ML20212K394
| ML20212K394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/1999 |
| From: | Turdici J NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F537 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-64FR15876, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AG08-1-006, NUDOCS 9910060244 | |
| Download: ML20212K394 (22) | |
Text
l ffh 0c?-/
G:\99prule.wpd jlf T
/[ G t* W
&/g . - 3// 7 7' e
f ,
- s. n. .g 0E* /9D b 7 .
p., b I 2. 1
[7590-01 P] ggg ,'f Q p o : n , L i 7 f. 4 , a % k W r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
/
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 [w[4 rdic <
(f>p.x&b RIN: 3150-AG08 2 9 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 4;. proximately 100 percent of its budget authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, less amounts appropeated 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 will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure only that t
9910060244 991001 PDR PR 170 64FR15876 PDR k \Ddbb?;)L/ lj s
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: 1 I
- 1. Background.
- 11. Proposed Action.
lil EnvironmentalImpact: Categorical Exclusion.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
V. Regulatory Analysis.
VI. Regulatory Flex 6ility Analysis.
Vll. Backfit Analysis.
1. Background
Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90),
enacted November 5,1990, requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent ofits budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Department of Energy (DOE) 4)n w de ~4aM administered Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), for F
~
~~
OBRA-90 was amendedin 199No e% h% t O xtend the NRC's 100 percent fee recovery requirement m
through FY 1999.
The NRC assesses two types of fees to recover its budget authority. First, license and inspection fees, established at 10 CFR Part 170 under the authority of the Independent O Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, recover the NRC's costs of providin individually identifiable services to specific applicants and licensees. Examples of the serv provided by the NRC for which these fees are assessed are the review of applications for the issuance of new licenses, approvals or renewals, and amendments to licenses or approv 3
Second, annual fees, established in 10 CFR Part 171 under the authority of OBRA-90, recover generic and other regulatory costs not recovered through 10 CFR Part 170 fees.
II. Proposed Action The NRC is proposing to amend its licensing, inspection, and annual fees to recover approximately 100 percent of its FY 1999 budget authority, including the budget authority for its Office of the inspector General, less the appropriations received from the NWF and the General Fund. For FY 1999, the NRC's budget authority is $469.8 million, of which $17.0 million has been appropriated from the NWF. In addition, $3.2 million has been appropriated from the General Fund for activities related to regulatory reviews and other assistance provided to the Department of Energy and other Federal agencies. The NRC's FY 1999 Appropriations Act states that this $3.2 appropriation shall be excluded from license fee revenues, nothwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 2214. Therefore, NRC is required to collect approximately $449.6 million in FY 1999 through 10 CFR Part 170 licensing and inspection fees and 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees. The total amount to be recovered in fees for FY 1999 is $5.2 million less than the amount estimated for recovery for FY 1998.
The reduced budgeted costs to be recovered through fees for FY 1999 reflects several actions taken by the NRC, such as strategic planning, downsizing,et te $* c05tificm- /
V P=.1171 =nsal fee. iv F id70feesfor4emicos, and a more aggresive policy on seeking reimbursement for performing services that are not a required part of the agency's statutory mission. For example, for FY 1999, the NRC entered into an agreement with the U. S. Agency for international Development to fund through a reimburseable agreement NRC's costs associated with providing nuclear safety assistance to the countries of the former Soviet Union.
4 1 J
As a result, NRC licensees are not required to pay for the costs of this activity in FY 1999.
These costs were previously included in NRC's budget authority and the costs were recovered through annual fees assessed to NRC licensens.
The NRC estima*es that approximately $107.7 million will be recovered in FY 1999 from fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 170 and other receipts, compared to $94.6 million in FY 1998. The increase in Part 170 estimated collections is largely attributable to changes in Commission policy included in the FY 1998 final rule, such as billing full cost under Part 170 for j
& g.tJ.) L % FM4, 2 nd{s w -"
/
, resident inspectors. The increase in other receipts for FY 1999 includes a $4.1 million /
Y f
_ (,# h carryover from addition I rt 0 liections in FY 1998 that were unanticipated at the time the final FY 1998 fee rule was published. In addition, the NRC' estimates a not adjustment of gL
' approximately $2.1 million for payments received in FY 1999 for FY 1998 invoice _s less - d' I estimated FY 1999 invoices that will not be paid in FY 1999. The remaini '
- illio would be recovered in FY 1999 through the 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees, which\s approximately $20.4 million less than in FY 1998.
qq 1,L4
~7 - ) l 3' Table I below summarizes the budget and fee recovery amounts for FY 1999: 3,3 It TABLEI Budget and Fee Recovery Amounts for FY 1999 (Dollars in Millions)
Total Budget $469.8 0
l 1
c .
