deems it and requistory obligations of the New Mexico licensees wher.e f.uch are being transferred to the Commmission.
docketet continuity stay be assured by keeping in ef fect on an interim basir all new Mexico licensen es currently issued, until such time as the licenses are modified to meet Federel standards for 8
the processing of source seaterint are and the management end matsrial.
9 disposal of the resulting byproduct Therefore, the Commission hereby orders that all New Fexico issued licenses, license amendments, outstanding orders (if or other docussents establishing obligations for speef fic any),
licersees that are transferred to the Comunission shall remain in The d
full force and ef fect er if issued by the coussission.
d Casumission staf f will review all transferred licensing documents I
and see to thejr reviston as neceseary to meet applicable 0
g rederal standards.
/
\\
0 Q
F the C i ion
[
p 5
'f
- -)
'c, o
e Sassue ~C.
hilk O
g retary of the Cossission g
f Dateh8*b shington,AA-/
D.C.
. 1986
~
this'134 _ day of l
\\
]
M
i 19432 Feelseal Regleter / Vol 31. No. tes /11:ursday May 29, tags / Notices The licensee calculated similar but connection with the Nuclear Regulatoty amended, the Nuclear tory lower doses in its letter of May 30,1980, em==iaalan's Final Envir=====eal Pa==laal== granted the vernor's Unlike the licensee's calculatiosa, the Stateenst dated Aprillers or its request.N ra==la la= found that it le NRC results conservatively assume no addendum dated January 1st1 related to risosesary to torndnete that part of New credit for dilation of the tritions this facihty.
Mexico's agreement d 7'"= NRC l
concentration within the dver.
1 Nevertheless, we Bad that the discharge Agencies andkoons Consuhod authodty over uraniuna and thorium milling activities and edit talBags and to concentrations of tritiam and resultant N NRC staN reviewed the hoensee's reassert NRC Boomeing and regulatory l
doses determined by the NRC are request of May 20,1908, and exospt for authority over these activities and the sufficiently low as to represent no the State of North Carolina, did not mW takes produced in order to protect significant adveres impact on b quahty consult other agencies or persona the pubbc health and safety.%is of the human environment.
Madug ofNo Significantlaqpoet Soding ensures that there wiH be no pee and ry B. Non Radiological
& Commiselon has determined ad De licensee states that the waste to prepare an environmentalimpact '
-- < -- -- t of this
~
within the Conventional Wastewater statesment for the proposed license authority by the Statiof New Mexico.
Basin hea completed the treatment amendments.
process, and (except for the presence of Based on this environmental
%is russer6an of subdty wW become e5ecun on Jam 1.19m.%Is tritium)is otherwise within the assessment, we conclude that the specificatiens for discharge required by proposed action will not have a action does not aHoct the remaining the NPDES permit.%e change does not
"'f"**"* effect on the quality of the portion of the New Mexico Agreement State Propram which covere regulation r [s dfng Sal further dealls with roepect to this h,F,y1 p
co (i.e., non-radioactive) contaminante, action, see the request for amendments of h omic
%erefore, no additional or unanalysed deled May 20,1906, W h Act), sour meterial, and special impact on the environment would result CommWan s Final Environmental nuclear materialin quantities not sufBelent to forni e critical mass.
I from non-radioactive effluents as a Statement dated April 1978 withits result of this propbeed change' addendum dated January 198L which W Uconsee b acu@es are available for public inspection at the within New Mexico involving byproduct C. Conclusions f a==ianlon's Public Document Room, material as de8ned in section 11e(2) of Except for the presence of tritium, no 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, the Atomic Energy Act of1964, as additional or unanalysed impact on the and at the Atkins Library, Uniwretty of amended, or activities resulting in the environroent would result from non.
North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC production of such byproduct material radioactive effluents as a result of the Station). North Carolina. 28242.
should file such applications with the proposed change.%e wry low Desed at Behoods. nearyland, ibis sard day - U d
- Box 8"
concentrations of tritiums within the of May tems.
- 0225, Conventional Wastewater Basin are For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiselon.
tiention R. Dale Smith, Director.
weU below limits permitted 10 CFR Peel O'Commer, Exisdag uranium =% bcensees la Part 20, and if diacharged to go,j, pg,c,,,, pwg pyj,c, pj,,,,,,, g Catawba River as proposed, would
- 4 D/ns/on #PWR Licensig-A.
New Mexico are being advised of this result in ins fcant doses consistent change in regulatory authority. Pursuant with the gui e of Appendix I to 10 (FR h mm Fuad m mI to a Communimalan order published with
""8 88" '"**"
CFR Part 50. Accordingly, the this notice, existing New Mexico Commission concludes that the licenses affected by this change wiB proposed action would result in no Reenecrtion of Certain Reguietary become effective NRC licenses under significant adverse impact to the quality Authertyin the State of peow tientoo conditions set forth in the order.
of the human environment.
For information regardin4 this By letter dated March ta, toes reassertion action contact the NRC's Alternative to ibe ProposedAction Governor Toney Anare of New Marina.
OfBce of State Programe, Mr. Donald A.
Since we have concluded that the requested that the NRC reassert its Nussbaumer (301-402-7787) or John F.
environmental effects of the proposed authority over uranium milling and mill Kendig (301-492-4086).
action are negligible, any alternatives to in New Mexico. h Genrna i
the actions proposed would not result la sta that becease of severe budget Deted at Washington, DC, this and day of
~
g,y,gggg substantial improvement in the cuality constraints, as well as other cosapelhas yg of the environment and therefore need renecas, the State can no longer assume not be evaluated.
retulatory :==panaibihty for arenluun 8'""I IM De principal alternative would be to m4EI tathugs.& other reasons found 8"'"udary eW--*
deny the requested amendments.%st compelung by Governor Amaya related (FR Doc. eMo64 Fund HHet eiesem]
alternative, in eHect, is the same as the to legal pram-== in attesepting to suAsa coes suo eSe "no action" alternattve. Neither enforce Federal regulaties directly, alternative would significantly reduce difficnities anticipetad in a the
[Destet Itse. eMst and asketal Denial of environmentalimpacts but would result New naaviaa regulations mill seesty Southern CeEIornie Esseen Co. W st.;
in extended plant outage, and possibly arrangements and high staf tenoves. A Daniel of Asnemlinente to FecdEty result in uncontrolled dis &arges dos to copy of the. Governor's letterle on fue in operegns I.loenoce anst Opportunty the a--Aa=Aa='s Public Desument 9er fleertog rain.
r Alternative Use offtesources Room et 1717 H 9treet, NW.,
Washington, DC.
%e U.S. Naciaar Regulatory This action does not involve the see of Pursuant to the provielses of secdon Comma==lan (the thmatosion) has resources not previously considered in 274{ of the ALnaic Energy Act of1954, as denied in part a request by the licensees i
1
.A 1
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE CAPITOL BolSE 83720 CECIL D. ANDRus (208) 334 2500 oovraNoe March 25, 1991 Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building 11555 Rockville Park Rockville, MD 20555
Dear Mr. Carr:
Representatives of the state of Idaho have been in contact with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about the NRC/ state agreement program.
I am writing to clear up any misunderstandings that may exist in this regard.
In recent years, the Idaho Radiation Control Program has been operated by our state Department of Health and
-Welfare's Division of Environmental Quality.
In July of 1990, the NRC advised the state that the quality of the program was in question.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter outlining the NRC's concerns.
The Idaho Legislature has reluctantly funded the program at a very minimal operating level.
As you know, there are no federal funds available to the state to operate it.
In view of the financial squeeze placed on the program by our Legislature's past reluctance to adequately fund it and the federal government's refusal to provide any funds, we studied the feasibility of increasing funding by implementing a fee structure for licenses and inspections.
A fee program would have allowed us to upgrade our program to comply with the requirements of the NRC.
We discovered that to implement such a program, however, an average license / inspection fee of approximately $1,175.00 would be required to be paid by the 136 businesses, universities, and medical facilities in Idaho that are currently licensed.
When the executive budget for fiscal year 1992 was being put together at the end of last year, it was i
determined that the fees charged by the NRC's own licensing
.,,,p> p f N ^
-p;c, c
r 5
o
'Kenneth M. Carr March 25, 1991 Page Two I
and inspection program were an average of approximately
$531.00 per license / inspection.
Accordingly, in view of the fact that the NRC could provide a thorough licensing and inspection program at no cost to the state of Idaho and at a cost to Idaho licensees far less than what could be charged by the state, we made the decision to return this federally-mandated program to the NRC.
Just recently, the state has been notified by the NRC that it plans to revise its rules and regulations to increase the fees it currently charges to licensees and that these new fees may go into effect sometime in the next year.
In the event these changes do take place, the state may be in a position to consider taking back the NRC/ state agreement program.
At this juncture, however, there is not a sufficient basis for me to reverse the state's decision to return the program to the NRC.
i I am not entirely satisfied with this decision, because I believe that, when adequately funded, a state program is in a better position to regulate and control radioactive materials in Idaho than is the NRC.
I continue to believe that the state can be more responsive to those who are protected and regulated by the program and any concerns that arise about health or safety can be dealt with more promptly at the state level.
I am committed to protecting Idaho's citizens from any undue risk of exposure to radiation, but this protection cannot be achieved by an underfunded state program.
I am certain you will agree that, under the circumstances, Idaho's citizens will be best served by a strong program administered by the NRC.
We look forward to i
continuing an excellent working relationship with you.
Sincerely,
-l D
=d 11 D. Andrus Governor CDA:jcd enclosure cc:
Richard P. Donovan, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Carlton Kammerer, Director of State Programs, Nuclear 1
Regulatory Commission a/f
- 'ga ttg a
.e
'c, UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
nAsmwoToN. o. c. zosos t
"e' April 12, 1991 CHAINMAN The Honorable Cecil Andrus Governor of Idaho Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
As a result of your letter of March 25, 1991, the Commission on April 11, 1991, agreed to terminate Idaho's Agreement State authority over byproduct, source and special nuclear material and to reassert the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing and regulatory authority over these materials in order to protect the public health and safety.
The effective date of the termination is April 26, 1991.
Enclosed are copies of the Commission's Order terminating the Agreement and a related Federal Recister notice which we expect to be published in the next few days.
We will issue a public announcement in conjunction with issuance of the Federal Recister notice.
Mr. Richard Donovan, Director of the Department of Health and Welfare, was informed of the decision on April 11, 1991.
I understand he is making arrangements for transfer of the appropriate files and other material to the NRC.
We appreciate the State's cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
'z Kenneth M.
Carr
Enclosures:
As stated M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i:UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMfilSS10NERS:
Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss Forrest J. Remick In the Matter of the Governor of Idaho's request to return to the United States the Idaho program for the licer. sing and regulation of byproduct material as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Atomic
)
Energy Act of 1954, as amenced, source material and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.
)
ORDER CLI 06 Pursuant to Secticn 274j.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act cf 1954, as amended, the Conmission grants the request of the Governor of Idaho for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to accept the return of authority over the licensing and regulation in Idaho of hyproduct material as defined hy Section 11e.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, source material and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The Commission finds that this action is required to protect the public health and safety.
['l LY
M L
Idaho is an Agreement State. Under the provisions of the Agreement.
which became effective October 1,1968, Idaho assumed and NRC relinquished authority for the licensing and regulation of byproduct
\\
material, source material and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. On November 9,1982, Idaho returned I
to the NRC authority to regulate byproduct material as defined by Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
By letter dated March 25, 1991, Governor Cecil Andrus advised the s
Commission of his decision to return Idaho's Agreement program to the NRC.
In his letter, the Governor incicated that he made this decision following a decision by the State Legislature not to fund the program for regulating radioactive materials subject to the Agreement at a level sufficient to meet NRC guidelines for adecuacy to protect the public health and safety and compatibility with the NRC program.
In view of the State of Idaho's decision to return its Agreement program to the NRC, the Ccmmission finds it necessary to accept return of the Idaho program, and effective April 26,1991 at 12:01 a.m., Mountain Daylight Savings i
Tine, terminates the Section 274b. Agreement between the NRC and the State of Idaho in its entirety, and reasserts NRC authority over the licensing and regulation in Idaho of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, source raterial and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.
1 e
3 The Comission staff will review the files of the Idaho Department of Health anc Welfare and will identify all relevant licensing documents for transfer to the ERC.
In order to aid in a smouth transition, the Comission deems it essential to maintain continuity in the licensing and regulatory obligatiens of the Idaho licensees whose dockets are being transferred to the NRC. This continuity may be assured by keeping in effect on an interim basis all Icabo licenses as currently issued, until such time as the licenses nay be modified, if necessary, to meet hRC standards, or such time as the licenses are renewed or reissued.
Therefore, the Comission her2by terminates, effective April 26, 1991 at 12:01 a.m. Mountain Daylight savings Time, the Idaho Agreement and orders that, as of that date, all Idaho-issued licenses, ifcense amendments, outstanding orders (if any), or other documents establishing obligations for specific licensees shall be deemed licenses issued or actions taken by the Commission, and such licenses or actions shall rerain in effect by their existing terms as if initially issued by the Cossnission. The Comission staff will review all transferred licensing documents and ray previde for their revision in accordance with Comission regulations if nece W
h licenses to meet applicable NRC requirements.
gr',p.3 p
F r the C ission ds l
(
i t
4*
retary Dh omission
- e o*
Dated a) day of 4A4(1991.
Rockville, Maryland this/[,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 2
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission ACTION: Reassertion of Certain Regulatory Authority in the State of Idaho By letter dated March 25, 1991, Governor Cecil Andrus of Idaho informed the Nuclear Regulatory Cosnission (NRC) of his decision to return Idaho's Agreement to the NRC because of severe budget constraints, as well as other conpelling reasons. A copy of the Governor's letter is on file in the Commission Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington D.C.
Accordingly, the NRC is reasserting its authority over byproduct material as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, source material and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found on April 11, 1991, that it is necessary to terminate the Idaho Agreement relinquishing NRC authority over byproduct material as defined as Section 11e.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, source material and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass and to reassert NRC licensing and regulatory authority over these materials in order to protect the public health and safety. This finding ensures that there will be no lapse of licensing and regulatory authority over
2 these activities and materials upon relinquishment of this authority by the State of Idaho. This reassertion of authority will become effective on April 26, 1991.
Persons seeking licenses for activities within Idaho involving byproduct material as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or source or special nuclear material should file such applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Region IV, fil Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, TX 76011.
Existing licensees in Idaho are being advised of this change in regulatory authority.
Pursuant to a Comission Order published with this notice, existing Idaho licenses affected by this change will become effective fiRC licenses under conditions set forth in the Order.
For information regarding this reassertion action contact the NRC's Office of State Programs, Mr. Carlton Kannerer (301-492-0321).
Inquiries regarding the status of licenses or applications should be directed to NRC Region IV Office, Arlington, Texas. The contact is Jack Whitten (817-860-8197).
3 Dated at Rockville, Maryland this lith day of April,1991.
FOR THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION Tarlton 7,amerer, Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs i
y jv* *" u
['
.- /,' i UNITED STATES i(, -
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
waswisctow. o c. sosss-oooi April 15, 1994 Mark S. Coleman, Executive Director State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 1000 Northeast Tenth Street Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
Dear Mr. Coleman:
This is in response to your January 3, 1994 letter in which you requested that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consider the possibility of providing your Department with a grant of funds for the purpose of preparing for the assumption of a Section 274b agreement and the initial implementation of the program.
The Commission policy has been to assist States interested in entering into Section 274b agreements by providing the State with all the necessary information on becoming an Agreement State.
This assistance includes meeting with the appropriate State i
officials and providing model State acts for enabling and regulatory legislation.
NRC also provides assistance for State participation, including travel and per dien expenses, in NRC-sponsored-training courses.
However, it has been a consistent and long standing commission policy not to provide seed money grants to support preparations of an Agreement State program.
The Commission is reluctant to change this policy now.
Currently, NRC is statutorily required to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority by assessing fees to NRC applicants and licensees.
One result of this is that some licensees (e.g., non-Agreement State licensees) pay for NRC activities that do not benefit them (e.g., NRC's oversight of the Agreement State program).
Providing seed money to States would exacerbate this inequity because the seed money would need to be recovered by higher fees incurred on these same licensegs.
If Congress agrees to remove funding of Agreement State activities from license fees as was recommended in the NRC staff Fee Policy Review (SECY-93-342, attached), then it may be appropriate to reconsider the seed money proposal and request specific funds in the budget.
PDR9 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 6 "Jr t 4 0 4 1 3 -
STPRQ EBOOK PDR h
T M. I E M.
Mark S.
Coleman 2
\\
Although we will not be able to respond favorably to your request for funds, we are pleased to know of Oklahoma's interest in becoming an Agreement State.
We are committed to providing you with the necessary information on the Agreement State program and look forward to working with you and your staff.
Sincerely,
/C 44 Brt Richard L. Bangart, Di ctor Office of State Progr s
Attachment:
As stated i
i
A tion: Mnaart, SP Cys: Tay'or
/,,,q%g i
UNITED $TATES Thompson p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Milhoan s
)
W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 30606 Blaha
- g Scroggins OC 4.,
/
OF FICE OF THE April 15, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations h* N FROM:
hn C. Hoyle, Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT:
SECY-94-088 - REQUEST FOR SEED MONEY FOR STATE SEEKING 274b AGREEMENT The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff's letter to Oklahoma which denies their request for seed money.
