ML20212K374
| ML20212K374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/1999 |
| From: | Dandouis D NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F537 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-64FR15876, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AG08-1-005, NUDOCS 9910060235 | |
| Download: ML20212K374 (29) | |
Text
. _. . - = - -
g fDg JF/- Jgz rg_ &
~
G:\99prule.wpd
, /r 97
/x '
0k'kh0/ Y
/ "'d /
Nhib g = aL
[7590-01-P] g @pg 6, /
g po : h, L / W. /fo, 5 % kN%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J ." d b-10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 V' Qw>A RIN: 3150-AGOB / I Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1999 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, which mandates that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, less amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) and the General Fund. The amount to be recovered for FY 1999 is approximately $449.6 million.
DATES: The comment period expires (30 days after publication). Comments received after this date wil be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure only that 9910060235 991001 6 15876 PDR Q % \ oO L, O > *>)
u... ..
._.-____-_J
.. ..o.... .. m a '
comments received on or before this date will be considered. Because OBRA-90 requires that NRC collect the FY 1999 fees by September 30,1999, requests for extensions of the comment period will not be granted.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federalworkdays. (Telephone 301-415-1678). Comments may also be submitted via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc. gov). From the NRC homepage, relect "Rulemaking" from the tool bar. The interactive rulemaking website can then be accessed by selecting "Rulemaking ForumhThis site provides the av upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, 301-415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc. gov.
Copies of comments received and the agency workpapers that support these proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments received may also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the interactive rulemaking website established by the NRC for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenda Jackson, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone 301-415-6057, 2
,. m . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . - _ .
j
/
Less NWF " 17.0 Less General Fund (Reviews for DOE - 3.2 and other Federal agencies)
Total Fee Base $449.6 Less Part 170 Fees 103.5 Less other receipts _12
- art 171 Fee Collections Required 341.9 i
Est 171 Ril%o A(inniment Unpaid FY 1999 invoices 3.4 Less Payments from prior year invoices -53
' Subtotal -2.1 Total Part 171 Billing $339.8
'These adjustments are necessary to ensure that the " billed" amount results in the required collections. ' Positive amounts indicate amounts billed that will not be collected in FY 1999.
i Because the final FY 1999 fee rule will be a " major" final action as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC's fees for FY 1999 would become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
The NRC announced in the FY 1998 proposed rule that the final rule would no longer be mailed to all licensees. However, because the NRC is soliciting public comments on two-ennevi
';; gh; potential annual fee schedules fcf FY 1999, the FY 1999 final rule will be mailed to l
r )
i a fW - M -.
. . . . ~ - - - . . . . . . .
all licensees. As a cost-saving measure, the NRC does not plan to routinely mail future final fee rules to all licensees, but will continue, as a matter of courtesy, to send the proposed fee rules to all licensees and the final rule to licensees upon request.
In addition to publication in the Federal Register, the final rule will be available on the intemet at http://ru!sforu.lini. gov /. 11 % I 5 3 t. To 5 e L W ww g ' request a copyy ntact the Licens%e Fee an > d Accounts Receivable Branch, Division of W Accounting and Finance, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, at 301-415-7554, or e-mail us at 1.
( Fees @NRC. gov.
The NRC is proposing to make changes to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 as discussed in i
Sections A. and B. below:
)
. A. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 170: Fees for Facilities. Materials. Imoort and Fvnnri Licenses.' and Other Reaulatorv Services.
l The NRC is proposing four major amendments to 10 CFR Part 170, and several i administrative amendments to update information in certain sections and to accomodate the major proposed changes. These amendments further the underlying basis for the regulation -
that fees be assessed to applicants, persons, and licensees for specific identifiable services rendered. The' amendments also comply with the guidance in the Conference Committee
' Report on OBRA-90 that fees assessed under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of c 1952 (IOAA) recover the full cost to the NRC of identifiable regulatory services that each
.m i applicant or licensee receives. .
7
i l
The major changes to 10 CFR Part 170 proposed by the NRC are:
1, EXPANDED PART 170 COST RECOVERY A
The NRC is proposing to expand the scope of Part 170 to include incident Wk.
b investigations, performance assessments and evaluations (except those for which the licensee volunteers at NRC's request and which NRC accepts), reviews of reports and other submittals, such as responses to Confirmatory Action Letters, and full cost recovery for Project Managers. l l
l Part 170 fees are based on Title V of the IOAA, interpretations of that legislation by the Federal courts, and Commission guidance. These guidelines provide that Part 170 fees may be assessed to persons who are identifiable recipients of "special benefits" conferred by specifically identified activities of the NRC. The term "special benefits" include services rendered at the request of a recipient and all services necessary to the issuance of a required permit, license, approval, or amendment, or other services necessary to assist a recipient in complying with statutory obligations under the Commission's regulations.
l
! Part 170 fees are currently assessed for: (1) the review of applications for and the l
issuance of licensing actions or other approvals; (2) review and approval of topical reports; (3) preapplication consultations; (4) inspections; and (5) the costs of maintaining resident i inspectors. The remainder of NRC's budget authority is recovered through annual fees assessed under Part 171.