, Less NWF 17.0 l Less General Fund (Reviews for DOE 3.2 and other Federal agencies) l L
Total Fee Base - $449.6 Less Part 170 Fees 103.5 90 jo4,1 f & {1 'g /c 6
Less other receipts '
12 [
Part 171 Fee Collections Required 341.9 Part 171 milling Adiantment' Unpaid FY 1999 invoices 3.4 l Less Payments from prior year invoices 15 Subtotal -2.1 Total Part 171 Billing $339.8 i
'These adjustments are necessary to ensure that the " billed" amount results in the required l collections. Positive amounts indicate amounts billed that will not be ccllected in FY 1999. j l Because the final FY 1999 fee rule will be a " major" final action as defined by the Small l l Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996, the NRC's fees for FY 1999 would i become effective 60 days after put;lication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
l The NRC announced in the FY 1998 proposed rule that the final rule would no longer be i
mailed to all licensees. However, because the NRC is soliciting public comments on twc ;r,r,;ul ;
';; epOr,; potential annual fee schedules for FY 1999, the FY 1999 final rule will be mailed to 6
L- _
/
The major changes to 10 CFR Part 170 proposed by the NRC are:
1, XPANDED PART 170 COST RECOVERY The NRC is proposing to expand the scope of Part 170 to include incident 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 ful cost recovery for Project Managers.
Part 170 fees are based on Title V of the IOAA, interpretations of that legislation by the l 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 j 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.
Part 170 fees are currently assessed for: (1) the review of tpplications for and the 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 inspectors. The remainder of NRC's budget authority is recovered through annual fees assessed under Part 171.
W .hter &
- In the NRC's FY 1998 fee rulemaking, some steps were taken hets frem Part M$ ,
1715 Fr'.1'O. The NRC's proposals to further expand Part 170 for FY 1999 would shift ,
ad stional costs from Part 171 to Part 170. - @ <c"re ch 3
% % a.wInspechons f wh k 6Kh. .
Under this proposed change, Part 170 fees would be assessed for all inspections, 8
t- ,
l-l l
Additionally, the NRC is proposing that all project managers time, excluding leave and time spent on gsneric 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 l' - 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.
Examples of project manager activities 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, l
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. Qtbr .
j;wbkW The NRC is also soliciting public comment in this proposed rule ongd L 9;; 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 Activities l Currently, Part 170 fees are not assessed for the development of orders issued l 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 l
10
cases of misconduct, an order may be issued to the individual rather than the licensee. On the other hand, the development of orders and the review of responses to orders are activities performed for specifically identifiable recipients.
Escalated Enforcement Ardians Although the costs for enforcement actions are currently recovered through Part 170 fees assessed to the affected licensee, the costs for escalated enforcement actions (i.e., the processing and issuance of civil penalties) are not. Part 170 fees are not currently assessed for the escalated enforcement actions because in . some
_._ _cases the fee _could be much greater. . - -
< g s[ .
than the civil penalty,.which is intended to encourage or force a licensee to comply with the
~ ~
NRC requifrements$ In addition, some escalated enforcement actions are withdrawn. However, dd*
/
escalated enforcement actions are activities performed by the NRC for specific licensees.
2.AMENDMENT W E*
c ,
f#
REVIEWm LAT TCES A 5 fw DP' AAAl/* M / o %
. Revise 10 CFR 170.31 to eliminate the amendment fees for small materials licensees that are based on the average time to complete the reviews (* flat" fees) and include the costs in the Part 171 annual fees assessed to the small materials licensees. This proposal would continue the NRC's initiatives to streamline its fee program. In a similar action, the inspection and renewal fees for these licensees were eliminated in the FY 1995 and FY 1996 fee rulemakings, respectively, and the costs included in the annual fees for these categories of licensees.
Although approximately 2500 requests for amendments to small materials licenses are received and processed each year for fee recovery purposes, less than $900,000 in Part 170 fees is collected annually for these amendments. The number of amendments as well as the Part 170 fee collections will decrease as more states become Agreement States.
The current approach for assessing materials license amendment fees is complex and labor intensive. Approximately 25 percent of the amendment requests are submitted with 11 4
incorrect fee payments. In the case of underpayments, the licensee must be notified and the license amendment held in abeyance until the correct fee is received. In the case of overpsyments, refunds must be authorized and processed through the Department of the l Treasury. Because of various Department of the Treasury requirements, information such as tax identification numbers must be obtained and recorded in order for a refund check to be issued. These administrative burdens would be eliminated by including the amendment costs in the Part 171 annual fee assessed to these licensees.