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-94-088, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM "9404200070 94o43 y PDR STPRO ESQOK PDR
l a
- pencuq g
t,,
/
-POLICY ISSUE oec= der 14. 1993 (Notation Vote) sECY-93-342 ZQE:
The Commission FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations SUB.7ECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW NRC FEE POLICY PURPOSE:
To request Commission decisions and guidance on the results of the review of fee policy that is required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
CATEGORY:
This paper covers significant fee policy issues requiring Commission action.
SUMMARY
The NRC is required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90 less the amoun)t appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund by CONTACT:
Jesse Funches, OC 492-7351 NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT THE COMMISSION MEETING ON C. James Holloway, OC DECEMBER 21, 1993 492-4301 Oc,-,-
-,/
l s i u.
i~
,~
f
1
'cascccing fcas.
The En:rgy Policy Act of 1992 (EPA-92) requirco that tho NRC roview ito policy fCr C0000Caent Cf annu31 fee 3 under the OBRA-90, solicit public cassent on the need for changes i
to this policy, and recommend changes in existing law to the Congress the NRC finds are needed to prevent the placement of an unfair burden on certain NRC licensees.
On April 19, 1993, the NRC published a notice that requested comments on NRC fee policies.
The comment period expired August 18, 1993.
The NRC received 566 comments in response to the notice.
Analysis of the comments received on the April 19, 1993, motice, and the staff's experience during the past three years administering the fee program to comply with OBRA-90 indicate two major concerns about the fairness and equity of the fees.
The first major concern is that not all direct beneficiaries of NRC activities pay fees.
Therefore, to recover 100 percent of the budget some licensees pay for activities that do not benefit them.
The second major concern is that some licensees believe that fees for regulatory activities related to them are not commensurate with the benefits received.
In addition, the staff has identified a concern that is not related to the equity and fairness issues.
This concern is the amount of effort required to implement the current fee process.
The staff concludes that legislation is necessary to m"inimize these concerns.
Accordingly, the staff recommends that the Commission pursue the following legislative changes:
1.
Modify OBRA-90 to remove from the fee base costs for international activities, Agreement State oversight, the exempted fees for nonprofit educational institutions, and the amount of the fee reduction for small entities.
This would minimize the major concern associated with NRC licensees paying for activities that do not benefit them.
(This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $25 million or about 5 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered through fees.)
Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate from the fee base a portion of 2.
the cost of generic regulatory activities that supports NRC and Agreement States material licensees.
This would eliminate the concern that NRC material licensees' fees, which support the regulation of both NRC 'and Agreement State licensees, are not commensurate with benefits received.
(This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $15 million or about 3 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered 3
i through fees.)
2
v 3.
Modify tho AEA to permit NRC to oc0003 cyplicatica and Cther fees.(about $6 million) for specific services to all Federal agencies, so that other NRC licensees do not have to pay for the cost of these services that do not benefit them.1 Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate the requirement that NRC assess 4.
Part 170 fees so as to reduce the resources required to assess and collect fees.
(If this option is adopted, the NRC could avoid spending roughly 10 FTEs and about $200,000 in contractual support for fees.)
The staff believes that if the Commission and Congress implement these recommendations, most of the concerns about fairness and equity of the fee schedules would be corrected.
If these recommendations are implemented, this would require the NRC to, recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Based on Commission decisions and guidance, the staff will convert this paper to a report that will be sent to the Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget.
The staff does not plan to include draft legislation with the report to Congress.
specific implementing legislation would be developed in coordination with OMB after the report is sent to Congress.
Given the likelihood of a Congressional hearing on fees in February 1994, the staff recommends that the decisions and guidance on this paper be made in a timeframe that would permit the Commission to submit the report to Congress by the and of January 1994.
The proposed fee rule for M 1994 would implement the commission policy decisions and other guidance resulting from this paper.
Because the NRC should publish a proposed rule during the first quarter of calendar year 1994 to seek public comment on the recommended changes to the fee regulations, the staff recommends that the commission make an exception to its normal rulemaking process by delegating to the EDO the authority to issue the proposed and final rules for M 1994, as was done in M 1992 and M 1993.
Additionally, the M 1994 rule cannot reflect any proposed legislative changes because they will not be enacted in time.
BACIGROUND The omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (osRA-90), as
'This change would still be necessary if the requirement to assess Part 170 fees is eliminated, since the staff would want to assess an application fee to those agencies applying for new licenses who would not pay annual fees.
3 1
i 1
9 amended, requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Department of Energy (DOE)-administered Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) for FYs 1991 through 1998 by assessing fees to NRC applicants and licensees.
Two types of fees are required to recover NRC's budget authority..
First, license and inspection fees, established by 10 CFR Part 170 under the authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (ICAA) and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, recover the NRC's costs of providing individually identifiable services to specific applicants and licensees.
The services provided by the NRC for which these fees are assessed are reviewing applications for the issuance of new licenses or approvals, amending or renewing licenses or approvals, and inspecting licenses.
Second, annual' fees, established by 10 CFR Part 171 under the authority of OBRA-90, recover generic and other regulatory costs not recovered through 10 CFR Part 170 fees, since OBRA-90 was enacted, the NRC has published four final fee rules after evaluating over 1,000 public comments.
On July 10, 1991, the NRC published the first rule that established fees to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1991 budget.
In addition to establishing the FY 1991 fees, the final rule implemented Commission fee policy decisions and established the underlying basis and method for determining the hourly rate and fees.
The Commission policy decisions and the fee methodology used for FY 1991 were also used in the final rules to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1992 and FY 1993 budget authority.
The FY 1993 rule also included the results of the biennial review required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO)
Act of 1990.
The purpose of that review was to ensure that fees and other charges imposed by the NRC reflect costs incurred in providing those services.
The review resulted in significant fee increases for some materials licensees.
In April 1992, the NRC published a limited change to 10 CFR Part 171 to address licenses concerns about the unfair burden of fees on extremely small licensees.
This change adjusted the maximum annual fee of $1,800 that was assessed licensees that qualify as a small entity under the NRC's size standards.
A lower-tier small entity fee of $400 per licensed category was established for small businesses and nonprofit organizations with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 and small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000.
The FY 1991 rule was challenged in Federal court by several parties.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit rendered its decision on March 16, 1993.
In summary, the court supported the basic fee methodology, but it remanded two issues for the Consission to reconsider.
One of the issues related to annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.
In response to the court decision, the Commission revoked the 4
cx=ptien from ennuni foco fer nonprafit educational institutions.
On Captember 29, 1993, in response to a petition for reconsideration, the NRC published a proposed rule seeking public comment on the reinstatement of this exemption.
The comment period expired October 29, 1993, and the staff expects the final rule concerning this matter to be sukuaitted to the Commission in December 1993.
The second remanded issue was the method of assessing fees for low-level waste (LLN). activities.
In response to the court decision, the allocation method was changed in the final FY 1993 rule published.7uly 20, 1993.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPA-92) directed the NRC to review its policy for assessment of annual charges under OBRA-90, solicit public comment on the need for changes to this policy, and recommend to the Congress any changes needed in existing law to prevent placing an unfair burden on NRC licensees.
Consistent with these requirements, the Nnc requested public cassent on its fee policy in a Federal Register notice published on April 19, l
1993 (Enclosure 1).
The 90-day comment period expired July 19, 1993, and was extended an additional 30 days to August 18, 1993.
Although EPA-92 required only public comments on the annual fees assessed by the NRC under 10 CFR Part 171, the NRC also requested comments on 10 CFR Part 170 fee policies because of the interrelationship of 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 fees.
By the close of the comment period, 566 comments were received from individual licensees or their representatives as follows:
Reactors 26 Fuel Facilities 11 Educational 46 Medical 20 Industrial 450 8 Federal Agencies 5
State Agencies J
566 A listing of the commenters by group is included as Enclosure 2.
Copies of the individual comments can be obtained from the office of the Secretary or the Public Document Room.
s f the 450 comments received from industrial licensees, 405 o
were form letters supporting comments submitted by Troxler Electronic Laboratories assessed to gauge users., Inc., opposing increased annual fees 5
i i
r
O DIscussIom:
This policy paper is based on the staff's experience in responding to the comments, letters, and telephone calls received during the past three years of implementing OBRA-90; a court case involving annual fees; two petitions for rulemaking involving annual fees; and the comments received on the EPA-92 notice.
This paper also considers the Office of the Inspector General review of fees that was submitted to the Commission on October 26, 1993.
The staff has made the following two assumptions to establish the scope for this fee policy review:
\\
1.
The public policy question of how to raise revenues (taxes versus fees) will only be addressed to the
{
i extent that changes to existing law are necessary to make the fees more fair and oguitable.
This assumption 1
is consistent with past Commission positions.
2.
The amount of the budget necessary for NRC to perform its safety mission will not be addressed.
The following areas that are fee related will not be addressed in this paper because these items are being presented to the commission for review and decision separately:
The merits of whether to exempt nonprofit educational institutions from fees.
(This paper, however, addresses how these costs should be treated, assuming the exemption is reinstated.)
Utilization of cost-center concepts in financial management.
(This paper will note areas where the cost-center concept will help resolve a fee concern.)
The merits of whether the NRC small entity size standards should be changed.
(The staff is evaluating whether the small entity size standards should be changed based on the results of a survey of NRC licensees and the recent proposed rule published in the Federal Register by the Small Business Administration that would amend the small Business size standards).
The decisions and the Federal Register notice on the petitions for rulemaking from the American Mining congress (AMC) and the American College of Nuclear Physicians and the society of Nuclear Medicine (ACNP/SNM).
(The issues raised by the petitioners are 6
s s
among theco cddrocccd h:ro and in tho final rulo en th>
cxemptien fcr nonprofit educational institutions.)8 Proposed FY 1994 fees are not included in this paper.
These fees will be based on decisions the Commission makes about policy discussed in this paper.
The staff recommends that the EDO be permitted to issue the proposed and final rules without further Commission review as was done in FY 1992 and FY 1993.
maior concerns:
Essentially, OBRA-90 requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the DOE-administered WWF, in a fair and equitable manner.
To accomplish this, OBRA-90 provides that t.he NRC shall continue to collect 10AA fees to recover the Commission's cost of providing any service or thing of value to a person regulated by the NRC and shall establish a schedule of annual charges, fairly and equitably allocating the aggregate amount of the charges among licensees.
To the maximum extent practicable, the charges shall reasonably reflect the cost of providing services to licensees or classes of licensees.
The NRC has met the first objective of OBRA-90, collecting approximately 100 percent of its budget authority.
For FY 1991, the NRC recovered 98 percent of its budget, for FY 1992, 99 percent of its budget and for FY 1993, 98 Despite this success, many NRC licensees, percent of its budget.
as well as members of Congress, have expressed concerns about the fairness and equity of the fees.
These major concerns evolve from the inability of the NRC to meet the principle summarized by one commenter; namely, that if the NRC is to be funded through user fees rather than taxes, then "each direct beneficiary of NRC's activities -- not merely its ' licensees' -- should contribute to an extent commensurate with the benefits it receives."
This principle cannot be met for two reasons.
First, met all
- Both petitioners identified several adverse impacts which they claim have affected their members.
ANC, for example suggests that NRC implement a system (e.g., a licensee rev,iew board) giving NRC licensees some control over their fees.
They have also suggested that facilities no longer generating revenue be exempted from fees.
ACNP/SNN suggest that NRC provide an exemption for medical services similar to that provided for nonprofit educational institutions.
They also suggest a sliding scale for fees based on income.
7
t direct beneficiaries of unc activities pay fees because of legislative constraints and consission policy.
Second, fees are based on the agency's costs to perform its regulatory responsibilities, rather than on the licensee's perception of benefits received.
This leads some licensees to conclude that the fees for regulatory activities related to them are met commensurate with the benefits they receive.
Another major concern, not directly related to the issue of fairness and equity, is the offielesey of the fee preesse.
This concern was also addressed in the OIG memorandum to the commission, dated October 26, 1993.
Given the Administration's directive to reduce FTEs and costs in the future, the staff is concerned that unless efficiencies can be achieved through modification of the fee process, methods, and policies, man related activities cannot be performed in a timely manner. y fee The following sections discuss these three major concerns, and possible methods of resolving these con discussion of the three major concerns,cerns.
Following the other fee concerns and i
proposed solutions are also evaluated.
Maior concerns not all nirect manafinimeiam af mee nativities Pay. Fees The first major concern has been consistently identified by licensees during the past three years.
This concern arises because costs for some NRC activities are not assessed to the beneficiaries of the activities because of legislative constraints and Commission policy.
of the budget, these costs must necessarily be assessed toThus, to recover 100 licensees that do not directly benefit from those activities.
l l
For this reason, the legislative requirement to collect 100 unfair burden on licensees. percent of the budget authority through fees inherentl fees fairly and equitably is difficultAs one commenter stated, assessing l
"through a system that exempts or excludes certain l
i entities and at the same time must accomplish 100%
l budget recovery.
Given that there are certain regulatory activities whose costs cannot be recovered fairly through user fees, it is clear that loot recovery is at the root of the user fee allocation problems that the NRC seeks to address through this fee policy review."
Many other comments expressed this same concern.
This concern was also noted by the Senate Appropriations Committee, which 8
l i
i
e rcccntly ctated in its rcport Cn FY 1994 Approprictions fcr Energy and t~ctcr Devalopment:
"The Committee believes that the Commission should ensure that these international costs are not collected through domestic licensees."
- 5. Ept. 103-147, et 188.
Two types of activities are not assessed to the direct i
beneficiary, but rather to other NRC licensees.
They are activities that either (1) eaanot be attributed to or asseoisted with an existing NRC liosasse or elass of lieemsees or (3) esa be attributed to NRC lioensees er applicants but are met sharged to i
them owing to statutory constraints er commission policy decisions.
Under OBRA-90, annual fees can only be charged to licensees.
Therefore, costs of activities that sannot be attributed to an existing NRC licensee or class of liseasees must be assessed to licensees that do not directly benefit from them.
These activities include:
certain international activities;
)
oversight of the Agreement state program.
generic activities (e.g., research and rulemaking) for classes that do not currently have NRC licenses (i.e, LLW); and For FY 1993, the fees for the above activities were equivalent to
$21.4 million, of which $18.2 million was assessed to reactor licensees and $3.2 million to other licensees. p er Specific details on these costs are at Enclosure 3.
The NRC budget includes certain international activities that are not directly related to NRC applicants or licensees.
These activities are performed because of their benefit to U.S.
national interests.
The NRC is required to perform some of these activities by the AEA and, therefore, must budget for them.
Examples of international activities that are not directly related to NRC applicants and licensees are:
statutorily required consultations with Executive Branch agencies on export activities within their jurisdiction; assistance to countries or international organizations that provide little, if any, benefit to NRC's regulatory programs; and support of international safeguards activities related to nuclear non-proliferation.
'In this paper, the dollar amounts used are the amount of the FY 1993 fees that would be assessed for the activities.
9 4
)
,.4 The NRC performs activities necessary to oversee and administer the Agreement states program.
These activities include reviewing and approving new agreements, performing periodic program reviews to determine their adequacy and compatibility, developing guidance, and providing technical assistance (e.g., inspection assistance) and training to the Agreement States.
Because i
neither the Agreement states nor their licensees are NRC licensees, they cannot be charged annual fees under ORRA-90.
The NRC can assess 10 CFR Part 170 fees for specific services (e.g.,
review of requests for an agreement, periodic reviews of the programs, training and technical assistance) rendered to an Agreement state.
Nowever, the NRC has chosen not to do so for policy reasons.
There are no existing LLW disposal facilities liosased by the Mac.
Therefore, the NRC generic LLW regulatory activities do not directly support an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees.
However, some NRC licensees, as well as some Agreement state licensees, will realize an indirect benefit from these NRC LLW expenditures because they will eventually dispose of LLW at sites that are expected to be licensed in the future.
The second type of activities for which costs are not assessed to the direct beneficiary involves specific MRC oosts that osa be attributed to either ERC licensees or other organisations but are not assessed to them because of legislative constraints or commission policy decisions.
The following licensees are not assessed certain fees or pay reduced fees:
most Federal agencies are not assessed Part 170
- fees, nonprofit educational institutions are not assessed any fees, and small entities are assessed reduced annual fees.
For FY 1993 these activities involved fees equivalent to $18.2 million, of which $16.9 million was assessed to power reactors and $1.3 million to other licensees as shown in Enclosure 3.
The first major category of costs covers those activities for which the NRC is unable, on the basis of existing law, to charge a fee to specific applicants or licensees even though they receive an identifiable service from the NRC.
These activities include licensing reviews and inspections for Federal agencies (other than the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United i
10 i
^
g Statoa Enrichment Corporctien).s Tho 20AA prohibits tho NRC from ccOOOcing 10 CFR Part 170 fees to Federal agencies for the costs of these activities.
These activities include reviews of (DOD) DOE Naval reactor projects; licensing reviews and inspections of Federal nuclear materials users, such as Veterans Administration hospitals, Army irradiators, and NASA radiographers; safety and environmental reviews of the DOE West j
Valley Demonstration Project; review of DOE actions under the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation control Act (UNTACA); and reviews of advanced reactor designs submitted by DOE.