In the NRC's FY 1998 fee rulemaking, some steps were taken to shift costs from Part l l 171 to Part 170. The NRC's proposals to further expand Part 170 for FY 1999 would shift l additional costs from Part 171 to Part 170.
i
- a. Inspections i
Under this proposed change, Part 170 fees would be assessed for all inspections, 8 ,
j
~-
-. _ - . . . . + . . . . . - . . - . .
l Additionally, the NRC is proposing that all project managers) time, excluding leave and time spent on generic activities, such as rulemaking, be recovered through Part 170 fees assessed to the specific applicant or licensee to which the project manager is assigned. This
. change would be' applicable to all licensees subject to full cost fees under Part 170 and to which project managers are assigned. Currently, only project manager time spent on a specific licensing action or inspection is billed under Part 170, and the costs for the remaining project manager activities are recovered in the Part 171 annual fees. However, there are other project
. manager activities that also support and provide a direct benefit to the assigned licensee / site. i Examples of project manaco t.cMvities which would be included in the Part 170 fee assessment are Examples of project manager generic activities that :
would not be subject to fee recovery under Part 170 are rulemaking and development of regulatory guides, generic licensing guides, standard review plans, and generic letters and bulletins. in those cases where a project manager is assigned to more than one license or site, costs for activities other than licensee-specific licensing or inspection activities would be prorated to each of the licenses or sites to which the project manager is assigned. The concept of full cost recovery for project managers is similar to the concept of full cost recovery for resident inspectors, which was added to Part 170 in the FY 1998 final fee rule,
- d. Other The NRC is also soliciting public comment in this proposed rule on including orders and responses thereto and escalated enforcement actions in next year's proposed fee rule. The costs of these activities are currently recovered through Part 171 annual fees.
Orders and Related Actmtes Currently, Part 170 fees are not assessed for the development of orders issued pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, or for amendments specifically resulting from such orders. The primary basis for the current policy is that such fees could be perceived as additional fines to the licensee, or in some cases, such as the case of a licensee requesting a hearing, such fees could be viewed as a penalty for the licensee exercising its rights to disagree with the NRC. In addition, depending on the licensees' responses, orders may be withdrawn or modified. In 10
- . . - ~ . ~ - . .
p !
- incorrect fee payments. In the case of underpayments, the licensee must be notified and the
- 4. license amendment held in abeyance until the correct fee is received. In the case of
.M overpayments, refunds must be authorized and processed through the Department of the M <a%JmA i
f -] Treasury. Because of various Department of the Treasury requirementsgiiserrn.Jun as- sudr. vp dt N ="d ha r-Mi.;d erd recerded ir. G W e refund d.e4 tirte k
issued These administrative burdens would be eliminated by including the amendment costs in p the Part 171 annual fee assessed to these licensees. l
@q p( In addition to streamlining the NRC process, this proposed change would eliminate the ie j P, steps licensees currently take to submit the payments for their amendment requests. It would ;
'f 7 { .1 also eliminate any delays in approving those amendments due to incorrect payments and 4+
- 47 provide an efficient means of recovering these costs. The NRC believes that the efficiencies to y [: be gained outweigh any inequities that may result because not all materials licenses are )
q l ; amended each fiscalyear.
y y 3. HOURLY RATES 9i Revise the two professional hourly rates established in $170.20. These proposed rates V
would be based on the FY 1999 direct FTE's and the FY 1999 budget, excluding direct program support costs and the appropriations from the NWF and the General Fund. These rates are used to determine the Part 170 fees. The proposed hourly rate for the reactor program is $141 per hour ($250,403 per direct FTE). This rate would be applicable to all activities for which fees are based on full cost under $170.21 of the fee regulations. The proposed hourly rate for the nuclear materials and nuclear waste program is $140 per hour ($248,728 per direct FTE). This rate would be applicable to all activities for which fees are based on full cost under $170.31 of the feo regulations. In the FY 1998 final fee rule, these rates were $124 and $121, I
respectively. The FY 1998 rates represented a decrease from FY 1997 of $7 per hour for the reactor program from FY_1997, and $4 per hour for the materials program .
In calculating the proposed FY 1999 hourly rates, the staff discovered that an error in budget coding occurred for FY 1998, contributing to the hourly rate decreases fc that year.