In addition to streamlining the NRC process, this proposed change would eliminate the steps licensees currently take to submit the payments for their amendment requests. It would also eliminate any delays in approving those amendments due to incorrect payments and would provide an efficient means of recovering these costs. The NRC believes that the efficiencies to . -r) be gained outweigh any inequities that may result because not all materials licenses are /a /')r amended each fiscal year. L h Jr, O d c b c q f w .4 L [ g . y OLw Y. % t/'
- 3. HOURLY RATES l
Revise the two professional hourly tes established in $170.20. These proposed rates would be based on the FY 1999 direct F 9 nd the FY 1999 budget, excluding direct program l
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 weste 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 I the fee regulations. JW FV 1^^* 'lrel ,"- ruie, tKE'rstet24 a6W r;;p;bl,. % FY 1^^* r-'"* ImpItsented an decrease from FY 1997 of $7 per houtfor_thq_ !
reactorprogram from FY 1997 and14 gi hour for1he7naterlats 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 for that year, i Although the proposed FY 1999 hourly rates reflect an increase of $17 - $19 per hour 12 i
I
i
/
compared to FY 1998, the error was in the reduced FY 1998 hourly rate, not in the increased FY 1999 hourly rate. Specifically,134 FTE and approximately $10M in contract support for i
regional management and support were coded as direct resources for FY 1998 rather than as
{
overhead. The correction of that error in FY 1999 results in substantialincreases in the hourly
{
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 l
allocated to the two programs, with fewer direct FTE to divide the costs among. In addition, the 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 copts. ,
'.-- t
- c. _ , W.
Because of the error in FY 1998,appropriately the FYp 1999 f ho l
compared to the FY 1997 hourly rates of $131 and $125 for the reactorsinnd materials programs, respectively. Applying only the_ salary and benefit increases of 4.4 percent from FY
_ j 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 ;
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 resource , resulting in the materials program having a larger share and therefore absorbing mor of the overhead and '
management and support costs. i
& whr b VaEd' fMy*
The method used to determine the two professional hourly rates is as follows:
- 1. Direct program FTE levels are identified for both the reactor program and the nuclear material and waste program.
~ 2. Direct contract support, which is the use of contract or other services in support of the line organization's direct program, is excluded from the calculation of the hourly rate because the costs for direct contract support are charged directly through the various categories of fees.
3,- : All other direct program costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel) represent "in-house" costs and are to be allocated by dividing them uniformly by the total number of direct 13
include the costs for generic decommissioning / reclamation costs for nonpower reactors, fuel facilities, materials, and uranium recovery licensees in the surcharge assessed to operating licensees, including operating power reactors.
- 2. ANNUAL FEES I
Establish new baseline annual fees for FY 1999. The annual fees in $$171.15 and 171.16 would be revised for FY 1999 to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1999
' budget authority, less fees collected under 10 CFR Part 170 and funds appropriated from the i
Nuclear Waste Fund and the General Fund. The total amount to be recovered through fees for FY 1999 is approximately $449.6 million, which is $5.2 million less than in FY 1998. The estimated amount to be recovered through Part 170 fees and other receipts for FY 1999 is t
$107.3 million, compared to $94.6 million for FY 1998. The remaining $342.3 million would be recovered in FY 1999 through Part 171 annual fees, compared to $360.2 for FY 1998, In the FY 1995 final fee rule, the NRC stated that it would stabilize annual fees as follows. For FY 1996 through FY 1999, the NRC would adjust the annual fees only by the percentage change (plus or minus) in NRC's total budget authority unless there was a substantial change in the total NRC budget a athority or the magnitude of the budget allocated to a specific class of licensees. If either Noccurred, the annual fee base would be
/_ l recalculated (60 FR 32225; June 20,1995). The NRC also indicated that the percentage change would be adjusted based on changes in 10 CFR Part 170 fees and other adjustments as well as on the number of licensees paying the fees. This method of determining annual fees ,
is wt ' percent change" method. The FY 1996, FY 1997 and FY 1998 annual fees were based on the percent change method. l l
In the FY 1996 final rule, the NRC stabilized the annual fees by establishing the annual ,. l v r / !
fees for all licensees at a level of 6.5 percent below the FY 1995 annual fees. For FY 1997, the . / i NRC followed the same method as used in FY 1996.- Because the amount to be recovered through fees for FY 1997 was identical to the amount to be recovered in FY 1996, establishing new baseline fees was not warranted for FY 1997. Based on a change in the distribution 22 j l
E____
g i
costs that are attributable to a given class of licensees to such class" and the " confesses intend
. that the NRC assess the annual charge under the principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditures of the agency's resources should pay the greatest annual fee" (136 l .Cong. Rec. at H12692-93), Costs not attributable to to a class of licensees would be allocated following the conferees' guidance wiveh-states that "the Commission should assess the i charges for these costs as broadly as practicable in order to minimize the burden for these ,
l costs on any licensee or class of licensees so as to establish as fair and equitable a 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 popu!ation of NRC licensees that pay annual fees, based on the amount of the budget directly attributable to a class of licensees.
ThisMfor_insten_cens_tiigherpercenteDb oflhese~ costs being~illocated te operating
' powersEtei liw ..ees as opposed 10~6ther c14ssetW1teensees.