In addition, EPA-92 exempts from Part 171 annual fees certain Federally owned research reactors used primarily for educational training and academic research purposes.
In addition to certain licensees being exempted by law, two groups of licensees are either exempted or pay reduced fees based on prior Commission fee policy decisions.
Nonprofit educational institutions are enem Part 171 annual fees.ytod from 10 CFR Part 170 fees and 10 CFR The Commission has also reduced amanal fees for those licensees who can qualify as a small entity.
These reduced fees are consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requirement that agencies consider the impact of their actions on small entities.
To address the fairness and equity concerns related to licensees paying fees for activities not benefitting them, eithers (1) the laws and NRC fee policy must be changed to assess all beneficiaries of NRC activities fees that are seemeasurate with the cost of those NRC activities; or (2) the requirement to collect 100 peronat of the budget by fees must be relaxed.
Reactor licensees, who currently pay fees for most of the activities discussed above, have proposed another alternative.
They suggest that these costs be distributed among all NRC licensees.
Althou reactor licensees,gh this would " reduce the unfairness" to it would shift some " unfair" costs to sSection 161w. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the NRC to impose fees under 10 CFR Part 170 on a Federal agency that applies for or is issued a license for a utilization facility designed to produce electrical or heat energy (e.g., licensing reviews and inspections of TVA's nuclear power plants) or which operates any facility regulated under sections 1701 or 1702 of the Atomic Energy Act (the enrichment facilities of the United States Enrichment Corporation).
'On September 29, 1993, the Commission published a proposed rule seeking public comment on a proposal to restore the generic exemption from annual fees for nonprofit educational institutions.
this proposal in a final rule.This paper assumes that the Commission will adopt 11
I materials licensees.
Given the impact that existing fees are having on materials licensees, the staff does not consider this as a desirable alternative.
Further, the conference report accompanying OBRA-90 stated that these types of costs may be recovered from such licensees as the commission determines can fairly, equitably and practicably contribute to their payment.
While appearing to be fairer, the staff beli wes that assessing fees to all the licensees and organisations that do not currently pay fees would create problems in some instances.
In particular, the staff believes the Commission should not reverse its policy of reduced fees for small entities.
To do so would recreate the concerns about unfair burdens and inequities that the Commission rectified by earlier policy decisions and rulemaking.
The policy issue regarding the nonprofit educational exemption is being addressed in a separate paper.
Over the past several years, the staff considered various means to recover NRC's costs for international activities which serve broad U.S. national i
interests, but found no viable fair way to do so.
Further, it would not be practical to assess fees to foreign organisations, foreign governments, or to the State Department to whom some of the support is provided.
For example, assessment of such fees might create foreign policy tensions that could complicate U.S.
goals such as foreign reactor safety and nuclear non-l proliferation.
t The Agreement States are the direct beneficiary of NRC oversight and direct technical assistance and some of these costs could legally be recovered under 10 CFR Part 170.
However, the staff believes that, absent legislation, assessment of fees to i
Agreement States for this oversight would create strong opposition similar to that which occurred over the nonprofit educational issue.
Agreement States and their representatives commented that section 274(g) of the AEA requires the NRC to cooperate with the states in the formulation of standards that may well entail regulatory development costs.
They indicate that the 29 Agreement States expend over $13 million annually and have over 200 professional staff in their radiation control programs for radioactive materials.
This, they say, contributes substantially to the protection of the public health and safety and provides a cadre of qualified personnel for assisting the NRC and other Federal agencies.
The Organisation of Agreement states indicated that they would be adamantly opposed to charging fees to Agreement States.
One Agreement state consented that any attempt to recover generic costs from Agreement states or their licensees would be
- cumbersome and ill advised." Another State indicated that if the NRC attempted to assess fees to Agreement State' licensees, a number of States would probably return their authority to the NRC, thus defeating the purpose of the Agreement State Program.
Regarding Federal agencies, however, the staff believes that 12 ww-'-
w m
f Fcdcrol egancico should pay Part 170 fees for thoir license reviews and inspections in the same manner as commercial licensees and state or local government agencies.
There is no compelling justification for asking the private sector to pay for NRC licensing and inspection of other Federal agencier.
Note that Federal agencias already pay annual fees and TVA and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation pay Part 170 licensing and inspection fees.
The staff believes that the current policy and practice of assessing a surcharge to licensees to recover the costs associated with LLW is the right approach.
It is not unfair because these costs indirectly support existing classes of licensees.
Any LLW site that is licensed would provide facilities for the disposal of LLW from reactors, fuel facilities, and some materials licensees.
To resolve the concerns about some beneficiaries of services not paying fees, commenters also overwhelmingly endorsed legislative change that would reduce the amount of the fees to be collected by the costs of those activities that cannot be attributed to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees and would assess 10 CFR Part 170 fees to Federal agencies.
In summary, the staff agrees with the counsenters and proposes that the Commission minimize the concerns about fairness and equity resulting from some beneficiaries of NRC activities not paying fees by--
Proposing that OBRA-90 be modified to remove from the fee base costs (about $25 million in FY 1993 fees) for international activities, Agreement State oversight and direct technical assistance, nonprofit educational institutions, and the small entity subsidy.
Proposing that the AEA be modified to permit the NRC to assess Part 170 fees (about $6 million) to all Federal agencies.7 Continuing to assess fees (about $9 million in FY 1993) to NRC licensees for generic activities for classes (i.e., LLW) that do not currently have licenses.
'Although the legislation would permit recovery of costs for all licensing reviews and inspections performed for Federal agencies, an alternative proposed later in this paper would only require that licensing application review costs be recovered.
13
_. _ ~ _ _..
The staff notes that these recommendations would reduos the fee revenues available to the Congress and Administration to offset the NRC budget.
This could affect the viability of this recossendation.
If modification to the existing legislation is not a viable option, then the current approach of assessing these costs to NRC licensees (with the majority going to power reactors) with its inherent problems of fairness and equity should-be continued, except that the commission should then seriously consider seeking legislation that would require assessment of fees to Agreement states.
umier concern Fame met '
manrate With
---fika n cri M The second major concern is that some licensees believe that the benefits received are not commensurate with the NRC fees they are assessed.
This issue is of most concern to materials licensees, especially with regard to their annual fees.
The decreasing number of materials licensees demonstrate their belief that the fees are unfair and inequitable.
While the number of licenses remained stable before W 1991, the number of licenses decreased by about 2,000 (from about 9,100 licenses to about 7 M 1991, the first year of 100-percent fee recovery.,100) during Some licensees consolidated licenses, others turned in unused licenses, and some terminated licensed activities.
For M 1992, the number of-materials licenses decreased by about 300 to 6,800 and that number, by about 300 during M 1993.
The overall decrease in the number of materials licenses has resulted in increases in the annual fees to the remaining licensees.
This concern is also reflected in comments that fees comprise a large percentage of the cost of procuring and operating a licensed product.
For example, small gauge users have commented that the M 1993 annual fee of $2,100 equals about half the purchase price of a new gauge.
Others have indicated that the NRC budget, and therefore fees, are higher than what they believe is necessary.
Therefore, commenters suggested that the Commission must, as its licensees have already done in their increasingly competitive markets, build cost-effectiveness into its regulatory strategy.
On the basis of NRC's three years of experience administering the annual fees for the materials program and the comments received on the fee policy notice, the staff concludes that materials licensees perceive their annual fees to be inequitable and unfair for the following three reasons:
(1)
The NRC materials regulatory program is necessary for NRC licensees and supports both NRC and Agreement State licensees.
However, only NkC licensees pay the annual fees.
14
(2)
From tho licensaco' percpective, the NRC hac occcCsed large increases in fees without added value, and (3)
Licensees measure the value of the license in economic terms, not NRC regulatory costs.
There is truth to the claim that the fees are not commensurate with benefits because the MRC material regulatory program supports both MRC and Agreement state liseasees, yet only NRC licensees pay fees to recover the cost of these activities.
The NRC performs generic regulatory activities for nuclear materials users and uranium recovery licensees.
These activities include conducting research, developing regulations and guidance, and evaluating operational events.
These generic activities provide the basis for the NRC to regulate its approximately 7,000 materials and uranium recovery licensees.
Because many Agreement States adopt NRC regulations, these NRC activities also provide the regulatory basis for the 29 A their 16,000 materials licensees.greement States to regulate Under OBRA-90 the NRC cannot charge an Agreement State or its licensees an ann,ual fee because they are not NRC licensees.
Therefore, only about 30 percent (7,000 NRC licensees of the total population of 23,000) of all licensees can be assessed annual charges to recover the cost of generic activities supporting both NRC and Agreement state licensees.
As a result, part of the costs (about $15 million in FY 1993 fees) for these generic regulatory activities that are included in the annual fees for NRC maternals and uranium recovery licensees could be considered an unfair burden on NRC licensees.
NRC licensees also believe that NRC fees place them at an unfair competitive advantage with licensees in Agreement states.
For example, one commenter stated that the fee legislation:
" creates a market place in which approximately 17,000 competitors have an unfair advantage when it comes to competing in the national market place.
It is unfair to require certain NRC licensees to carry the burden for activities conducted for government agencies, foreign governments, treaty commitments, or other 3RC licensees who, because of special status, are not supporting their share of the NRC's costs.
It is also unfair to place these NRC licensees at a financial disadvantage with their Agreement state competitors simply because they are doing business in a Non-Agreament State."
15
L.. -
L l
r The staff believes that licensees' perception of unfairness as it relates to activities that support both NRC and Agreement State licensees will continue and grow worse as more states become Agreement states.
states to be approved by NRC in the near future.The potential exists for addit t
Both Pennsylvania and Wassachusetts have filed letters of intent with the NRC and Oklahoma and Ohio are seriously considering agreements.
This would shrink the existing materials license fee base further and result in higher annual fees for the remaining NRC materials licensees.
If these four states were to become Agreement States, the NRC would lose approximately 2,000 licenses and the annual fee for the remaining 4,500 - 5,000 materials licensees would increase by about 30 percent.
To alleviate this concern, either (1) some of the costs under discussion should be assessed to Agreement States or (2) the requirement to recover 100 percent of the budget should be relaxed.
Significant problems with assessing fees to Agreement States were previously discussed.
states present valid arThe materials licensees and Agreement involved in this issue.guments for not paying fees for the costs The staff believes the best means to address the issue is to exclude certain of these regulatory costs from the fee base.
1 with respect to reason (2), that licensees view the ineresses in annual fees during the past three years as unfair because they received no additional benefits, the staff reviewed the changes in annual fees for various categories of materials licenses, which are given in the following table.
l 1
l 16
)
Annual Fame Categories of FY 1990 Materials Licensen ADg h FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 Broad Scope 0
$7,800
$11,150
$18,420 Manufacturing Large Irradiators 0
10,800 16,550 22,020 Browd Scope R&D 0
6,300 9,155 14,320 Well Inggers 0
7,000 10,450 11,420 Broad Scope 0
9,900 13,950 28,020 Medical Other Medical 0
3,500 4,750 5,220 Small Gauge Users 0
1,500 2,250 2,120 In FY 1991, materials licensees were assessed annual fees for the first time.
Although the NRC explained that the annual fee was a i
new requirement, not an increase in existing Part 170 licensing and inspection fees, many licensees believed that they were paying more than they had in the past with no value being added.
The annual fee increased in FY 1992 because of both an increase in the NRC's budget and about a 25 percent reduction in the number of material licensees available to pay the discretionary fixed costs recovered by annual fees.
Again, from the licensees' perspective, fees had increased with no commensurate increase in benefit or value.
One commenter stated that "the increasing fees draw attention to whether they reflect the value of the services being provided to regulated entities."
Annual fees also increased substantially for some materials licensees in FY 1993.
The reasons for these increases were the same as in FY 1992, plus the addition of large increases in inspection fees that are used as a basis to calculate annual fees for materials licensees.
The inspection fees increased as a result of the CFO Act requirement to review fees biennially.
These increases in inspection fees appropriately shifted the amount of the annual fee among the various material licensees, resulting in relatively large increases for the more complex licenses, such as broad scope medical and research and development licenses and minor increases for the small and less complex material users.
Some commenters expressed a concern that the NRC budget is out of control and that fees will continue their upward spiral in the future.
They contend that because the NRC is required to collect 100 percent of its budget authority and licensees are paying for c
the entire budget, a mechanism should be created, either through 17
the establishment of a separate office or an advisory committee, to (1) and to eliminate V:,ential duplication of industry-sponsoredassess programs; and (3) develop and propose future revisions to the fee (2) review ai regulations.
They also suggested that the NRC freese fees at FY 1991 levels or limit the increases to some multiple of inflation.
The staff believes that the primary causes of the previous large, across-the-board annual fee increases are less likely to occur in the future.
License terminations in the past two years.have been minimal.
Large increases in Part 170 fees used to calculate the annual fm should not occur because the fees will be reviewed every tv. ?aars in response to the CFO Act.
In addition Adminid n ion efforts to streamline government are expec,ted to result in smaller budget increases.
The use of cost-center concepts should also improve the tracing of costs to the diverse classes of material licensees.
The annual fee is not new and most licensees now understand its purpose.
However, a large few of licenses beca m 2 increase could occur for a specific category could result in a large percentage increase in annual fees.relatively sma example, a $2-million medical study, which would be unique toFor medical licensees, would increase the base annual fee for each of the medical licensees by about $1,000 (from $5,100 to $6,100) 20-percent increase for most of the hospitals and physicians., a the $2-million study were budgeted for small gauge licensees, the If small gauge base annual fee would increase by about $700
$2,000 to $2,70N, a 35-percent increase.
The use of cost-center (from concepts howeve increases,.
will provide a means to explain the specific Also the annual fees, as noted above, could go up if new Agreement States are added, reducing the number of NRC licensees unless the fee base is adjusted accordingly.
With respect to reason (3), the fact that licensees measure fees in terms of the economic value of the liosase as opposed to MEC regulatory costs, licensees continuously request that fees be based on the amount of material possessed, the frequency of use and sales generated from using the licensed material, the number of hospital beds, the size of the facilities, market competitive I
i positions, or other indicators of the economic value to the l
licensee.
This issue has been addressed by the NRC in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis presented in Appendix A to the final rule published July 10, 1991 56 FR 31511-31513).
Based on that i
analysis, the Commission (did not adopt the approach recommended l
l by licensees because it would require licensees to submit large amounts of new data and would require additional NRC staff to 18 l
cvoluato tho dato cubmitted and to dsvelop and cominictor even more complex fee schedules.
The staff continues to believe that uniformly allocating generic and other regulatory costs to the specific license to determine the amount of the annual fee is a fair, equitable, and practical way to recover its costs.
The
' staff believes that establishing annual fees (or " price") based on indicators of the economic value of a license is not practical, would lead to even more concern regarding the equity i
and fairness of NRC fees, and result in increased fee administration costs.
l In summary, to minimise the concerns that fees paid are not commensurate with bene actions are necessary. fits received, the staff believes that two First, the material licensees should not be required to pay for all of the regulatory costs that support
{
both NRC and Agreement States.
This could be accomplished j
through legislation to relax the 100-percent fee recovery requirement or.through legislation that would allow the NRC to i
charge Agreement states an annual charge that they could pass along to Agreement State licensees.
The staff recommends against this latter option for the reasons discussed relating to charging Agreement States for NRC oversight by the Office of State Programs.
The NRC could also include these costs as agency overhead in calculating the hourly rate.
This would reduce the
)
fees for materials licensees and shift most of these costs to i
power reactors.
This would be considered unfair by the power reactors since it would be viewed as adding costs for additional activities that do not benefit them.
The second action necessary is to minimise large, across-the-board increases in fees and to improve the explanation of specific increases for specific regulatory needs.
To accomplish this, the NRC fee policies and methods need to be stabilized.
Although the staff believes future large across-the-board increases in fees are unlikely large increases could occur for 1
specific subclasses of licensee,s if NRC makes large budget increases for safety reasor.s.
Implementation of cost-center concepts will provide better tracing of the costs to the specific i
subclass of licensees and will provide additional information to help explain the increases.
Another option considered by the staff and strongly supported by those who commented is to place a cap on the amount of fee increases in any given year.
For example, the increase could be limited to a multiple of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The staff does not support this alternative because it may be perceived by some as indicating that the NRC budget should be limited to the same increases instead of being determined on the basis of resources needed to carry out the agency mission.
In summary, to minimize the concern over the fees not being commensurate with benefits received, the staff recommends the 19 s
8 6
following actions:
1.
No longer require material licensees to pay for all NRC generic regulatory costs that support both NRC and Agreement State licensees.
Towards this end, the staff recommends that OBRA-90 he modified to exclude a portion of the generic costs for materials licenses from the fee base.
2.
Utilize cost-center concepts to ovide better data on which to base and explain fees, luding specific changes. -
Maior concernt stra-lina Paa affert During the past three years of implementing OBRA-90 to collect 100 percent of the NRC's annual budget authority, the staff has evaluated over 1,000 public comments on fee-related rules, and responded to several hundred requests for exemptions, dozens of letters from Congress, and thousands of telephone calls from licensees concerning the assessment of annual fees and overdue bills.
As a result, the workload necessary to implement the fee program has been extremely burdensome on the available staff.
Even with the use of contractor assistance, the staff has struggled to meet the existing workload.