Although the proposed FY 1999 hourly rates reflect an increase of $17 - $10 per hour 12 l
~
' l Diane Dandois - Feerul.wpd Paga 1]
- Language for page 12 Insert after Treasury,4* line y
Because of the Department of, Treasury's requirements that all Federal payments (other than payments made under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made after January 1,1999, must be made by electronic funds transfer, information on the payee's financial institution and bank account (must be collected. These .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i-I
, J 1
i j
kQ Diane Dandois - Change to Page 12 of fee r0le Page 1l From: Leah Tremper;
!: To: . Glenda Jackson Date: Fri, Mar 19,1999 8:09 AM
Subject:
Change to Page 12 of fee rule
. See attached language o
CC: Diane Dandois !
I i
l 1
l
]
i i
i i
i e
t I
e J
l l ', b e
i i
l .. -
l compared to FY 1998, the error was in the reduced FY 1998 hourly rate, not in the increased
- j. FY 1999 hourly rate. Specifica'!y,134 FTE and approximately $10M in contract support for l
regional management and support were coded as direct resources for FY 1998 rather than as l
l overhead. The correction of that error in FY 1999 results in substantialincreases in the hourly l
rates compared to FY 1998, from $124 to $141 for the reactor program and from $121 to $140 per hour for the materials program. This is the result of the increased overhead costs to be allocated to the two programs, with fewer direct FTE to divide the costs among. In addition, the l proportion of direct resources has shifted, resulting in the materials program having a larger share and therefore absorbing more of the overhead and management and support costs.
{
Because of the error in FY 1998, the FY 1999 hourly rates are more appropriately compared to the FY 1997 hourly rates of $131 and $125 for the reactors and materials programs, respectively. Applying only the salary and benefit increases of 4.4 percent from FY l 1997 to FY 1998, and 3.68 percent from FY 1998 to FY 1999, would result in FY 1998 hourly rates of $137 for the reactor program and $131 for the materials program, and 1999 hourly i rates of $142 for the reactor program and $136 for the materials program. This does not consider the shift that has occurred in the proportion of direct resources, resulting in the materials program having a larger share and therefore absorbing more of the overhead and management and support costs.
l The method used to determine the two professional hourly rates is as follows:
i
- 1. Direct program FTE levels are identified for both the reactor program and the nucle'ar material and waste program.
l l l 2. Direct contract support, which is the use of contract or other services in support I of the line organization's direct program, is excluded from the calculation of the hourly rate l because the costs for direct contract support are charged directly through the various l categories of fees.
- 3. All etber direct program costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel) represent "in- l house" costs and are to be allocated by dividing them uniformly by the total number of direct 13 l
l
7 l
FTEs for the program. In addition, salaries and benefits plus contracts for non-program direct )
$8anagement and, Support and the inspector. General are allocated to each procram based on
- c that program's seieries end-benefite direct costs This meth'od results in the following costs which are included in the hourly rates.
Table ll FY 1999 Budget Authority to be included in Hourly Rates (Dollars in millions)
Reactor Materials Program Proaram Direct Program Salaries & Benefits $ 99.2 $26.4 Overhead Salaries & Benefits, $54.1 $15.0 Program Travel and Other Support
. Allocated Agency Management and Support $1Qdl $28.1 Subtotal $257.5 $69.5 1 Less offsetting receipts - .1 -
l Total Budget included in Hourly Rate $257.4 $69.5 Program Direct FTEs 1,028.0 279.7 Rate per Direct FTE $250,403 $248,728
. Professional Hourly Rate (Rate per direct $141 $140 FTE divided by 1,776 hours0.00898 days <br />0.216 hours <br />0.00128 weeks <br />2.95268e-4 months <br />)
As shown in Table ll above, dividing the $257.4 million (rounded) budget for the reactor
. program by the reactor program direct FTEs (1,028.0) results in a rate for the reactor program of $250,403 per FTE for FY 1999. The Direct FTE Hourly Rate for the reactor program would be $141 per hour (rounded to the nearest whole dollar). This rate is calculated by dividing the cost per direct FTE ($250,403) by the number of productive hours in one year (1,776 hours0.00898 days <br />0.216 hours <br />0.00128 weeks <br />2.95268e-4 months <br />) as )
indicated in the revised OMB Circular A-76, " Performance of Commercial Activities." Dividing 14 j
p- - - - -
i l
t in average time for 8 fee categories,-and the,same average time for the remaining 5 fee l
7
, categories. The average time for/ export / import new license applications and amendments did not change for 6 fee categories in 15 CFR 170.21 and 170.31, and decreased for 4 fee categories.
J ,
The amounts of the materid- licensing " flat" fees were rounded so that the amounts
]
would be de minimis and the resulting flat fee would be convenient to the user. Fees under
$1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10. Fees C. are greater than $1,000 but less than
$100,000 are roundGd to the nearest $100. Fees that are greater than $100,000 are rounded I to the nearest $1,000.
l The proposed licensing " flat" fees are applicable to fee categories 1.C and 1.D; 2.B and 2.C; 3.A through 3.P; 4.B through 9.D,10.B,15.A through 15.E and 16. Applications filed on or after the effective date of the final rule would be subject to the revised fees in this proposed ru e .
4
- 5. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS
- a. Revise $170.2, Scope, and $170.3, Definitions, to specifically include Certificates of Compliance (Certificates) issued pursuant to Part 76. The NRC issued two Certificates i
pursuant to Part 76 to the United States Enrichment Corporation for operation of the two gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants located at Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio.
This proposal would add Part 76 to the definition of Materials License in $170.3 (Uranium enrichment facilities are already defined in $170.3). These proposed changes are administrative changes to clarify the applicability of Part 170 fees to these Certificates.
- b. Revise the definition of"Inspectio specifically include performance assessments, evaluations, and incident investigations. This change would accomodate NRC's
. proposal to include these activities in Part 170. :
LANGUAGE ON PROJECT MANAGERS TO BE ADDED (GLENDA)
- c. Revise _ $170.5, Communications, to indicate that all communications conceming l
Part 170 should be addressed to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer rather than the t
16 i
Executive Director for Operations. Effective with the January 5,1997, NRC reorganization, the Executive Director for Operations no longer serves as the Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer has delegated authority to exercise all authority vested in the Commission under 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.
- d. Revise $170.8 to reflect revised language on the applicability of the information collection requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act to this proposed rule,
- e. Delete the current' exemption in $170.11(a)(11) for amendments to portable gauge licenses issued in accordance with NUREG-1556, Volume 1, to change the name of the Radiation Safety Officer. This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for amendment fees for these licenses and include the costs in the Part 171 annual fees. Therefore, the exemption would no longer be needed.
- f. Add 170.11(a)(12) to provide an exemption from Part 170 fees for those licensee-specific performance assessments or evaluations for which the licensee volunteers at NRC's reouest. This change would acconhate NRC's proposal to include performance assessments and evaluations in Part 170, except those for which the licensee volunteers at NRC's request and which are accepted by the NRC..
- g. Revise $170.12, Payment of Fees, to reflect the NRC's proposals to expand Part 170 to include performance assessments, evaluations, and incident investigations, and full cost recovery for project managers. This Section would also be revised to delete references to amendment fees that are not based on full cost to reflect the NRC's proposal to eliminate these fees frorn Part 170 and include the costs in the Part 171 annual fee for these materials licensees. Section 170.12(h), Method of Payment, would also be revised to specify the information the NRC needs in order to issue refunds. This change is necessitated by new requirements of the Department of the Treasury, which are effective April 1,199g. 1
/- .
In summary, the NRC is proposing to:
(1) - Assess Part 170 fees, for licenses subject to Part 170 full cost fees, to recover costs for 17 I
l
all plant or licensee-specific inspections, including performance reviews, assessments, evaluations, and incident investigations, and all of the project managers time excluding time spent on generic activities and leave time; (2) Eliminate " flat" amendment fees for materials licenses and recover the amendment costs through Part 171 annual fees assessed to materials licensees; (3) Revise the two 10 CFR Part 170 hourly rates.
(4) Revise the licensing fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 170 in order to comply with the CFO Act's requirement that fees be revised to reflect the cost to the agency, and to reflect the revised hourly rates.
B. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 171: Annual Fees for Reador O00T060 Licenses.
and Fuel Cvele Licenses and Materials Licenses. Includina Holders of Certific.atas of Comoliance. Reaistrations. and Quality Assurance Proaram Anorovals and Government Aaencies Licensed b'v NRC.
The NRC proposes major amendments to 10 CFR Part 171, and several '
administrative amendments to update information in certain sections and to accom*odate the t
major proposed changes. These major changes would result in annual fees being assessed to licensees previously exempted from annual fees, increased annual fees for some licensees, and decreased annual fees for other licensees. To address concems about potential significant fee increases for certain licensees, the NRC is presenting two annual fee options for public comment, as described in 2 below. The Commission will determine which option to incorporate in its final rule after evaluating public comments.