As a result, the staff specifically requested comments on how to reduce the NRC efforts necessary to implement the 100 percent fee recovery legislation.
The OIG in its October 26, 1993 review of fees for licensees also alluded to this question and concluded that:
"The agency's license fee development process is very detailed and labor intensive.
It has been shaped over the years by the implementation of new Federal regulations and court decisions.
Substantial effort is expended in attempting to make the process equitable and the costs reasonable".
The OIG report went on to note that:
"NRC could significantly reduce time and effort, and related resources devoted to license fee development by adopting a fee schedule similar to that used by FERC.
The Part 170 fees could be eliminated completely or, at least, to the marinua extent practicable.
- Secondly, the determination of the Part 171 fees could be simplified by eliminating / streamlining much of the detailed analyses performed as part of the process."
The staff believes that in addition to efficiency, other benefits would accrue from a simpler fee process and policy.
Although not likely to result in more fairness and equity, a simpler fee 20 l
l
d I
otructuro wculd mako it easicr fcr licens,cc to underctand NRC l
foco cnd w:uld low:r NRC's budgeted costs and resulting fees.
Given the comments received as well as the problems encountered in implementing OBRA-90, the staff has considered several ways to reduce the staff workload.
One option is to eliminate the re by motice and comment rulemaking.quirement to promulgate the fees On the one hand, the staff would prefer to use notice and comment rulemaking only when fee legislation, fee policy, or fee methodology changes.
The staff sees limited value added to establishing fees through notice and comment when the underlying bases for the fees have not changed.
Further, the budget on which the fees are based has already been decided by OMB and Congress by the time the fees are promulgated.
On the other hand, those who commented on the EPA-92 notice strongly prefer that the NRC continue to use notice and comment rulemaking to promulgate fees.
to continue the notice and comment rulemaking process is thatTheir primary re they consider this the only opportunity to express their position on the NRC budget and associated fees that they must pay.
For example, some stated that the courts have long recognised that Congress enacted the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act to "give the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process" and to enable "the agency promulgating the rule to educate itself before establishing rules and procedures which have a substantial impact to those regulated."
Others orpressed the view that publication of a fee rule in final form without comment ignores the i
significant monetary changes in fees that have been assessed licensees in the previous year even if the methodology or policies do not change.
To publish the fee schedules in final form "would deny an adversely affected licensee an opportunity to voice its objection."
One licenses stated "a lack of oversight currently exists regarding NRC policy" and that providing for public comment on the basic fee methodology and policies gives the public and the regulated community a rightful voice in the development of those policies.
As indicated by the comments, most lic'ensees feel strongly that although the policies and procedures related to fee assessment might be the same as before, this should not be used to foreclose the opportunity for new commentary or renewed' dissent.
Given these strong views, the staff proposes that the commission retain notice and comment rulemaking of fee schedules at this time.
This issue should be revisited if the fees become less controversial in the future.
Another option considered by the staff to streamline the fee calculations was reducing the complexity of the fee calculaties by reducing the number of subclasses of fees for some majer classes of licensees.
For example, seven subclasses of power 21
reactors paid annual fees in FY 1993 that vary tr/ only thraa percent (fros.$2,935,000 to $3,031,000).
This dhfference is relatively small and could be considered de minimus and therefore not commensurate with the offort necessary to reach an apparent level of precision.
Those who commented on the fee policy notice, however, disagree with this suggested policy change.
They indicated that 03RA-90 guidance requires that those entities who require the greatest expenditures of the NRC's resources pay the greatest annual fee; therefore, the existing policy of assessing each reactor design a charge that reflects the varying amounts of MRC resources spent on generic research and other regulatory activities unique to that design should be 7:etained.
They believe the difference in reactor fees of $96,000 between the highest and lowest annual fee is significant enouah to warrant the effort to calculate the fees using the existing method.
Fuel facility licensees also stated that with respect to a uniform annual fee for all fuel facility licensees, such a
" simplification" would ignore the significant differences between the various steps in the low-enriched fuel fabrication process and the differences between low-and high-enriched fuel as well as the differences in the NRC's budgeted safety and safeguards costs allocated to each class.
Commenters indicated that, for example, the two high-enriched uranium fuel manufacturers require much greater safety and safeguards oversight by the NRC because they possess strategic quantities of nuclear materials.
According to these commenters, if a uniform fee were assessed, low-enriched uranium manufacturers and uranium hexafluoride converters would be subsidizing the regulation of high-enriched uranium fuel manufacturers while receiving no tangible benefit.
This suggested policy change, they indicate, contradicts OBRA-90's mandate that fees be fairly and equitably allocated among licensees.
Again, the staff defers to the commenters' position but will continue to look toward ways of reducing the number of subclasses if the differences in the annual fee to be assessed is a small amount.
Another option for streamlining the fee proccas is to assess caly an manual fee, elong the lines suggested my the OIG in its October 1993 re m w of fees.
This aption will require modifying OBRA-90 to elimim to the requirement for NRC to assess Part 170 licensing and inspiction $ses.
If this option'is adopted, the office of the Controllet, the program offices, and the Regions could avoid ependiny on the order of 10 PTEs and about $200,000 in contractual sopport used to collect Part 170 fees.
Under this option, the staff would include the NRC costs for inspections and licensing amendments, including materials license renewals, in a single increased annual fee.
Thus, there would no longer be Part 170 amendment or renewal or inspection fees assessed for specific services to specific licensees.
A review 22
foo would cantinus to be assessed for review of applications for initial licenses, such as standard design certifications, renewal of power reactor licenses, new material licenses, etc., since these applicants would not pay an annual fee.
The primary benefits from this approach are the NRC resource savings and an overall simpler fee structure.
This fee structure, however, will likely be perceived by some licensees as less fair than the current one, which assesses fees for services rendered to each licensee because of differences in the amount of fees for inspections an,d amendments that licensees in the same class currently pay.
For example the inspection hours and fees for different reactors may vary.,Also, some materials licensees may be inspected more frap ently than others.
Allied Signal, in the most recent fee case, argued that Sequoyah Fuels, another fuel facility in its license class, was a problem facility that causes NRC to incur considerably more facility-specific costs.
The staff understands the concerns associated with eliminating the Part 170 fees.
However, on balance the staff believes that roughly 10 FTE and $200,000 in resource, savings resulting from streamlining the NRC fee process to charge only an annual fee outweighs the potential unfairness that some licensees are likely to voice.
The staff also believes the concerns can be mitigated.
First, although fees assessed on a yearly basis may vary, the differences in the average cost over longer periods of time should be reduced.
The staff can also ad licensees to minimize these differences. just the subclasses of t
Second, as stated in the previous paragraph, staff would continue to charge fees for new license applications because applicants for a new license would not pay an annual fee until the license is issued.
i
- Also, licensees (e.g., decommissioning and possession only (POL) licenses) that currently do not pay an annual fee but pay Part 170 fees would have to pay an annual fee, if Part 170 fees are eliminated.
The option that would result in the most resource savings (about 20 FTE) is to modify OBRA-90 to allow NRC to assess 100 percent of the budget to operating power reactors and major fuel cycle licensees only.'
This option, the staff believes, would be considered as totally unfair by the power reactors and major fuel facilities, because the regulatory activities. y would be paying fees for materials materials licensees' concerns,r, it would eliminate all of the Howeve including the letters and phone
' Allied-Elanal v. NRc, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
l
'If this option is pursued, previous legislative options to improve fairness and equity, such as deleting certain costs from the fee base, should not be pursued.
23
4 calls about annual fees.
Although this approach would result in significant resource savings, the staff does not believe it would be prudent to pursue this option because of the major concern related to fairness that it raises.
It would, from the power reactor perspective be more unfair than the current fee structure.
It may also be considered inconsistent with the EPA-92 request that the NRC recessend changes in existing law to prevent placing an unfair burden on NRC licensees.
In summary, the staff believes that the most appropriate way to reduce the administrative burden on staff, while retaining a reasonable degree of fairness and equity in the fee schedules, is to modify OBRA-90 so that the NRC can charge only an annual fee.
However, the staff will continue to look for opportunities to reduce the number of subclasses for annual fees.
With regard to publishing the fees without notice and comment, the staff will revisit this concept in the future if the controversy over fees subsides.
Other concerns:
Several other specific concerns have been raised about the fairness and equity of fees.
A.
Proration of n==umi Fees for Terminated L1====am currently the full annual fee is assessed to all licensees which have not filed a termination or POL request by the beginning of the fiscal year.
One commenter suggested that to be more fair and equitable the NRC should provide in its regulation a provision for prorating of the amaual fee for the fiscal year in which a licenses requests an amendment to remove the license authority.
During the past three years many materials licensees i
have written the NRC requesting an exemp, tion from the fees or an extension of time (beyond october 1) to tard nate the license and be relieved of the annual fee because (1) no material was ever possessed under the licenas; (2) the licensed material was never or infrequently used; they have attempted to sell the device without success.(3) the material was in s The staff acknowledges this concern and plans to include a proration provision for termination as well as issuance of new licenses in the FY 1994 proposed rule.
i B.
n==ual rees for possession oniv, err- -insiomime==a neclamation Linannees Some reactors, major fuel facilities, and uranium recovery facilities are inoperative but continue to benefit from NRC l
regulatory activities, primarily those activities related to decommissioning or site reclamation.
For example, some power
{
i I
reactor licensees have received a POL from NRC and are in the 24
I prococo of Cccommiccicning their facilities.
In coditica, many urcnium recovery licenseco (mills) are no longer operating and i
have filed reclamation plans for approval by the NRC.
These licensees benefit from the research, rulemaking, and issue resolution that the NRC performs for decommissioning or reclamation.
Licensees believe, however, that having non-operating facilities pay annual fees is unfair because they no longer generate revenue and require very little NRC supervision.
Some cannot complete decommissioning for lack of a place to dispose of waste.
Therefore, they conclude that they must retain a non-operating license, through no fault of their own.
Another concern is that in the uranium recovery area only a few active licenses will remain in the near future to pay for generic activities, including those related to reclamation.
The staff recommends that the Commission continue the present policy of assessing annual fees to licensees until the license is amended to authorize possession only or decossissioning.
This would be consistent with policy decisions that those who benefit from a license that authorizes operation or use of material pay annual fees.
i C.
Fees For small natities Currently, the NRC assesses two fees for licensees that qualify as small entities under the NRC's size standards.
In general, licensees with gross annual receipts of $250,000 to $3.5 million, pay a maximum annual fee of $1,800.
A second or lower-two small entity fee of $400 was established for small entities with gross annual receipts of less than $250,000 and small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000.
Commenters have indicated that more variation in the fees assessed to small entities should be provided.
For example, one commenter indicated that NRC should " create more fee categories based on gross annual receipts."
Some commenters argued that reducing the gap between the minimum small entity fee of $400 and the maximum fee of $1,800 would eliminate some of the competitive disadvantage experienced by those who are slightly above the established NRC thresholds.
As indicated earlier in this paper, the merits of whether the NRC small entity size standards should be changed'is being reevaluated and would be. separately presented to the commission for review and decision.
The staff recommends that the issue raised by commenters be deferred until the Commission has made a decision on whether or not to revise the current small entity size standards, since a change in the size standards could cause the NRC to change its small entity fees.
l l
l 25 l
l l
4 D.
Defer 11ammaa review fr= far m.h -
' r=atmen.
The commission ~ changed its policy of deferring the costs for standardized reactor design reviews in the final FY 1991 rule implementing 100-percent recover The Commission decided that for fairness and equity reasons,y.the cost of these reviews whether for domestic or foreign applicants, should be asses, sed under Part 170 to those filing an application with the NRC for approval or certification of a standardised design.
The Senate Energy and Water Committee recently noted that:
"The committee is also concerned that the NRC review fees charged to the ALWR design certification applicants are becoming overly burdensome.
The recent schedule delay will exacerbate the problem.
The commission should reconsider its policy for allowing
~
payment of those fees to be deferred until the certification is actually employed."
- 8. Rpt. 103-147 at 188.
The staff believes that for the same reasons of fairness and equity that led to the reversal of the decision in FY.1991, the review fees should continue to be assessed to advanced reactor applicants.
There is no compelling justification for singling these classes of applications for special treatment and shifting additional costs to power reactors.
E.
71mee a man or mailine on telmal rrrret f===.
The issue of the establishment of a ceiling on Part 170 licensing fees for the reviews of topical reports was raised by an owners group commenting on the notice.
The group stated that some activities that require NRC review and approval are voluntarily originated by them in order to improve plant safety and performance.
The reinstatement of a fee ceiling for topical i
reports will encourage the continuation of this practice to assure plant safety benefits.
The group said that knowing in advance the limit on the cost of the reviews would enable them to more effectively and efficiently plan the allocation of their l
limited resources.
Another issue that has recently been raised concerns the assessment of Part 170 fees for review and approval of topical reports.
That is, whether the submittal of the reports by utilities and owners groups should be viewed as " generic," in the 4
broadest sense and the costs recovered through annual fees instead of Part 170 fees.
This might encourage the submittal of additional reports in the interest of efficient and effective agency operations, which would be cost beneficial to both the NRC and the industry.
26 i
^'^ ^^~
Tho commiccien d:cid:d in the final FY 1991 fG3 rulo to olisinate tho ceiling fcr topicci rcport rcviews bared en th3 100-percent recovery principle and congressional guidance that each licensee or applicant pay the full costs of all identifiable regulatory services received from the M C.
Mc costs for topical report reviews vary significantly, depending on the particular topical report reviewed, and therefore make it impractical to establish a fair and equitable ceiling or flat fee.
The staff believes the M c should continue the present policy of assessing Part 170 fees, without a ceiling, for the review and approval of topical reports.
Inherent in the initial decision to assess Part 170 fees, was the fact that the reports were being voluntarily submitted for review and approval and there was no compelling reason not to charge for the review and approval cost.
Although a topical report can be used by more than one licensee, this use typically benefits the. organization that submits the topical report.
The staff is examining whether it is practical and cost effective to bill the members of a certain organisation instead of the organization itself.
F.
munand soone of Dart 170.
l Presented in the notice was the question of whether to broaden Part 170 to recover costs incurred for specific activities that i
are now collected as part of the annual fee, including Independent Investigation Teams (IITs), allegations, contested 1
hearings, vendor inspections, orders and amendments resulting from orders, and reviews that do not result in approvals.18 A majority of the commenters indicated that if Part 170 were 1
expanded, they would support billing for orders and amendments resulting from such orders.
These actions, the comments stated, although not licensee-initiated are provided to a specific licensee and should be assessed on an individual basis.
One commenter argued that NRC should correct the situation in which a licensee who does not submit an amendment request recommended by an NRC generic letter until ordered to do so is not charged a fee, but a licensee who voluntarily submits such an amendment is subject to Part 170 fees.
With respect to the remainder of the items, most commenters believed that many activities listed in the notice do not constitute a specific service to an identifiable licensee and that the costs should continue to be collected under Part 171.
For example, commenters claim that the cost of allegations and 1*This issue becomes moot if the commission requests and the congress enacts legislation that removes the requirement to assess Part 170 fees.
27
1 I
contested hearings are beyond the licensee's control and should not be billed on an individual basis.
Instead, the IGtc should continue to include costs for these activities in the Part 171 annual fee.
Other comments indicated that investigations of allegations and contested hearings often raise generio issues of concern to all licensees.
Therefore, saddling individual licensees with these additional costs is unfair and inequitable because they arise at NRC's direction, are not requested by a licensee and are beyond a licensee's control.
Others commented that all licensees benefit from these regulatory activities and that the costs should be recovered through the annual charge.
The staff agrees with these comments and the staff plans to continue to include the costs of IITs, vendor inspections, contested hearings, allegations, and reviews that do not result in approvals,.and so forth, in the annual fee.
The staff also i
recommends that we not charge for orders and amendments resulting from orders because most orders are used to impose civil penalties.
Thus, charging for orders could be perceived as additional fines to the licensee.
In some cases (e.g. requests for hearing as a result of an order be perceived as penalizing a license)e, charging for orders could for exercising its right to disagree with NRC.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
For the reasons discussed in this paper, the staff concludes that modification of existing fee legislation is necessary to minimise the major concerns about fairness, equity, and administrative burden of fees.
To this end, the staff recommands the following legislative changes:
1.
Modify OBRA-90 to remove from the fee base costs for international activities, Agreement State oversight, the exempted fees for nonprofit educational institutions, and the amount of the fee reduction for small entities.
This would minimize the major concern associated with NRC licensees paying for activities that do not benefit them.
(This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $25 million or about 5 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered through fees.)
Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate from the fee base a portion of 2.
the cost of generic regulatory activities that supports NRC and Agreement States material licensees.
This would eliminate the concern that NRC material licensees fees, which supports the regulation of both NRC and Agreement State licensees, are not commensurate with benefits received.
(This would reduce the amount to be collected by about $15 million or about 3 percent of the FY 1993 budget recovered through fees.)
28
3.
Modify tho AEA to permit NRC to cOccco tyylicatica and oth r fcco (cbout $6 million) for specific services to all Federal agencies, so that other NRC licensees do not-have to thecostoftheseservicesthatdonotbenefitthem.pyfor 4.
Modify OBRA-90 to eliminate the requirement that NRC assess Part 170 fees so as to reduce the resources required to assess and collect fees.
(If this option is adopted, the NRC could avoid spending about 10 FTEs and about $200,000 for fees.)