The proposed changes are consistent with our statutory mandate; that is, charging a class of licensees for NRC costs attributable to that class of licensees. The changes are consistent with the Congressional guidance in the Conference Committee Report on OBRA-90, which states that the " conferees contemplate that the NRC will continue to allocate generic 18 l . .
costs that are attributable to a given class of licensees to such class" and the " conferees intend that the NRC assess the annual charge under the principle that licensees who require the l greatest expenditures of the agency's resources should pay the greatest annual fee" (136 Cong. Rec. at H12692-93). Costs not attributable to to a class of licensees would be allocated following the conferees' guidance wtweintetes that "the Commission should assess the charges for these costs as broadly as practicable in order to minimize the burden for these costs on any licensee or class of licensees so as to establish as fair and equitable s system as is feasible." (136 Cong. Rec. at H12692-3). The Conference Report guidance also provides that: "These expenses may be recovered from such licensees as the Commission, in its
' discretion, determines can fairly, equitably and practicably contribute to their payment." As in the past, these costs would be allocated to the entire population of NRC licensees that pay annual fees, based on the amount of the budget directly attributable to a class of licensees.
This results in, for instance, a higher percentage of these costs being allocated to operating
- power reactor licensees as opposed to other classes of licensees.
l The major changes to Part 171 proposed by the NRC are:
- 1. REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING / SPENT FUEL STORAGE
~
Revise 10 CFR Part 171.15 to htablish a spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning annual fee to be assessed to all Part 50 power 7%ctor licensees, regardless of their operating status, ar d tc those Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license. The full amount of the FY 1999 aanual fee would be billed to those Part 50 licensees who are in a decommissioning or possession 6nly status upon publication of the FY 1999 final rule, and payment would be due on the effective date of the FY 1999 rule. For operating power reactors i and those Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license, the new fee would be added to the fourth quarter FY 1999 annual fee bill, and any adjustments for prior payments during FY 1999 would be made in accordance with Section 171.19(b). The current annual fees in 10 CFR 171.16 for Part 72 licenses for independent spent fuel storage would be eliminated.
This proposed change would affect two existing NRC annual fee policies: 1) currently, 19 l
l l
c -
- o. - .. - e - - . . . . . .
I
! options for representative categories of licensees.
l' i
TABLE Ill l.
Class of Licensees Prooosed FY 1999 Annual Fee Option A Option B (without a cao) (with a cao)
Power Reactors Spent Fuel storage / reactor decommissioning Nonpower Reactors i
High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility UF Conversion Facility Uranium Mills Tvoical Materials Licenses Radiographers Well Loggers Gauge Users Broad Scope Medical The budgeted costs allocated to each class of licensees and the calculation of the rebaselined fees are described in below. The workpapers which support this proposed rule provide detailed information on the FY 1999 budgeted costs allocated to each ,
class oflicensees. The workpapershmay be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, l 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001. #
in addition to comments on the rebaselining method for determining FY 1999 annual 25 I
- y. .
- - - - - ?
i i )
fees, public comments are also being sought on whether the NRC should, M future yearc, continue to use the percent change method and rebaseline fees every several years as established in the FY 1995 fee rule, or retum to a policy of rebaselining annual fees every year, or every few years as circumstances require.
- 3. REVISED FUEL CYCLE AND URANIUM RECOVERY MATRIXES l I
i Use revised matrixes in the determination of annual fees for fuel facility and uranium recovery licensees. As part of the rebaselining efforts, the NRC is proposing to use a revised !
matrix depicting _ the categorization of fuel facility and uranium recovery licenses by authorized j material and use/ activity and the relative programmatic effort associated with each category.
l ]
l
- s. Fuel Facility Matrix l
l The ;lbutbn eef.171 f;;; h;; not t::n ret::: bed ;b;; tre "Y 05 in Ruk. Ter '
1 l the FY i^^^ in R;b, th; Nuc':- "';;d;;;,rj 0;mm:::::-n sect.ed ; ret:::'bb; b:bt.v; .
l
.4th ; f::!;r. Obj;dl= ef ;lb-:;;;..; f;n t:::d en ; dek t:::d ef+ rad. ;nd The NRC is proposNto use a revised fuel facility matrix based on the commensurate level of regulatory l effort te4 teens; er af.;f itre related to the various fuel facility categories from both safety and i f safeguards perspectives. Th; b btlv; cr.t:bd ;;;lbbs th; m;thedebgy denbied for th; FY
! J 05 i;; Rub ;dh ; revised matrix wheeh results in the annual fees more accurately reflecting '
( the cost of providing generic and other regulatory services to each fuel facility type.