If legislation to relax the 100-percent recovery requirement is not viable, the staff recommends that the current policies be continued, except the Commission should seriously consider requesting legislation that would require the assessment of fees to Agreement states so as to improve the fairness and equity of the fees for NRC materials licensees.
This is especially appropriate, given the likelihood of more States becoming Agreement States.
The Commission should note that:
The staff plans to continue current fee policies, a.
except that it will prorate the annual fee.
b.
The staff plans to develop Notices of Proposed and Final Rulemakings for FY 1994 based on Consission decisions and guidance on this paper.
The FY 1994 rule cannot reflect any proposed legislative changes because they will not be enacted in time.
c.
The staff will convert this paper, based on Commission decisions and guidance, to a report that will be sent to the Congress and to the office of Management and Budget.
d.
The staff does not plan to include draft legislation with the report to Congress.
l "This change would still be necessary if the requirement to assess Part 170 fees is eliminated, since the staff would want to assess an application fee to those agencies applying for new I
licensees who would not pay annual fees.
29
- a
. = _
O.
e C00RDIMATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed and has no legal objection to the recommendations of this paper.
i 1
/
\\
s M.
lor ocuti irector i
for Operations i
Enclosures:
l 2.
April 19, 1993, Federal Register Notice 2.
List of Public Comments 3.
Fees Related to Fairness and Equity Concerns commissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Tuesday, January 4, 1994.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Tuesday, December 28, 1993, with an i
information copy to the Office of the secretary.
)
is of such a nature that it requires additional review andIf the paper of when comments may be expected.the Commissioners and the Secretaria
- comment, j
This paper is tentatively scheduled for discussion at an Open Meeting on Tuesday, December 21, 1993.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA IP OCA OPP EDO SECY l
30 l
- 33118 Pedeal R@ / Vol. 58. Pfe, ya / My AprG SS.123 /
Rules muchsan neouhavam summerFawessenenen:
Bashgnmed is CPR PeMe 17e and tyi PubbeImv tel-ees,the Omaeus a-wn s-Astetteso L Noseber 8. leet, sequkes gg g that es NRC sesseur
- ^j loo IIRC Pee PeAsyi AequessIer Puhee 9eemt of he budget eMles *e gesungng eenoust _,,
M bem the aesseT: Nuclear Regulesary Nuclear Wasie Fund Commienien.
OfWF) der FY test through 1998 by asnen: Roguem an pene a ---e fees.The NRC asseness two types of to seesvar Me budget elama4NM The Nuclear Reguistory authenty. Phut liennes and lampecaen
"""='aa'a= (NRC3 is solicities pubhc has,essebbebed la to CFR 170 eessnest em the need for toIIe under the ausherity of the i
due pohcy and esseelsted i=y'a OSees ?--
- '" Ass
)(31 L
This acties suspends to sessus U.S.C 0761L s'esover the NRC's easts of legisistasm that sequires NRC to sevleur providingladividunuyident1 Sable as poucy for mesesment of anne 1seen.
rvises a spesisc oppucamie and neben public esament as the need der liessenes. Tbs servises psevided by the changue to this
,and ses amend IGIC for whid thnes fees are assessed to the Ceapees the to existing are der the soview of
~
low the NRC Ands ese aseded to peevent der and the issuance of asw the placement of en undstr hunien en er approvals, aseendesste to NRC h The NBCis peeseeng henness er op andlaspec5ees of varieue optiens, sheemetives, and h==aad acid Second, annualI es.
quessene for seasideuses and estehushed la 10 CFR part 171 under essmaat esseeratag peessoal to authority of OBRM.secover we es won as pasement game 6c and eiher meulatur esses em changes t would seguire secovered through to WR part 170 fees.
to to NRC's due seguiseena.
I--
^ to emessmaat of OBRA-The NRC is alas anneumsdag the seneept
- 90. the MIC published three Saal fee of and sequesties consnest es a pseuen rules aAer evolusties of public for rulemaking subented by the osaments.On
- 10. 2001 (se FR Assentaa nGatag (pRnd-tre6. 314721. the NRC Ahaw eSnelrule
- 4) that requests that senduct e in the Federal which rulessaking to evahasse me fee pebey.
estehtiebed the 1 m ist 170 aatse* The asement puled JWy y"
^* heerfy este and the to.1993. Comments seenived this motorials beming and inspecues fue, done win be considmed if n is pressel as welle the w GR part 171 enmuel to de so, but the F-= la ehle to I " beemesswl a me m r 7g,,',"h T febt budget.
o
=g I 8"*' ** 8
'*8' Cives the seletively leegesament b
-MW
, art m
%,ar.and the o &R heterly sete s of e.
asonesses: Submit wrmes,,eemments 1991 rule were meestly semanded to the to: Secretary U.S.Nucieer.
m der senemeldereden u a
---i Commission. Weehimples.D630858.
AN Dacka*6es a servism Reemd.. sesuk of the Court's decision l
senaf v. mic. (D.c Cir. naarch 1s.
Need deuveresmessees not 11485 1983). A esperse. Federal i
Recitville Piks Esekville.namytead modes the leeuse aossa, between F:30 a.sm, sad 4:15 pa Federe! workdays. (Telepheme 301-406 WEN be is April. See3.
On
- 17. tees (s7 FR 13sts), the 1sFs).
mac i, no Fed.s Resim.
Capise of esaments see.fved may be two abanges to to CPR parte 170 asuniaod at the NRC Pelic Desument and 171.1be Manhed danges became Room et Stas L Seest. NW~
eSuselve lesy 18.1983.The limited Wenhangles.DC 3ests,in the lower ebengs to10 CFR part 170 auewed the Iml d *e ceimes saindlas.
NRC = buigeenerty I= them nesses pen nsmeissessannon eenraen c aussihet won previensty hilled evwy James Neuswer.k OIBee of the ein months.The Malted change to 10 Castroller. U.S. Nuclear cry GR past 171 adjusted the maJulmum Commission. Washingles.
30555.
annual fue of 81.800 assessed a Telepheme 301-4e3-4301.
materials liennese who queBSee as a
Federal Esghear / Val 88. No. 73 / Meadsy. Apr0 St.1985 / Pseposed Raise 21117 amen esalt ateadards.y under theMalas policy Act and t3seepend to the AMC that me eersetlysesonesed as enseal i
A lower dersenau empty be penden.
of $400 per is amand goes k the lugleistive essa,esISC Isas underit UR part 171.These cents
akhaad Ier emeu and emessages asemanesse est toaddress se essestated with spedSc NRCaccess derspeciac applicemes, knaan== or een-poses esgeniastises witgh the pokey isees of whether the other esgamiaand=
- 2"e'm'2"es'C *e'*s"eJinia.es's e
t.seEl3"u'se'r'd'Er'"he.
8
- S,JP -'a==*8 witha of less than 30.000.
essemeleg temme as thegenereg F
On as.1982 ts? FR 33e01), the populeuen aammad toNRCasksthat Tle emelet in deseeleg summent, the n
NRC e Saal ruleis the esamenters fases en this amatal DElc hasidesstaed tour breed areas i
Regiseer that estehushed the treenuen:"Given that user fees will be where pued keenoies, laspassaan, and annual fees essessed to NRC heemasse, what speal8c esonera lo.oes pubhc comment 1
eesed that the fees may emesseery for the NRC to meever legisladve er NRC policy aheages em place se unfair banism as hasasses. The op reatmetehe too percost ofles budget needed to ehmiasse unfair bwden?" areas naciude (1) the secharge ensemoed derh tes2.n.beene wie mapas =
= estela beanseen under to crR pui moth used la the FY 19e2 rule amendensets to the est fase tyt and the seguisiery costs that was==" d been that used to la 10 GR parts 17e 171.esmoeemes support the Sisees:(2) enicuhts the 10 CFR part 170 that sequest a fee seducties for see Sectuating ensual hee: (3) eisphfying prehessemal hourly sets, the spectSc hosasse era cleos of hoessess should materials besasias and laspendes does explicitlyindicans who should be the development of amousi hes: and (41 in to CFR 170,and the to GR part sessened the bedested emets ter the to seestery of eene seats for speci8e 171esa lessis the Saalrule propened fee seduaiensla seder to id=*inabla earvises threegh ammuel does.
pubushed) ny to. neense rR 31472).
pe" ge,o peroestges NRC WFee Serieerpr and Assuksery On October 24.19e2. the taergy shanges to the esisdag to GR pers 170 I"EP*""Id8'"'""II"'"
pebey Ass was sencied. Secties 2003(c) and m would sequhe neuce and Both the Campses and the NRChave of the Act requires the NRC to review its pubbe cesnesset heless the changes me secogniend that the NitC -
made.
lacindes emele for seguised pebey for essessment of easualines N NRC has had two years of activities but for which the costa eennot under secues a101(c) of the h=h r
Budget Reconculeuen Act of1990.
emportemas la implemoedag the be attributed to adesing NItC licensees soliot pubhc comment en the need Ier requiressant of OBRA-00 to recover Aenerchsg to the Cenamence Report changes to this pokcy. and m=aad tely 100 paraset of the NRC accompanying OBRA-to."incrusang authority. Doing that times, es changes le axiounglaw to the Canymes has evaluesed over s00 puhhc the ensuet ofsemovery to 100 percent placemset of an unis burden on ea==anta es fue plated rules:
of the NRC's bedest authority will soeult the NRC Rads are needed to provost the le the imposities of fees upos certato nortain NltC hosesses, particularly these moyended to severalhundred mquests licanases dercases that cannot be who hold bconses to operate Federally der esemptions letters tem henneces, owned resenach reactore used primarily and leaars trem the Conyees:and eterhted to thens hcensees or classes of for educational training and acadeede ed to thousands eltelephens besasses."The Comisence Report harther seated that:"The comierees resserch purposes. The Act also tem licaneses concermias b latend the NItC to fairly and equitably exernpted kom fees certala Federally assessment of eaaval fees. Many of escover theos bomits these comments and letters espreened beansees b annual charge owned research reactors used primardy concern about the burden of fees.
for educedonai On February Emed on previous puh11c comments even though awpaaaas cannot be 4.1993. the received a peduon for rulemahmg subenitted by the Aaserican and letters, the NRC has developed attrhted toladividual Heaa or patential opucas and alternatives Ier chases of heensees "Therefore, to Mining Ceaynes(AMCL N pection change as we!! as questions for further implaisset 100 percent be recovery the was docketed as pRM-17tM en i
February 12.1903. The pendener considersuco and comment by the NItC mustinPwe the cost ofsome puhuc. While coenments may be made acuvides on 1.censees who asibt requested that the NItC amend 10 CFR se any and allaspects of the NRCime sequessed nor derive direct beoeSt kom socibtles. materials licenses,g dess for pokey and the adeung laws upon these acdvities. In addiuon the pans 170 and 171 concernin regulatory services under the Atende which the dess are based,it would be Commissies has mede certais poucy and other Emergy Act of 10:4. as==== dad The particulerty helpful to the NRC tf the decisions that sesukla g fees to peutioner requested &is salaa to aa===ats addressed ee speciSc itsees beensees for assivities that not ident18ed la this docussent. This would support to eoes miusste alleged insipdtles and problems heilitsee the process of and 40 the costs of with the present les sysseen. Because se evahasting the comsmentsla na t
these activities een only be recovemd by issues reised by the peutioner eencarn and timely manner.This would also assessing assualfees to seisung NRC the amo subjects as the ese policy enable the NRCto provide the Conyees easts, the NRC asseness a to 18aamaa= To recover these of by the Energy pokey with speciSc -daa' soview Act. Se is announcing reesipt of eeneseming as les6aleuve change to ennais Mosesses.
the petities and se
-e.t. ee quesuag puhuc CNRA-40,as the Atomic Emergy Act.
AmiWees laciudadla h Curnet
,.iesd i. pRu-Aleeugh essamgypouc o m s hege 17tM is tids docussent.
voquires assuments os the assual The tu discussies ts the The purpose of this metics le to embcit fees public assement en the ased if as.for by the NRC under semies times breed seen,geries of vities that changes to the esisting NItC fee 3101(c) of ORRA-40 and to OR pet are included la tae curvest annual fee 171, the NRC is aise seeklag comunesta eurcharge.
and associated lawsis order to ceany ou whether or act to breedse the soepe
- 1. Acfiredes met assocsered with en with secuen 2003(c) of the Energy et to CFR part 170 to recover some costs asisusigNRChcoasse ereiess of
I i
I
{
Sitte Federal Raghter i vel 98. No. 73 / bdanday. Apre 10.1988 / Pseposed Ruins i
Ameneses. The Bret asier estegory of sestows and Ierpedmel bl==== me ammpt heat does erper seau asume thsee NRC esuvities that spenales other the Tenseuse seneet he attributed to as==heang NRC valley Aashortry (TVAX and the United
= W emanaldoes haseoso or class of th Thas Sisses autehment Corpsession.'la edenstiesellasteteelses, der esiegory includes laternalisaal.
sortain asapewer me addities,the Emessy Policy Ast maaleermeterialusen,are ster and l
Agreement State. gesene low level essepted hem annualfees eartsia y*=d weste fLLwl, and gemene uranium annchaeot activtues.
Federauy sweed menerch seentese used tem te CPR part 170 heensing and j
some internauomal acuvities are not primaruy Ier eduendensi trainias and laspeseles ties and)4 CFR part171 1
directly Wed to an individual heensee er sondemic sense,di purpeans.
annualIsos.Ho Commismies has also 1
class of u=== These acuvines With sogned to Federal associos, that moduced the annus!does ter thses laclude some anlety =marice preided NRC performs boenstag and lampassion lissesses who aos apaahfy as a small under the %==w='s r
to foreign countnes and some non-estiv6 ties, and esaducts other restowe probiersuon reviews.
get which tees.mespt der IDAA his actiesis canaissent la addation. the NRC's budgeted cents. prehenideas. would aermeDy be dthe Reguletory for administenna the Agreement state aberged under to CFR part 170. For Fleadhuky of1980 est agences ammai4r the impact of their annens en P'egram are ettnbuted onl eenm[ak de MCsoviewe DCEVDOE masu enthies, i
fg rt $ sata licensees.y to Nove senciar Issume hasases 2 Only
- F - rt State besaseos beneat from and conducts pscuses of Federal Fw FY 1991, appseeinstely 87 muhenis MC costs In asepreSt this progress. Becaum Agrweent Stat
- suelow meterials users, der esemph odesuomal needtudens was usessed a bconsees are not NRC bceasses,they Veternas ?"9_. tion heepitals.
cannot be charged an annual fee under Army inediators. and NASA e awcharge to seactors andap y at la OBRA-40.
% and performs salmy and N O'oe esisting LLW disposal anyi,eomental reviews of DOE West Ises tw emeu souum wm Valley and urenlum milltallin asemesed as a cercharge to all heansees n!""T '"'i'C::'fM:"a""Jm
,,:l,i,=,'ad *;* *l ant,,gs assions the ero set osaan smuuss.
=
o NRC bconses for dispoesi of specn
,,,o A.I es H. e.,ori ne. MC a.d aueion, mai.nat nemro,s. ae =al Urm A,,,ium,h,4ill T, alhag Edad= Ce,n, trol 'Cll"l State Apphsames and 4
C none L1W regulatory acuviues do not cA,,,,,,,,1. 3, c
also reviews advanc,ed sence,ar doelps U
"gsup an eusting NRC hennese his ares severe gamerte seilvities that submhud bA mh TheIDAA bits the NRC 6em m M M @ W NRC NRC1 linemeseslast aise su s me h sees.wiu adi,ecay,s.,ve
==a ia ia n=
b benents kom these NRC LLW Fedalagencies gtbscams deen
== *--- m pport Agreement s
-u*u= =
exknditures because they wiU die acurtues. N Enagy poucy As menciated steh theMCsusdear sf W at sites that are expected to Prehlbits the asemassent of 10 GE part materials and wealum momry beened in the future.
ifi ***"*! 8"' = '"tala FederaDy seglatory psegram Tao NRC partinas gaaeric mgulatory Anotha ares where NRC is owned ment'dt seasom used primardy ler educedonal purpome. Semime.
activities ist madear materials unsre and establishing the regulatory framework to regulate future Uceasses is uranium under OBRA-to, the NRC must aseen usanium scoperylissasses such as cnrichment. Although an applicadoo annual less to other hcsosses to secew eenducting resed developias has been Sled for an enrichment facility. Se coms of ene acuvides la entes.2 segulations and guidemos.and the license has not been issued and.-
comply wie the 100 percent secovery evaluating opmetional poets. Does therefore, there u no uranium activtues provide the basis for cnnchment licensee that may be
}uasment.
to segulate its appredenstely FA00 5
or FY m2 a essessed an annual fee for these genene snillion was incEp t I, S4 soseerials and urealum sacervery in the surchargs can only be charged to li-
. not to category of[gmassers der this kanaa== es wou as ter the twenty nine activities Under OBRA-40. annualines for opereun acuvides.
Agreement States to segulate ther licenoe apphcants.