l i The allocation of the NRC's $ million in budgeted costs to the individual fuel facilities is based on the revised matrix. r;';;; reed ;;dbr R.; ebjedl= cf r;vib; the mr.r:, b t; rrer; ac-:u ;;f ir;".;;t ?gency gererb c-:-;t ;;;.;L.debb ; fu;';yet %e. .ti lber.nn. The revisions to the matrix were necessitated by the addition of the enrichment plants to the fee 1
26
f i
\
Uranium Recovery Matrix Of the ($ million in base budget plus million in surcharge )
antibutable to the uranium recovery class of licensees, approximately million will be assessed to the Department of Energy (DOE) to recover the costs associated with DOE facilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Rag Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). The s remaining will be recovered through annual fees assessed to conventional mills, I
l solution mining uranium mills, and mill tailings disposal facilities. Because the proposed FY 1999 annual fees would result in certain uranium recovery licensees going from an annual i l billing process based on the anniversary date of their license to quarterly billing, those licensees l would be billed upon publication of the final FY 1999 rule for the balance of the full FY 1999 annual fee. Payment of the balance of the FY 1999 annual fee would be due on the effective date of the FY 1999 rule.
The NRC is proposing to revise the matrix established in FY 1995 for establishing the annual fees for the conventional mills, solution mining uranium mills, and mill tailings disposal l
l facilities. The revised matrix reflects NRC's significantly increased efforts related to groundwater concerns for in-situ licenses, and somewhat increased efforts related to groundwater concems for conventional mills. The revised matrix also reflects an increase in regulatory efforts related to waste operations for in-situ licenses. The matrix %
also'been updated to reflect the changes in the number of licensees within each fee cal; :y.
l The number of conventional mills has decreased from 4 in FY 1995 to 3 in FY 1999 and the number of licensees in the solution mining fee categn has increased by 1.
29 1
- The methodology for establishing Part 171 annual fees for uranium recovery licensees has not changed: (1) the methodology identifies three categories of licenses: conventional uranium mills, solution mining uranium mills, and mill tailings disposal facilities, each of which benefits from the generic uranium recovery program; (2) the matrix relates the category and the level of benefit, by program element and subelement; (3) the two major program elements of the' generic uranium recovery program are activities related to facility operations and those related to facility closure; (4) each of the major program elements was further divided into three '
subelements; (5) the three major subelements of generic activities related to uranium facility
- operations are activities rea to the operation of the mill, activities related to the handling and disposal of waste, and activities related t re ntion of groundwater contamination. The three major subelements of generic activitis related to uranium facility closure are activities related to decommission of facilities and cleanup of land; reclamation and closure of the tailings impoundment, and cleanup of contamined groundwater. Weighted factors were assigned to each program element and subelement.
The applicability of the generic program in each subelement to each uranium recovery i
category was qualitatively estimated as either signifcant, some, minor, or none. l l The resulting relative weighted factor per facility for the various subclasses and the proposed FY 1999 annual fee for each are as follows:
l l
l I
i Number of Relative Weight Facilities Per Facility 30 i
. nahnmu ndui. ia mm.m
.m.... .--._maA. .
m _____ _ _ - . _ . _ - . . _ .
Annual fee = (Application Fee + Average inspection Cost / Inspection Priority _ x constant
+ ((Unique Category Costs).
The constant is the multiple necessary to recovery million in FY 1999 is
!h unique costs are any special costs that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category .
' of licensees. For FY 1999, unique cost of approximately were identified for the medical development program which is attributable to medical licensees.
Because the final FY 1999 fee rule will be a " major" final action as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC's fees for FY 1999 would f become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The NRC E
}
will send an invoice for the amount of the annual fee upon publication of the FY 1999 final rule to reactors and major fuel cycle facilities. For these licensees, payment would be due on the effective date of the FY 1999 rule. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date during FY 1999 falls before the effective date of the final FY 1999 final rule would be billed during the anniversary month of the license and continue to pay annual fees at the FY 1998 I i'
rate in FY 1999. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date falls on or after the effective date of the final FY 1999 final rule would be billed at the FY 1999 revised rates during the anniversary month of the license and payment would be due on the date of the invoice.
_ ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS
- s. Section 171.13 would be amended to accomodate the proposal to establish l an annual fee for power reactors in a decommissioning or possession only status, i 32 l
p _ _ . _ __
! 1 I
I i b. Section 171.15 would be revised to as follows:
(1) The heading for Section 171.15 would be revised to read:
Section 171.15 Annual Fee: Reactor Licenses and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Licenses (2) Paragraph (b) of Section 171.15 would be revised in its entirety to establish the FY 1999 annual fees for operating power reactors, power reactors in 1
decommissioning or possession only status, and Part 72 licensees who do not hold Part 50 licenses. Fiscal year references would be changed from FY 1998 to FY 1999. The activities comprising the base FY 1999 annual fees and the FY 1999 additional charge (surcharge) are listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) for convenience purposes.