- 3. AssMaies selaung as e asA00 unaaertals umma-Neuww.
and underOsaA-ea,theNRCsneastcharge For FT 1992. approximately $14 hesnases curmatly essept
- CFR millice was lacluded in the power Parts !N andit! fees er assessed the Agreement Siste lissesses as enoual tvector eurcharge for this category; seduced annasalfees for amielf smelties due to secover a of the east of tese estivities they are not approzimately 54 million was asessmed easedse cupent Commiesses pedicy MC h-=== Hasudese, saly about 30 as a m-d.c.r,. to classes of searsector he third snator of costs covers 8-- that generose low level weste:
these aceivt Ass der specsse pement (7A00 NK lioeneses of the total and sa millies for WaM-tag the appucents erliosasses sensive NRC population of 34.000) of the liseneses Agreement $ sate program was included servions and could be asesseed does.
ese he sensemed an annualcharge to in the NRC pmfeemonal hourly sets and Newner, as a soeuk of esisting scoper the east of pseerts amivihas that maessed u'au h====s 8%==8aa'= Ase ammpues and des seppert hath MCand State
- 1. Specifle opphcents and licensees or seducuan policy deciaiens.certain llosasses. MC hesmosos indicated classes oflicensees that are not ana6/ser that this asesses as undair herden and tofee esassament underlOAA arother
' assess aaw. eres aanmes esapstisive handousesgo ter them. This M m'*, *,,$U,"sem togame Jew h escend maker categcry of costs seems that about 79 pareent of the
"*"*" as sac e as men covers thoes activities for which the gesente esses (about Sta
- "a muhes) eso la the annua!
MC i. umous. - ee basis of.deues so is. m.m @, M e.,
law to charge a les to speci5c 4
wae== and semessemos e sansist M Coms-iasa.d memium cpplicants er licensees evoo though they @gg,'rmiensher scopery tiennesse could be considered
- fg as as esturburdse.
recstve na idsetlBable service Gross the n,qe
,usaserkneemsersw
%aems lagledethe h NRC has NRC. nees acuvices involve licenatag umais sanssasse casemament ident18ed the legislauwe
padmeal Behi'ter / Val St. No. 73 / ndeedsy. April 19. 1983 / Peupened Rales 21119 to ad6ess the tonese discussed essoinseuses. IJamasses have The Eis seeking essensat a ways enspleined that it is usdair hr the NRC toshe the
"" of establishing has en/s"impluying the meshed 1.MedihOsRA entoehminste the to essess such large ineueems bessues esses of sensis estivities hem the des they de met have sumeest wasming to der determining essaalhasist been se that the NRClasegeised to edlust pness and essesses tosesover power mestere sad fuel eeuest - g
'ylesporosetetits the immeness, heemseen without amusing en Jae
- he h WesteMINWF)and the Iagislative Opties madrw cents for other scalvtues that To miniales the pseemeialoflesse tagielsewOpdes d he speci8ed by the NRC. With tecomesesin ensualdoes,see opties Tb the one opuse is i
respect to this attemedvs. the NRC is would be to medwy OBRA-00 to hadt een he p%ublished without solicsti tomedi es fee schedules particularly interested in receiving the ensuel des incesase der eash class og public comment en the dellertag lismasses.
east met sensessed as e pubhc emesset, dosi the basic due quesuon:Should OSRA-ee he mediSed soeur Wen edes wouW be maain to remove all speci8ed activ60es emeluded hem the fue base. Neis Peev6eus year.
sessu8ed la se fouritems eheve hem hemieu eopumiis incoense he us.&"pwoud.ehe W me peboy %
ibe fee besef If all four estivities ese
- ":;.r ase as based th 6
Pne h b
M e.m,,s.,, sg',g
,,,ual for various
--* g,y son. venom mheilityese- - dua
- 1. Modify OBRA-40 to permit the is to modify to GR NRC to assoas enaual does to B.Sim if)fagthe C.", Mof til to seems see uniferin annual fee for organissuons other than NitC heensees Fees allopenting power reacters sad see and approval holders that besset hem agula m
est mamlInn he unifesa enamel ins hr all Asel facilities.
,g Mto,RC.f,un. For amen seashiished b@y rulemaking. Theredere, fV.RependedSeepefor 2#ONMitt 270 8d-,,
- eMac m ahae E 7.a"**"~es,g;s,-ed r*
- ,j,e,,a,c ogea.,i%~'3'T@-
. ssu. erit,h,N e s - of w
- m.h achown me e% m:ld
' " " " ' - ta=
M. n6 c*aCw:d-eiass e m es A,,e e.
R,a,rt s,0 - ere g,3."",C", s*um g,d,wi te4 P*ECT, gash 5a l"""pgk't,'g"e'N"'""*
md e
program la place,to g
an entire la enshushing es emuelim der class of haasses e peresular yw.
and liseneses.Two Supreme cases and leur Cheuit Court decimens relating
- 3. Modify the Atende Energy Act to le addities.the NRC has sessived to the FederalCommunications permit the NRC to aseems to CFR part comments tedicating that the samuel comma s a (FOC)and the Federal 170 fees to Feders! ageocles, eeer than Ises for operating powerseester power Commission (FPC) fees essessed those that already are subbiet to such liesesses and feel llesasses under the af the IOAA.es well assessments, for idanu8able services ebeeld be They point est es e Flah Orcuit of Apposis esse such as reviews, op and that annual for the operating pesar to 30AA patC fees have inspections whom recoveryis, seasser class of liesmeses eso deteresised addi goldence to the these costsis currently ted by in three ways. First, withis the is See sessamment under 10 CFR IOAA. Tids would in p"*'a= Power seester class. a part 170.The past and surrent to CFR d
appressmete se million la additional is made betwees the tour vender part 1pg goes were estehkehed beesd en lees being col ed hoes Federal Wileos. groups, that is.Behoack it these esurt decleises.
agencies.
Combusties Reglaserta ashcycheapes Policychangesto Censsel Beatric, and W==Magh s.
Sesed a the asurts'goldence.NitC M3AA4ype has have been strucewed
=
address the concerns with the esseherge seemed. withis each vender youp, a and ase essessed der the soview of include the ah=laassen of emeenpeans distinesien is made by the or opphandens der and the leeueses of (1) currently oestalmed la to GR 170 easteineset, hr enemple.
asw hama== 13) emendesate and sed 171.His would inchsde.
Electric Mark 1. E and 51. Third, a somewels to adenaslissesse:(1) example, eum!astion of the esemption distiansen is made based as lemties of approvals, and as topical sopens; and Ier sempre 8t educational 8 m a-the mener. that is, whetkee er met at is. (4) for 8==r=*i-Under the omvent to M888888#88 ^******
located east er west of the Rady GR part 170 he pebey, as - "-
hieuntedes. As e seenh the esmount of aseet he Sled der e new tid as The amount of the emetseldoes the Ises Ier esy one vender with a the budget and the number af hommeses eestainment type sound very
====d===a sumouel, er approvel: er as Ductuates depending en the eneust of must he esadesmed by the hem yearto leading la seder for a le GRpart 170 des eveliable to pay the relatively Amed one sammenter to that the esteemesseed, and other regulatory cons.
=venehulty of the dlSenessispenser The eeuns'desdalens es which the la the budget and the number them the enempted sessement les FR aussent le @R part 170 has are hosed of een cause seistivelylesgo 81479; ely19.1981).
. Ier the tosseleased behus the OBRA-00 changesla the emeests of the ammuel eines er)feeleyete hadlettes e sequisement to moover100 pescent of does. rer seample, the FY 1983 anseel is made between andched Amet the NRC's be Seesum hem @amismances whom NR he ser som hennenes tecnesed by no hhnostles.loor het percent due to these husers. Because of hbetssties.We essversien hetkeles eyesite servleesist the timlag of t' ; - _M approval of and esber het baskey u===== NRCs apphemsts hosesses.er he NRCs budget. tt is met paethis to endwy and sehguards hedgated seats em eeer art a==- est de am swa give besesses much advance estics of g u.'.y ausented to these cleeses.
esisting pol 6cy der ensemaiag 10 CFR part
31130 e
Fedesal EsWeber / Val St. No. 73 / Maeday. AprB 19,1993 / Pseposed Rules i
170 less, the onens of these serviese see
- 4. She Na===h='amlag bleangement ineMeet to a seleetwyset beesume the sessened theough 10 CFR 171 Plan (Elbe) annual has sessened m all ta NRC beseems done met sequest it. Sienuerly a perncular close. If the esses of these 3,,,,,p a earo u soviei.e a d m e d m es met assessed se'CFR past170 dose types of sedveties were seepvased under
,,,,,g
. g,,,
i to CFR part 170, the assuel des would sempenses k to Sus hoosueseach esemetAnod easwo des ciens.,up of the eiese.mm... a i.
y,,,,,,,,e pg,, a esiusteruyby the but are tied j
he decrossed.
1 he NitC is seenlag comments se the Charrently.10 CFR part 170 fees ese est budgeted mee of een medvise em as a mquireamt of the ordw.N buse of bresdesang the sospe of10 h because the esapenise see not memd ersegh enmuel Ane to au part 170 to secover mots incurred forsped8e actions deridanu8able NItCapplicants er h h I"*'"'
socipients because of the budgeted costs Ier theos reviews and in8Pections are recovered hem heel 7.Comeneted Meerings interrelationship of 10 CFR parts 170 hethties and metanale homesses Centested heariap are a=ade=*=d by and 171 la recovertag 100 percent of the. through annualines.
theIGC es spectac "-^-
NRC budge authwity. Some deen usually a to re he P-i=='=quen'allahrvenere.
actmties em ideot18ed and listed
- s. Reviews he De Not Raultis below e
ed is not FemenalNRC Approvals pov6euely decided am tocharge hasIer omstansed heartags inten to De NRC parfenes feriewe the de met because a hearingglue the public en ve.
- 1. Inadent loveedgetion Teams (Irral g
asasservens participate approvals. For seample, the NRC U"*'I88 The purpose of the egency's incident sowiews the results of the Individual g
pg g"g".en inveausation preyamis tola Plant Eneas (IPEl subedttals sequested
- 3. M74 he bedpeed eene am
,I bya least and a dreA meevesed tinaugh annen! Asse w signi8 cant opereuonal evoets la ving SafetTy Poww reactore and other facilides is a uedos Repen se te
*ll liemesse of a Particular class.
systematic and technically sound gadings.10 CFR part 170 less are met anannw. Causes of the poets are assessed because the FE review does PaheyChanges detwalaed so the NRC cea take met resuhis a letter of approvaleras
%pg correct!ve actions. An incident amendment to the technical apphcess, laa===m g m w
=== or mher speci8cescas er hennes.NRCalso a potentially sopor signiScance.lavsedgedon team inveedgates events of oseduas Proba agenloadens Weed 8mlaboveis e M CFR pen 170 m m b Curmndy the oests er them (FRA) reviews etspeggsc seemore.
br inwetigadons are recovered through Hese reviews have resulted la the
&M generstion of a SER. De SER provides ennarteenIAr$ig Conpoos Pedden annual fees.
a generaldescri of the stafra
- 2. vender laspections 88h p639373 g)
@E g"*g* *d*
n e peang NRC asoduas inspections of speci8c conclusions on arose identiSed suppliere of nuclear components, byNRCas subject to potential he Amerians Adining Congmes matanals, and services in response to assies.auc6 as la the (AndC).which Eled a petideo ist speci8c hardware Isilures, regulatory "P"'"ina=Haaa 10 pan 170 fees are rulemaking en February 4.1983,is a concerns, or allegations to deteredae snet asessmed because the miew dose mestonal trede seesdades of miaing and whMher thans suppbero are in met result la a letter of a mineralprocessias esapenies that comphara with applicable NRC and aseendment es the " ppeevalor en techadse ownere and of
"=1 industry requuements. Currently part 8 Ped 8ceuses or heensa. Amether usenhase milla,sul sites, and m 170 ises am om ameened for these inspecuens because vendore an act seampleis NitC's aview of Sanacial snu arealun producties ties who wh-ia iaaiag naading are NitCliessenes, blembers of the AMC apphennis or h-Pleas er medical gaelity namegesseet who use bypeduct rediescow fthe o
Commimion.no costs of these Proyema. NItC miew of such menertale meer be basesed by either the inspeedone are recowred through embainale dem act smuk is as NRC eras p States secause the annual ines asesseed to power rescsere.
er Messa a===d===*
inues seiend y the esacers the eam subject se the PoheyAm 3 Allegeuens se to CFR part170 fueis les requirenset, the le also currently asemesed. To rearver 100 sequesting puhuc comment es the NRC condums inwmigmium of of the budget authority.the desmas raisedin PRhi 170-4la this ellegadone of wrongdodag by NItC aests der som miswo me decoment.
liconeses and othere withis its eservered trough esauallose.
reguietory partedicues. NRC also 8 Ude es Uemens and /===d====a=
Adversetopoets as to pteillemer conducts inspecueos of allegedema anaa rev tidrd parties regarding spectac Roseldes Prem These SpectSc Onters De Ab8Chas subelmed this pedtion ter NRCisonne ordere to Mo en behalf of he mesebers ucenes.e. Na au ausgausu an miewe and appmes e sesses and that beid linesses becauseit substaaeianad Ther~ "
.dmeses a heunes ben been advemely heemses resuhing tem the previously dedded it would met charge orders. Under cuneet (esseeland he aAscendby aurset hemase las nale, 10 CFR part 170 fees for resuhing frees third party ladesanoes1to$
lesteene 3 seasse ebet mesy ofks FR 212se: May 21,19441.De les no $ 178.31), le O'R part 170 less ero who held DECliesmese are costs for these is metanseemed ter the ordsee er CIsas I unmaisse resevery eiess that have recovered hem each ofhesesse seemklas he's the seen esseed epsendees and see weieing der ans em through assual fees.
boosuse the NIIC. en sta swa lattlettw, Macappreset ofsessemedes plans.er see se
.He poetieser behoves teouse en order.De order le set it endear that hsthelee must
w -mmavu vo/. u u2 uw v rsspees La uiw assunse e pey the NRCes ammalIse e seemsmakte missiemehip b the besset the Depenment of (DO.) b neesume they se sevenue psevidedby ecemessiehtand improperly sesel-e esemight and p
-d seguim very e=Pervidea. mesleden.
meer ofitsmulmuss ein meleasuon h pecuemar nies assens that esse of L h penumeer suggests the eenottles without bein
.im.plementation of a system that showsw aey seelecthu h b
ii NRC mfe,evai.f m m een ewe t ng the NRCa nai,soemeuse wl Ci
-owv - es-em e,
.g u am er s
,ut me ume must.senaue to,.y,.C,sune.m.-museoireisu-ow.,*
C e
_ te he ss.mi.ed te aurses
,,ivete esmer nes.el
.e.are.
r,=. Alisenesesoviewboa,rdy,g-J2b Tm es==e = e saia-ie masi e r' ia leC he=mmam
- must medaue to The Poudener's Cemeures gamesses he peudeoer's primary comeurs is should be estehliched that reviewe the pay the NRCism ter many ymn while that a system the allows as egency to DSC des system ammusDy. memitose NRC eweinas NRC h secover 100 percent oflas meets levites laspecties assivities to ymvent h ePo h sCamelseien abuse as there are se segulatory abuse, and proposes revisiens present to esswo that fees to theins system to ehmiaele De petitlener hoe identified several are collected is relation to the amount lesquitable seemment ofitsensass.
edplacent adveresimpens whichit of asemeenry MRC eversight and 2.The peutieser sugests that the aleine have eSected its members e a seguleuen.he peudemer states that.
NRC deveisp a semmissent mathed for seemk of the senest 95CIse systeen under the current fee system,the NRC ying De tieser which prov6desIerlesquimble is set accountable to anyees and has no that NRC emppl7 eversight er tv centrol der hmm-with a cost ehest that gestment of Mesmosas and the peeeual inspecues e here are selimits describes charges der various types of g,,,,g,g,g,,7gg,,,, g,p,gg,,,,
en how oAen laspecuens occur so services and a sped 8e suspense laterve! heuevo est to does hipened by b provisions for B-== to object to schedule that has desdhase for PRC usimirty W lu uranium d
""*'"Y ecibues that have ceased costs, and so assurance for expedideus allNRC services. This would envim by e NRC.
.u.i
,a.
e st m ay cur
- Perettee-d m M NRC m peduoner claims the NRCis when the processing of simple approval of mclamation p lasome vieleung the " fundamental priadple of amendment requests takes sense NRC asses der mesy yure.De peutioner lew" that a reasonable releucaship must sta5 members langer than othere to sequests that the NRC consider its exist between the cost to liesasses of a semplete.N peudemer aise sunsets fe*Penels to amend the rulesin to CFR regulatory sad the beneSt that the NRC enablish time limits for Parts 170 and 171.
derived from regulatory services.
-. such as 30 days for simple The pouuoner believes the 47 t
==8
sequests. and g,gg,gg incrones in lose for Class I ties ever pubhsh the me times for various 38 CFR Port f 70 the prior yearis saconsive la segulatory la a table that would comparison with the e pwcmet increnes be distributed to henneese.
ByPeducs metrial.lsport asd in the annual NRC appropriation, h
- 3. The peutioner aussets that the esport licenses. latergovernmental i
peutioner behoves that fee laceenses NRCpro, vide a mero complete and seletions.Neo payseest penalties, abould be consistent with the NRC desalma sonoun of the servious it Nuclear materials. Nuclear power plants precuce of using b consumer pr6cm provides. Current] the NRC hats only and reactore. Sewce maannial. 5pecial index for manual adjustment of surety the hours spent the hourly rete en nuclear meterial.
bonds. De peutioner believes b bills eset to Scesssee. la addluon to annual fee is exorbitant for Class I siaP y hating the une spent and the 30 most lys l
uranium recovery sites, espedaily these hourly vote, the petitieser believes that that have ceased opereuona and have NRC chargue should be iteaused to also Annual charges. Byproduct mMwiel, been walung for several yeem for NRC laclude e descripues of the work Henders of enruscans. segistrodons.
bWul soleum.
To tiener also sta es that the is the work.
3123 hourly charge for ory Mthe dates en w the werk wu y g,P and services is escoessve for stasesorts r-The -
and notes t!.at such an amount is equivalent to the rete charged by a NRC =H= petitioner that the nuclear material.
4.
inate lessess contribute to he authority citaties der this senior consultant et e actiemally the inequitable treatment of licensees. ' deemmentis: Esc.3903(c).Pubhc Law recognised consulting Arm.
The petitioner believes that does should sagaat 108 Stat.3125.
He Poutieser's Propenale Dused Rockwelle.Maryised this 13th day end very ule he petitioner requests that to CFR Win such as der urealum gApru parts 170 and 171 he amended to AselcycEsites that have sensed Rw the stesiew angelmuy camiwwa.
alleviate the taequitable impacts of operaties and are waiting der NRC Sassaal 34h5i.
MRC imposed Ises so its members, appeevel of reclamaties plans.
assesarya(the osaminides ePeciscally for class I urealum recovery Aesordiasto to tieser. the latent of yR nos. es-eens piisd eas es: a es em) eues that have asesed operaties and Cemycesla the Qasibus eweit NRC approval of seclamaties Budget 8==,su Act of1990 was mase seen nue.m.e plans. De poudemer also sugests that that see-power seester hdhties should the NRCimplement certala stendards be seempt der the mest part from ammual der services ded. The petitioner Isos beesues they con less than offers the spec!Sc sugeodens three poroset of the s segulatory for ensurtag that fee schedule bears costs.The peutioner also bebeves that
En21ccuro 2 C - ents - Reactor' Licensees and Their Ranrementativan 1.
Aerotest (149) 2.
Arizona Public Service Co.
(534) 3.
B&W Owners Group (528) 4.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
(527) 5.
Centerior Energy (524) 6.
Commonwealth Edison (473) 7.
Duke Power Co.
(523) 8.
Duquesne Light Co.
(520) 9.
Entergy (488) 10.
Florida Power & Light Company (519) 11.
General Atomics (151) (532) 12.
Georgia Power (493) 13.
Karl W. Gross, Reactor Operator (460) 14.
Northeast Utilities (526) 15.
NUMARC (475) 16.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
(522) 17 Philadelphia Electric Co.
(529) 18.
Southern California Edison Co.
(508) 19.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
(444) 20.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company (494) 21.
TU Electric (463) 22.
Union Electric (141) 23.
Virginia Power (535) 24.
Washington Public Power Supply System (480) 25.
Winston & Strawn (509) 1
comments - Puel Facility Licaneams and Their manrarientatives 1.
ABB-Combustion Engineering (518) 2.
Allied signal (495) 3.
American Mining Congress (496) (554) 4.
B&W Fuel Company (474) 5.
Hunton & Willians (552) 6.
Louisiana Energy (489) 7.
Rio Algon Mining Corporation (505) 8.
Siemens Power Corporation (512) 9.
U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (510) 10.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (492) 4 2
~ '
'~
.+.
l t' - -nts - Educational Licenseen and Their Raeramentatives i
1.
American Council on Education (541) 2.
American Society for Engineering Education (557) 3.
Central Michigan University (555) 4.
Christopher Flavney
(,483) (516) 5.
Cornell University (490) 6.
Eastern Michigan University (507) 7.
Fermin M. Perez (542) 8.
Georgia State University (1) 9.
John R. Anderson (560) 10.
Margaret R. Kunselman (461) 11.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (481) (547)
(566) 12.
Mount Holyoke College (533) 13.
National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR)
(546) 14.
National Science Foundation (521) 15.
North Carolina State University (543) 3
4 16.
Ohio State University (464) (466)
(472) (544)
(545) 17.
Oregon State University (558) 18.
Penn State University (465) 19.
Princeton University (457) 2 0..
Purdue University (430) 21.
Saint John's University (538) 22.
Saint Mary's College (559) 23.
Simmons College (564) 24.
Smith College (530) 25.
South Dakota State University (549) 26.
University of California-Irvine (548) 27.
University of Cincinnati (553) 28.
University of Delaware (138) 29.
University of Florida (556) 30.
University of Illinois (504) 31.
University of Massachusetts (459) 32.
University of Miami (531) 33.
University of Michigan (561) 34.
University of Missouri (Rolla)
(550) 35.
University of Texas (537) i 36.
University of Wisconsin (551) 37.
Washington & Lee University (539) 38.
Washington State University (536) 39.
Xavier University (563) 4
'i comments - Medical Licananas and Their Ranrementatives 1.
American Association of Clinical (434)
Endocrinologists 2.
American College of Nuclear Physicians (511) 3.
American College of Radiology (517) 4.
Association of Independent Research Institutes (497) 5.
Colorado Hospital Assn.
(503) 6.
Dean W. Broga, Ph.D.
(486) 7.
Elias C. Dow, M.D.
(449) 8.
HCA Johnston-Willis Hospital (471) 9.
Hospital Association of Pennsylvania (485) 10.
Hospital Pavia (62) 11.
Hot Springs County Memorial Hospital (478) 12.
John R. Sinkey, M.D.
(453) 13.
Lahey Clinical Medical Center (421) 14.
Medical College of Wisconsin (2) 15.
Metabolism Associates (67) 16.
New England Medical Center (514) 17.
Northern Virginia Endocrinologists (4) 18.
Richard B. Guttler, M.D.
(439) 19.
Stan A. Huber Consultants, Inc.
(5) 20.
St. John's Mercy Medical Center (441) 5 i
~.
4 Licanmaan - Industrial
- 1. AGG Rok Materials (98)
- 2. Air Transport Assn.
(515)
- 3. Apgee Corporation (484)
- 4. Applied Geoscience & Engineering (433)
- 5. Applied Radiant Energy Corporation (540)
{
- 6. Atchison Casting (452)
- 7. Berthold Systems, Inc.
(501)
- 8. Bowen & Lawson (60) (422)
- 9. Braun Intertec (491)
- 10. City of Toledo, Ohio j
(442)
- 11. Consol Inc.
(143)
- 12. Duratek (455)
- 13. Earthtec Inc.
(562)
- 14. Ebasco (477)
- 15. Froehling & Robertson (429)
- 16. Frontier Logging Corporation (75) l
- 17. Glovier & Associates, Inc.
(6)
- 18. Glover Construction Co., Inc.
(146)
- 19. Grinnell Corporation (450)
- 20. Homestake Engineering (454) i
- 21. Intermountain Testing Co.
(502)
- 22. International Hydronics (59)
- 23. IRRITEC (500)
- 24. Isomedix (435)
- 25. J. H. Shears' Sons, Inc.
(123)
- 26. John R. Mercier, H. P.
(458)
- 27. Mcdonald-Maas Associates (144)
- 28. Marillat (7)
- 29. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (482)
- 30. National Asphalt Pavement Assoc.
(150)
- 31. Novagen (424)
- 32. Okanogan County Dept. of Public Works (476)
- 33. Pashelinsky Smelting & Refining Corp.
(61) 6
- s..
ryy
- 34. Pacccic Volicy tJater Ctaniccicn (451)
- 35. Radictien Monitsring Devicco, Inc.
(427)
- 36. Springfield Water Department (436) i
- 37. Stocker & Yale, Inc.
(487)
- 38. Teledyne Engineering Services (565)
- 39. TERRA Engineering & Construction Corp.
(3)
- 40. Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc.
(8) (467)
- 41. Vecellio & Grogan, Inc.
(145)
- 42. Wilson Engineering (423)
- 43. Yankee Engineering & Testing, Inc.
(425)
COMMENTS REFERENCING TROXLER ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. FORM LETTER (COMMENT NUMBER 8) DATED 5/19/93 1
- 44. Ackenheil & Associates (139)
- 45. Ackenheil Engineers, Inc.
(363)
- 46. Adams Construction Co.
(16) (53)
- 47. Ajax Paving Industries (448)
- 48. Allied Construction Technologies, Inc.
(315)
- 49. Allied Corporation, Inc.
(63)
- 50. Allied Testing Labs, Inc.
(394)
- 51. Ambric Engineering, Inc.
)
(158) (358)
- 52. Ambric Testing & Engineering Associates of VA (152)
- 53. Ambric Testing & Engineering Associates of PA (157)
- 54. Ambric Testing Assoc. of New Jersey, Inc.
(216)
- 55. American Engineering & Testing, Inc.
(446)
- 56. Anco Testing Laboratories, Inc.
(101) (250)
- 57. Anderson Engineering, Inc.
(302)
- 58. APAC-Virginia, Inc.
(251)
- 59. ARTCO Contracting, Inc.
(382)
- 60. Ashco, Inc.
(192)
- 61. Asphalt Materials Inc.
(190)
- 62. Asphalt Road & Materials Co., Inc.
(22) 7
,s
- 63. Asphalt Paving, Inc.
(364)
- 64. Atac Associates, Inc.
(187) (296) 65.. Banner Associates, Inc.
(44)
- 66. Bardon Trimount, Inc.
(339)
- 67. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc.
(54)
- 68. Barrientos & Associates, Inc.
(140) t
- 69. BBC & M Engineering, Inc.
(219)
- 70. Beaver Excavating Co.
(15)
- 71. Becher-Hoppe ingineers (409) 4
- 72. Beery & Assoc., Inc.
(329)
- 73. Bellezza Company, Inc.
(212)
- 74. Bernardin, Lochaueller & Assoc. Inc.
(213)
- 75. Berrien County Road Commission (202) i
- 76. Betteroads Asphalt Corporation (262)
- 77. Blacktop Products Co.
(56)
- 78. Blair Bros., Inc.
(330)
- 79. Blazosky Associates, Inc.
(29)
- 80. Blue Rock Industries (206)
- 81. Borings Soils & Testing, Co.
(255) (256)
)
- 82. Boss Engineering (347)
- 83. Bowen Construction Co.
(19)
I
- 84. Bowen Engineers & Survey (199)
- 85. Bowers & Assoc.
(227)
- 86. Bowser Morner, Inc.
(271)
{
- 87. Braken Construction Co.
(97)
- 88. Bridge Construction Corp.
(121)
- 89. Brooks Construction Co., Inc.
(203)
- 90. Bruschi Brothers, Inc.
(311)
- 91. Bucher, Willis & Ratliff (130)
- 92. Buckley - Lages, Inc.
(26) (81)
- 93. Burgess & Niple (72) (295)
- 94. Byrne Sand & Gravel Co., Inc.
(384)
- 95. Campbell Paris Engineers (307)
- 96. Capital Consultants, Inc.
(156)
- 97. Canonia Environmental (31) (83) 8
]
=_
-[
- 98. C r1 K0lly P2Ving
. u (279) 99.-C. C. Mangua, Inc.
(248) 100. Central Paving Co.
(301)
-101. Charleston Construction Co.
(11) 102. Chester Bros. Consturction Co.
(412) (437) 103. CHMP, Inc.
(134) 104. City of Bryan,-ohio (416) 105. City of Detroit, Michigan (287) 106. City of Flint; Michigan (162) 107. City of Goshen, Indiana (249) 108. City of Kettering, Ohio (392) 109. City of Newport News, VA (185) 110. City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (291) 111. City of West Bend, Indiana (169) 112. Civil Engineering Services (207) 113. Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(177) 114. CMC Engineering (222) 115. Cole Associates (186) 116. Commercial Asphalt Co.
(9) 117. Commonwealth of Virginia (377) 118. Compton Construction Co. Inc.
(88) 119. Con-Spec, Inc.
(274) 120. Construction Design Consultants (338) 121. Construction Engineering Consultants, Inc.
(359) 122. Construction Services Assoc.
(181) 123. Construction Testing Services, Inc.
(242) 124. County of Fairfax, VA (232) l 125. County of Henrico, Virginia (166) 126. County of St. Clair (215) 127. C. T. Consultants, Inc.
(278) 128. CTI & Assoc., Inc.
(155) 129. CTL of Virginia, Inc.
(104) 130. Cumberland Geotechnical (99) 131. Cuyahoga County Engineers Testing Lab (118) 132. D'Appolonia (161) 9
a e
i 133. David Blackmore & Assoc., Inc.
(383) i 134. Dell Contractors (167) 135. Donaldson Mine Company (375) 136. Donegal Construction Corp.
(297; 137. EACCO Construction Co.
(173) 138. Earth Engineering, Inc.
(373) 139. Ebasco (418) 140. Earth, Inc..
(195) 141. Earth Exploration, Inc.
(336) 142. Ebony Construction Co., Inc.
(349) 143. EDP Consultants, Inc.
(95) 144. E. L. Conwell & Co.
(30) (90) 145. Elkhart County Highway Department (180) 146. Empire Construction & Materials, Inc.
(267) 147. EMSI Engineering, Inc.
(170) l 148. Engineering & Testing Consultants, Inc.
(419) l 149. Engineering Mechanics, Inc.
(312) (388) 150. Engineering & Testing Services, Inc.
(351) (380) l 151. English Construction Co., Inc.
(93) 352. Erdman, Anthony Assoc., Inc.
(293) 153. Esmer & Assoc., Inc.
(354) j 154. E. T. & L. Construction Corp.
(324) 155.
E. V. Williams Co.,
Inc.
(132) (260) 156. Farlow Environmental Engineers, Inc.
(86) (362) 157. Fenwick Enterprises, Inc.
(253) 158. Flexible Pavements, Inc.
(114) 159. Flexible Pavements Council of W.Va.
(360) 160. Foster Grading Co.
(244) 161. Foxfire Consultants, Inc.
(28) i 162. Frank Bros., Inc.
(117) 163. Gannett Fleming, Inc.
(172) 164. Gaunt & Son Asphalt, Inc.
(320) 165. GEI Consultants (411) 166. General Engineering Company, Inc.
(366) t 167. Gennaro Pavers,.Inc.
s (74) 10 1
168. Genrg3 H rm3 Csn3truction C3., Inc.
(269) (381) 169. Ge rga & Lynch, Inc.
(264) 170. Geo-Science Engineering Co., Inc.
(125) 171. Geotechnical Group, Inc.
(66) 172. Geotecnics, Inc.
(323) 173. Geotech Inc.
(148) 174. Geo-Test, Ltd.
(178) 175._Gerken Materials, Inc.
(17) 176. Gilmore & Asso'c. Inc.
(355) 177. Glasgow, Inc.
(76) 178. G. M. T. Inc.
(408) 179. Gohmann Asphalt & Construction Co.
(37) 180. Golder Assoc., Inc.
(397) 181. Gosling Czubak Assoc.
]
(209) 182. Goyle Engineering, Inc.
(78) 183. Grannas Bros. Contracting Co., Inc.
(289) 184. Grindle & Bender (68) 185. Gust K. Newberg Construction Co.
(321) 186. Haines and Kibblehouse, Inc.
(228) 187. Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
(374) 188. Haller Testing Labs (137) 189. Hamilton & Assoc.
(396) 190. Hancock Asphalt & Paving, Inc.
(71) 191. Hanson Testing & Engineering, Inc.
(378) 192. Harms Inc.
(116) 193. Hatcher-Sayre, Inc.
(395) 194. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Nattern (304) (305) 195. Hoffner Construction Co.
(106) 196. Hampt Bros., Inc.
(280) 197. Hennessey Engineers, Inc.
(401) 198. Herbert and Assoc., Ltd.
(350) 199. Herzog contracting Corp.
(335) 200. Highway Materials, Inc.
(58) 201. Hills Materials Company (13) 202. H&D Inc.
(40) 11
..a s
203. H. J. Schneider Construction, Inc.
(339) 204. Hobet Mining Inc.
(225) 205. Hornor Brothers Engineers (18) (82) 206. HRI Inc.
(184) (346) i 207. Hunt Engineers, Inc.
(348) 208. Huntington Asphalt Corporation (352) 209. Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.
(233) 210. Indianapolis Airport Authority (406) 211. Independent Meterials Testing Labs, Inc.
(85) 212. Inspectorate (220) 213. Interstate construction Corp.
(333) 214. Isabella County Road Commission (160) 215. James D. Cummins Co., Inc.
(198) 216. Jeff Zell Consultants (163) 217. Jersey Technology Labs, Inc.
(322) 218. J. H. Rudolph & Co., Inc.
(128) (129) 219. JEL Engineering, Inc.
(27) 220. John E. Munsey (445) l 221. John T. Boyd Company (188)
{
222. Johnson Soils Engineering Co.
(122) 223. Julian & Wilmarth, Inc.
(34) 224. Kent County Michigan Bd. of Public Works (240) 225. Kent County Road Commission (224) 226. Keystone Landfill, Inc.
(420) 227. Keystone Lime Co., Inc.
(398) (399) 228. Key Tech (261) 229. KFC Airport, Inc.
(102) 230. Killam Associates (231) (410) 231. Klug Bros., Inc.
(371) 232. K & M Construction Co.