Each operating power reactor would pay an annual fee of $ in FY 1999, l
~
which includes an annual fee of for spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioningc < )
Each power reactor in decommissioning or possession only status and each Part 72 licensee }
who does not hold a Part 50 license would pay the spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning annual fee of $ in FY 1999.
(3) Paragraph (e) of Section 171.15 would be revised to show the amount of the l
f 1
t FY 1999 annual fee for nonpower (test and research) reactors. The NRC will continue to grant l {
exemptions from the annual fee to Federally-owned and State-owned research and test 33 I
l.
l:
p
- 205, Pub. L.101-576,104 Stat. 2842, (31 U.S.C. 901).
2.' Section 170.2, Scope, paragraph (r) is added to read:
l
~ (r) An applicant for or a holder of a certificate of compliance issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 76.
I f
- 3. In Section 170.3, the definitions " Inspections" is revised to read as follows::
" Inspection" m6ans:
(1) Routine inspections designed to evaluate the licensee's activities within the context of the licensee having primary responsibility for protection of the public and environment.
(2) Non-routine inspections in response or reaction to an incident, allegation, followup to inspection deficiencies or inspections to determine implementtion of safety issues.
' A non-routine or reactive inspection has the same purpose as the routine inspection .
. (3) . Reviews and assessments of licensee performance.
(4) Evaluations,'such as those performed _ by Diagnostic Evaluation TM (5) Incident investigations.'
[
~ " Materials License" means a license, certificate, approval, registration, or other form of permission issued by the NRC pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 32 through 36,
. 39,40,61,70,71,72 and 76.
l L 45 1
1 for Category 1A
- Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1300 E Licenses or certificates for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility.
1 Licensing and inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost
- 2. Source material:
i A.(1) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, I heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, ore buying stations, ion exchange facilities and i n ,
ssing of ores containing source material for extraction
@ of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses 1
authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility i I
'in a standby mode:
Licensing and inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . Full Cost l
l l
56 e
L and calculated in accordance with $$171.15 and 171.16, will be published as a l l
notice in the Federal Register as soon as is practicable but no later than the third i
quarter of the fiscal year. The annual fees will become due and payable to the NRC in accordance with $171.1g, except as provided in $$171.17. Quarterly 1
j payments of the annual fee of $100,000 or more will continue during the fiscal 3
l- year and be based on the applicable annual fees as shown in $$171.15 and i
171.16 until a notice n ming the revised amount of the fees for the fiscal year -
1 is published by f the NRC is unable to publish a final fee rule that
$. I becomes effective nng the current fiscal year, then fees would be assessed i
based on the rates in effect for the previous fiscal year. {
I
- 14. In $171.15, paragraphs (a), (b), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2),
(e), and (f) are revised to read as follows:
6171.15 Annual Fees: Reactor ; .;; :.c.; licenses and *nant fuel storage / reactor decommissioning (a); Each person licensed _ to operate a power, test, or research reactor, each person. holding a Part 50 power reactor license that is in decommissioning pr possession;only_ status,1and ;each person holding a Part 72 license .who does i
pot hold a Part 50 license shall pay the annual fee for each unit for each license held at any time during the Federel FY in which the fee is due, except for those l test and research reactors exempted in $171.11(a)(1) and (a)(2).
78 1
I' s
e ~~ _._ _ ._
i :
l i
reactors, e.g., updating part 50 of this chapter, or operating the incident Response Center, except those specifically related to reactor decommissionin g l
l l
(c) The FY 1999 annual fee for each power reactor holding a Part 50 i
license that is in a decommissioning or possession only status and each I independent spent fuel storage Part 72 licensee who does not hold a Part 50 license would be the amount shown in Option A or Option B below:
1 Option A (Rebaselining without a cap): $199,000 i
Option B (Rebaselining with a 50 percent cap): $199,000 j
l This fee is comprised of a base spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning annual fee (this fee is also included in the operating power reactor annual fee show in paragraph (b) of this section), and an additional charge (surcharge). The activities comprising the surcharge are shown in paragraph (d) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 1999 spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning base annual fee are:
(1) Generic and other research activities directly related to reactor
- decommissioning and spent fuel storage; and (2) Other safety, environmental, and safeguards activities related to reactor decommissioning and spent fuel storage, except costs for licensing and 80 1
i l
I l
f permanently ceased darin0 the period._ October 1 through March:3.1 of the fiscal
- year as_ provided_in $171.17 of this section. For those licenses that authorize more than one activity on a single license (e.g , human use and irradiator activities), annual fees will be assessed for each fee category applicable to the license, if ; paen h;ldeyoupold more than one license, ;;d";ste, regi
- .;;ba er ;ppre=l, the total annual fee you will be assessed __will be the cumulative total of the annual fees applicable to the licenses, sedFle;;;,
- gle;,;;lene or ;pprenb h;ld by th;; pr;;n you hold.