(393) 233. Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(309) 234. Koester Contracting Corp.
(96) 235. Kokosing Materials, Inc.
(230) 236. K & S Testing & Engineering, Inc.
(285) 237. Kupper & Co.
(133) 12
238. Lawhrrn3 BrothOro (32) 239. L-C Ascociotoo, Inc.
(110) 240. Lee Highway Paving Corp.
(282) 241. Lee-Simpson Assoc., Inc.
(235) 242. Limestone Products Corp.
(313) 243. Livingston County Road Comm.
(254) 244. L. Robert Kimball & Assoc., Inc.
(196) 245. MAC Construction Co.
(298) (299) 246. Macallum Testi'ng Labs, Inc.
(283) 247. Mackin Engineering Co.
(36) 248. Macomb County Road Commission (332) 249. Management Engineering Corporation (179) 250. Marvin-Moberly Construction Co.
(100) 251. Marvin V. Templeton & Sons, Inc.
(35) 252. Mashuda Corp.
(193) (276)
(277) i 253. Mason-de Verteuil Geotechncial Services (41) (252) 254. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (52) 255. Mayer Bros. Construction Co.
(415) 256. M-B Contracting Co.,
Inc.
(14) i 257. McCallum Testing Laboratories, Inc.
(45) 258. McTish, Kunkel & Assoc.
(300) 259. Mead & Hunt, Inc.
(175) 260. Mega Contractors, Inc.
(57) 261. Melick-Tully & Associates, Inc.
(153) l 262. Meshberger Brothers Stone Corp.
(194) 263. Midland County Road Commission (316) 264. Midwest Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(405) 265. Midwestern Consulting, Inc.
(387) 266. Miller Associates (403) 267. Miller Bros. Construction, Inc.
(165) 268. Miller-Mason Paving (303) 269. Moore Brothtra Company, Inc.
(77) 270. Moore & Bruggink (218) 271. Morrison-Meierle (131) 13 i
l l
43 y
J.
272. Morley and Assoc., Inc.
(428) 273. M. S. Consultants, Inc.
(310) 274. Mt. Pleasant Central Asphalt Paving Co.
(126) 275. Muskegon County-Road Comm.
(243) 276. New Prince Concrete Construction Co.
(226) (308) 277. Nordlund & Assoc., Inc.
(204) 278. Northwoods, Inc.
(286) 279. Northeastern Road Improvement Co.
(247) 280. Norwood-Asphal't Products (92) 281. NTH Consultants, Ltd.
(265) 282. Nowak & Fraus Corp.
(413) 283. Ohio Valley Electric Corp.
(356) 284. Ohio Valley Paving Corp.
(353) 285. OEM Remediation Services Corp.
(379) 286. Old Forge Testing Co.
(46) 287. Oldover Corp.
(361) 288. OMM Engineering (176) 289. Orders Construction Co.
(87) 290. Orders & Haynes Paving Co.
(197) 291. Oscoda County Road Commission (211) 292. Ottawa County Road Commission (221) 293. Pavers, Inc.
(317) 294. P.C. Goodloe & Son, Inc.
(39) (79) 295. Penn-Carrington Engineering Group (154) 396. Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Assoc.
(111) 297. Pennsylvania Testing Labs (105) 298. Phend & Brown, Inc.
(214) 299. Pike Industries, Inc.
(168) l 300. Port Engineering Assoc., Inc.
(245) 301. Potomac Construction Co.
(272) l 302. Professional Engineering Assoc., Inc.
(200)
)
303. Professional Service Industries of MA (376) 304. Professional Service Industries of PA (400) 305. PSI Energy (127) 306.
1 Quality Environmental Services, Inc.
i (229) 14
c 1., V 307. Rang r Fu31 C rp.
(294) 308.~RBS Inc.
(38) 309. REA Constructiun (107) 310. Rieih-Riley Construction Co.,
Inc.
(135) (171)
(367) 311. Rissler & McMurry, Co.
(112) 312. Robert A. Kinsley, Inc.
(266) 313. Rock Road Companies, Inc.
(259) 314. Rogers Group, Inc.
(65) 315. Regional Services Corp.
(147) 316. R. H. Armstrong, Inc.
(33) 317. Richard H. Howe (275) 318. Road Commission, Oakland County, Michigan (386) 319. Rogers Group, Inc.
(318) 320. Rencari Industries (43) 321. Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc.
(263) 322. Roy N. Ford Co., Inc.
(73) 323. R.
S. Scott Associates, Inc.
(47) 324. Rust Environmental & Infrastructure (223) 325.
S. A. Charnas, Inc.
(113) 326. Saginaw Asphalt Paving Co.
(103) 327. SAI Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(246) 328. Santest, Inc.
(326) 329. Sanilac County Road Commission (345) 330. Sarver Paving Co.
(20) 331. Schloss Paving Co.
(417) 332. Schnabel Engineering Assoc.
(119) 333. SCI consultants, Inc.
(370) 334. Scott Civil Engineering Co.
(443) 335. Scott Construction Co.
~
(189) 336. Scott Consulting Engineers (80) 337. S. E. Johnson /Stoneco, Inc.
(237) 338. Seneca Petroleum Co., Inc.
(124) 339. Shelly Company (234) 15
340. Shilts, Graves & Associates, Inc.
-(51) (70) 341. Site' Engineers, Inc.
(201) (217)
(325) 342. Slusser Bros. Trucking & Excavating Co. Inc.
(120) 343. Soil Consultants, Inc.
(281) 344. Soil Testing, Inc.
(94) 345. Soils & Engineering Services, Inc.
(136) 346. Soils & Materials Engineers, Inc.
(258) 347. Sumat Engineering (238) 348. South Atlantic Coal Co.
(241) 349. South State, Inc.
(268) 350. Southern West Virginia Paving, Inc.
(319) 351. S. R. Draper Paving Co., Inc.
(257) 352. Stack Engineering (407) 353. Stafford Consultants (10) 354. Standard Testing and Engineering Co.
(42) 355. Stavola Company (391) 356. STS Consultants Ltd.
(369) 357 Stuart M. Perry,,Inc.
(290) i 358. STV Sanders & Thomas (284) 359. Summit Testing & Inspection Co.
(343) 360. Summers Construction Co., Inc.
(327) (342) 361. Superior Asphalt Company (341) 362. S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.
(344) 363. Swecker Engineering & Surveying (12) 364. Sweetland Engineering (273) 365. T. A. Houston & Assoc.
(174) 366. Technical Testing, Inc.
(142) 367. Terry Eagle Coal Co.
(438) 368. Testing Engineers & Consultants, Inc.
(159) 369. Testwell Craig Labs of CT., Inc.
(208) (239) 370. Tibbetts Engineering Corp.
(365) 371. Tikon Maine, Inc.
(191) 372. T. J. Campbell Construction Co.
(64) 373. Trap Rock Industries, Inc.
(23) 16
-^
.,.. ( '
374. Tried Enginscring (50) (84)
(337) 375. T. R.. Valentine & Assoc., Inc.
(108) 376. Valley Asphalt Company (314) (390) 377. Valley Asphalt Corporation (55) 378. Valley Forge Laboratories, Inc.
(447) 379. Valley Sanitation Co., Inc.
(164) 380. Vanderburgh County Engineering (334) 381. Vantage Paving, Inc.
(49) (109) 382. Vermont Testing (236) 383. VMB Associates (404) 384. Viking Coal Company, Inc.
(25) 385. Watts Contractors, Inc.
(69) 386. Wehran Engineering (288) 387 Weldon Asphalt Co.
(182) 388. West Penn Asphalt Paving Co., Inc.
(292) 389. West Virginia Division of Highways (183) 390. West Virginia Testing, Inc.
(205) 391. Whitman & Howard (328) 392. Whitworth-Muench Co.
(414) 393. Widmer Engineering, Inc.
(357) 394. Wightman Environmental, Inc.
(368) 395. Wilbur Smith Associates (372) 396. William F. Loftus Assoc.
(331) 397. William Beaudoin & Sons, Inc.
(48) 398. William A. Green Assoc.
(340) (525) 399. Wine Construction Inc.
(402) 400. Whitta Construction Co.
(21) 401. Windsor Service, Inc.
(24) 402. Wolverine Engineers (431) 403. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (270) (385) 404. Wyandet Dolomite Assoc.
(89) (91) 405. Wyoming Sand & Stone Co.
(201) 406. Zannino Engineering (115) (306) 17
, * =, -
Federal Aaencias 1.
Department of Army (506) 2.
Department of Energy (498) (499) 3.
Department of Veterans Affairs (456) 4.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (432)
D 18
- a State Amancias and Their Ranrasentatives 1.
Minnesota Department of Health (440) 2.
Organization of Agreement States (468) 3.
State of Colorado (513) 4.
State of Florida (469) 5.
State of Hawaii (426) 6.
State of Illinois (462) 7.
Stnte of Washington (470) 8.
Texas Radiation Advisory Board (479) 0 19 l
l I
- ~.
I 1
'J' FY 1993 Fees Related To Fairness and Equity concerns
($ In Millions)
CtEient Allawation Total Power Reactors Other Licensees -
Activities Not Related to i
am muistine NRC Licensee International
$8.4
$8.4 Low-Level Waste 9.2 6.7 2.5 l
Agreement State Oversight 3.s 3.1 0,7 Subtotal
$21.4
$18.2
$3.2 activitia= not
- rzz-l To Direct menefioimm Due to Leaialative or 701107 Constraints Part 170 Exemption for DOE and Other Federal Agencies 5.7 5.2
.5 Non-Profit Educational t
Exemption 7.1 7.1 Small Entity 5.4 4.6
. 0. 8 Subtotal
$18.2
$16.9
$1.3 share of ERC Regulatory activitia= m t m1=o summort aareement state Li-:-
15.0F 15.0 Total
$54.6
$35.1
$19.5 F epresente 70 percent of the cost for generic regulatory activities (e.g.,
R rulemaking, research, program development, and operating experience evaluations) that support both NRC and Agreement State material licensees.
4 1
egg PHL p# "%,,
su
^
6.
n 2
7
\\...../
i, March 29, 1994 pQ{lCyl$$y{
SECY-94-088 f_03:
The Commissioners faQB:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR SEED MONEY FOR STATE SEEKING 274b AGREEMENT PURPOSE:
To provide the Commission with a proposed response to the State of Oklahoma on its request for the NRC to provide seed money to aid the State in preparing for a Section 274b agreement.
SUMMARY
The NRC has provided assistance to the States under authority given to it by Section 2741 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), for State participation in certair
-aining programs, workshops and topical seminars.
This assistance has exte aed to paying travel and per diem expenses to State personnel to attend these sessions. The Office of State Programs (OSP) has received a request from the State of Oklahoma for a grant of funds for the purpose of preparing for the assumption of Agreement State status and the initial implementation of the Agreement State program. This paper analyzes the Commission's legal authority to provide such funding, reviews past Commission and staff consideration of the seed money question and proposes a response which denies the State's request.
BACKGROUND:
The State of Oklahoma is considering entering into an agreement with the NRC for the purpose of regulating radioactive materials as provided by Section 274b of the AEA. Mark S. Coleman, Executive Director of the Oklahoma i
Department of Environmental Quality, requested in a January 3, 1994 letter (Attachment 1) to Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs, that the NRC consider the possibility of providing the State with a grant
Contact:
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Spiros Droggitis 504-2367 WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE b
1
~
The. Comissioners s of funds for the purpose of preparing for the assumption of the agreement program and the initial implementation of the program. The State believes that it does not have adequate funds from either State appropriated funds or permit fees to cover the costs of new staff members necessary to prepare for an Agreement, which entails drafting and passage of enabling legislation, promulgating regulations, developing procedures and obtaining requisite technical equipment.
Based on discussions with State of Oklahoma officials, NRC staff estimates that these additional costs could be as much as $1 million.
LEGAL AUTHORITY Section 274i of the AEA states that:
"...The Comission is also authorized to provide training, with or without charge, to employees of, and such other assistance to, any such State or political subdivision thereof or group of States as the Comission deems appropriate. Any such provision or assistance by the Comission shall take into account the additional expenses that may be incurred by a State as a consequence of the State's entering into an agreement with the Commission pursuant to subsection b."
Currently, the assistance provided to the States by NRC under this authority extends to certain training programs, workshops and topical seminars, and NRC pays travel and per diem costs of State personnel to attend. Although the Commission has the authority under Section 2741 of the AEA to provide training and assistance to States, the legislative history of Section 2741, as contained in the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy report of the bill,'
specifically states that "... it is not intended that a cash grant shall be provided to pay for the administration of-States' regulatory programs." The report also states that "[ijt is anticipated that training, consulting and i
similar arrangements may be made by the Comission to reimburse State or state employees for expenses, or pay salaries of such employees while associated with the AEC." Based on this, the Comission has interpreted its role as not extending to the provision of funds for the administration of an existing Agreement State program.
Section 2741 does not, however, prohibit the Comission from providing seed money to support a State's up-front efforts to comply with NRC criteria to qualify for Agreement State status as long as this seed money does not cover the cost of administering the program. The position of the Office of the General Counsel is that direct funding for certain development costs for a State attempting to become an Agreement State is permissible under Section 274 of AEA, if as a policy matter the Comission decides to provide such funding, and if appropriated funds are available for that purpose.
' Senate Report Number 870, Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended, With Respect to Cooperation with the States.
. ~.
s1 The Commissioners PAST CONSIDERATION OF SEED MONEY ISSUE The question of the NRC providing' seed money to States has been examined over the years by the Commission, the staff and others.
In 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) staff recommended in SECY-R-75-113 that: "The AEC should seek funds to support a pilot " seed money" program with three or four non-Agreement States in order to improve their radiological health programs and permit them to become Agreement States." The AEC staff estimated that approximately
$200,000 per year would be required over a four year period to implement the pilot program. The AEC did not take action on this recommendation because of the passage of the Energy Reorganization Act in 1974.
In 1976, the Nuclear.
Regulatory Commission requested that the NRC staff undertake a critical assessment of the State Agreement Program. A Task Force Report (NUREG-0388) recommended that "the Commission seek authority from Congress to provide limited funds to those States which are working actively toward Agreement status." The Task Force recommended seeking a sum not exceeding $5 million over a period of five years. Draft legislation seeking such authority was drafted by the staff, but it appears that it was never submitted to the Congress for its consideration.
In 1983, the National Governors' Association (NGA) published a report of its study of the NRC Agreement State program (SECY-83-46).
In calling the NRC Agreement State program an outstanding example of a successful Federal / State partnership, the NGA recommended its expansion. To this end, the NGA report recommended that NRC develop a seed money program.
In response to this recommendation, OSP conducted a study to explore the feasibility of a seed money program.
Based on the OSP study, the staff was preparing to recommend that the Commission approve staff plans to implement a seed money program for States seeking Section 274b agreements. This effort, however, was abandoned by the staff in 1984 and no recommendation was ever made to the Commission.
As a result, Commission practice has been not to provide seed money to States seeking Section 274b agreements.
DISCUSSION:
As discussed above, direct funding for certain development costs for a State seeking to become an Agreement State is permissible under Section 2741 of AEA.
However, the Commission has not provided seed money to States. The question i
then becomes whether the Commission should modify its position to provide such funding if appropriated funds are available for that purpose.
EQUITY ISSUE The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-508 (OBRA-90),
as amended, requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent (except the amount appropriated from the Department of Energy-administered Nuclear Waste Fund) of its budget authority by assessing fees to NRC applicants and licensees. A major concern identified in SECY-93-342, " IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW NRC FEE POLICY" was that not all direct beneficiaries of NRC activities pay fees because they are not NRC 1
The Commissioners t licensees. Therefore, to recover 100 percent of the budget, some NRC licensees pay for activities that do not benefit them. Examples of this were the NRC oversight of the Agreement State program and that portion of the NRC material regulatory program which supports Agreement State licensees, yet only NRC licensees pay fees to recover the costs of these activities.
The staff believes that the current unfair situation as it relates to NRC licensees paying fees for Agreement States activities would become worse if NRC were to provide non-Agreement States seed money to become Agreement States.
Under the present law (OBRA-90), providing seed money derived from license fees to States to become Agreement States would exacerbate the concerns of NRC licensees. As more States become Agreement States, there would be fewer NRC licensees who would be expected to shoulder a greater i
financial burden of funding the NRC materials program that supports both NRC and Agreement State licensees. Thus, NRC could be accused of requiring NRC licensees to provide the seed money which would cause NRC licensee future fees to increase.
Additionally, the potential exists for additional Agreement States to be I
approved by the NRC in the near future.
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, as well as Oklahoma, are considering becoming Agreement States.
Providing seed money to one State would set a precedent for providing this type of funding to all States seeking Agreement State status.
For the above reasons, the staff does not believe it would be appropriate to consider providing seed money to States as long as the funds derive from license fees.
If Congress agrees to remove funding of Agreement State activities from license fees as was recommended in the Fee Policy Review, then it may be appropriate to reconsider the seed money proposal and request specific funds in the budget.
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
RECOMMENDATIQN:
That the Commission approve the attached letter (Attachment 2) to Oklahoma which denies their request for seed money.
mes ylor xecutive Director for Operations Attachments:
As stated
4 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to'the Office of the Secretary by COB Wednesday, April 13, 1994.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, April 6, 1994, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP EDO SECY t
i i