I l
(b) The annual fee is comprised of a base annual fee and an additional charge (surchrage). The activities comprising the FY 1999 surcharge are shown in paragraph (e) of this section. The activities comprising the base annual fee is the sum of the NRC budgeted costs for: ..
(1) Generic and other research activities directly related to p of materials licenses as defined in this part, and (2) Other safety, environmental, and safeguards activities for materials licenses, except costs for licensing and inspections activities dlr;;tly n;;;bted
- F.h pbat-;p;;f.; llcen; ng ;nd in;p;;ba;; that are recovered under part 170 of this chapter.
(c) ~ A licensee who is required to pay an annual fee under this section may qualify as a small entity. If a licensee qualifies as a small entity and provides the Commission with the proper certification,with the annual fee paymentithe licensee may pay reduced annual fees for FY 1999 as shown 84 i
p ]
!c b NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees,; OBRA-90 requires that the schedule of charges established by rule should fairly and equitably allocate the total amount to c recovered from NRC's licensees and be assessed under the principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditure of agency resources pay the greatest annual charges. The amount to be collected for FY 1999 is approximately $
million.
~ Since 1991, the NRC has complied with OBRA-90 by issuing a final rule that amends its fee regulations. These final rules have established the methodology used by NRC in identifying .
and determining the fees to be assessed and collected in any given fiscal year.
Since FY 1996, the NRC stabilized annual fees by adjusting the annual fees only by the percentage change (plus or minus) in NRC's total budget authority. The percentage change 1
- would be adjusted based on changes in the 10 CFR Part 170 fees and other adjustments as ,
well as an adjustment for the number of licensees paying the fees. The NRC indicated that if -
there was a substantial change in the total NRC budget authority or the magnitude of the budget allocated to a specific class of licensees, the annual fee base would be recalculated.
'Because the NRC is proposing to establish a new annual fee class for FY 1999 an4besed on program changes that have occurred, the NRC is proposing to establish
\
as annu fees this fiscil year.
l
..The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) is intended to' reduce regulatory burdens imposed by Federal agencies on small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and govemmental jurisdictions. SBREFA also provides Congress with r
113 H
i j
y
~ the opportunity' to review agency rules before th'ey go into effect. Under this legislation, the
, NRC annual fee rule is considered a " major" rule and must be reviewed by Congress and the Comptroller General before the rule becomes effective. SBREFA also requires that an agency
. prepare a guide to assist small entities in complying with each rule for which final regulatory
. flexibility analysis is prepared. This Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the small entit compliance guide'(Attachment 1) have been prepared for the FY 1999 fee rule s l1.1 . Imoact on small entities.
The fee rule results in substantial fees being charged to those individuals, organizations, and companies that are licensed by the NRC, including those licensed under the NRC materials program.' The comments received on previous proposed fee rules and the small entity certifications received in response to previous final fee rules indicate that NRC licensees '
qualifying as small entities under the NRC's size standards are primarily materials licens 4*
Therefore, this analysis will focus on the economic impact of the annual fees on materials licensees. 'About 20 percent of these licensees (approximately 1,400 licensees) have requested small entity certification in the past. A 1993 NRC survey of its materials licensees 1- ' indicated that about 25 percent of these licensees could_ qualify as small entities under the L
l NRC's size standards.-
l
$The commenters on previous fee rulemakings consistently indicated that the following l.
l' . results would occur if the proposed annual fees were not modified.
L1[ Large firms would gain an unfair competitive advantage over small entities.
? Commenters noted that small and very small companies (" Mom and Pop" operations) would 114 1
..7
F Introduction The Small Business Reguletory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written guide for each " major" final rule as defined by the Act.
The NRC's fee rule, published annually to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) requires the NRC to collect approximately 100 percent of its budget authority each year through fees. This rule is considered a " major" rule under this law. This compliance guide has been prepared to assist NRC material licensees comply with the FY 1999 fee rule.
Licensees may use this guide to determine whether they qualify as a small entity under NRC regulations and are eligible.to pay reduced FY 1999 annual fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 171. The NRC has established two tiers of separate annual fees for those materials licensees who qualify as small entities under NRC's size standards.
Licensees who meet NRC's size standards for a small entity must complete NRC Form 526 to qualify for the reduced annual fee. This form accompanies each annual fee invoice mailed to materials licensees. The completed form, the appropriate small entity fee, and the payment copy of the invoice, should be mailed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch, to the address indicat voice. Failure to file a small entity certification in a timely manner ma" result in the denial of any refund that might otherwise L: ude.
NRC Definition of Small Entity 2
< .