The major changes to Part 171 proposed by the NRC are:
- 1. REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING / SPENT FUEL STORACtE !
l Revise 10 CFR Part 171.15 eastablishent&sp/ fue! storage /reactc-
~)
decommissioriing annual fee to be asses 0 power reactor licentaes, iegardess j of their operating status, and to those Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license. The l 1
full amount of the FY 1999 annual fee would be billed to those Part 50 licensees who are in a decommissioning or possession only 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 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 l 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 i
l i
-.~.-w<- - - . . . - . , .
l I'
g y ,-- a x nz Q costs for generic and other activities related to dry storage of spent fuel that are not recovered !
l
' through Part 170 licensing and inspection fees are recovered through Part 171 annual fees assessed to all Part 72 licensees; and _- 2) xt ~6 WF :y, Part 171 annual fees are not assessed u to
. reactor licensees in decommissioning or possession-only status. Power reactor licensees who !'
i a decommissioning or possession only status would, for the first time, be subject to Part l 7 a nual fees for their Part 50 license; however, these licensees currently pay an annual fee ]
\
. for any Part 72 license they hold. '
&h he NRC announced in the FY 1998 fee rulemaking (__ FR and _ FR )
l that it planned to reexamine the current annual fee exemption policy for licensees in decommissioning or holding possession only licenses and the annual fee policy for reactors' l
)
storage of spent fuel, and include any changes to the current fee policies in the FY 1999 fee '
1 l
rulemaking. One purpose of the review was to assure consistent fee treatment for both wet l
- l. storage (i.e., spent fuel pool) and dry storage (i.e., independent spent fuel sterage installations, or ISFSis) of spent fuel. The Commission previously determined that both storage options are i
considered safe and acceptable forms of storage for spent fuel. Under current fee regulations, j i
Part 50 licensees in decommissioning who store spent fuel in the spent fuel pool are not J assessed an annual fee, but licensees who store spent fuel in a ISFSI under Part 72 are assessed an annual fee. b f#pp>I (Jap.- M @ DM > 6 c4 M !
l Mk 8dv cbrau;w bs cdO8- (G"-$ F I i As indicated previously, currently Part 171 annual fees are not assessed to reactor l licensees who have notitified the NRC that they no longer want an NRC license and have
! permanently ceased operations. This policy is based on the premise that the primary benefit i
l the NRC provides a licensee is the authority to use licensed facilities or material. Although l NRC's generic decommissioning activities support both licenses authorizing operations and L . those limited to decommissioning or possession only, only licensees with an operating license
. bear these costs. This becomes a larger problem for operating licensees because as the number of operating licensees declines, the financial burden on the remaining active licensees increases. M;;;;;r, th; prepender;.nn of the stlv's th;; er;. ;;nr;d by th; ;nna:!n i::::::d to ;p;;;;;ng inder; ;;; not ;ppl;nb; to de;;T. :n enlng rud;,r;. Thus, the proposed rule change is aimed at ensuring that all power reactor licensees who benefit from NRC's generic activities bear a fair portion of these costs relating to decommissiong of reactors. ,
20
w 1
With regard to spent fuel storage, holders of licenses issued under Part 72 for
. Independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSis) are currently assessed annual fees for
' each Part 72 license they hold. Part 72 covers both general and specific licenses. The Part 72 l.
l general licenses are granted to licensees who hold a Part 50 license; the Part 72 specific
' licenses must be applied for and their issuance is not contingent upon the licensee holding a Part 50 license. Because the Part 72 general licenses are issued by regulation to all Part 50 l licensees, these licenses are subject to annual fees only when they have been used; i.e. once spent fuel has been loaded into the generally-licensed ISFSI. If a licensee holds more than one Part 72 license, for example, a Part 72 general license and a Part 72 specific license for two different designs, they are assessed an annual fee for each license.Mk 4 q>o.J k L
% ews.- fr.W obAL L dqe1 ,
y
, Costs for generic activities associated with storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pool I
o (wet storage) are currently included in the annual fee assessed to operating power reactors because the Part 50 licenses cover such storage, Thus, if a Part 50 licensee is in decommissioning and stores spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, it is not assessed an annual fee.
6- .On the other hand, if a Part 50 licensee is in decommissioning and stores spent fuel in an l Y ISFSI, it is assessed an annual fee for each Part 72 ISFSI license used.
l !V No The current policy has raised three concems: (1) the fee structure could create a l disincentive for licensees to pursue dry storage; (2) the faimess of assessing multiple annual
{ fees if a licensee holds multiple ISFSI licenses for different designs; and (3) not all licensees are being assessed the costs of NRC's generic decommissioning activ' es..
l SV 98 NRC's proposal to recover all generic costs related to both methods of spent fuel ,
[ storage and to reactor decommissioning through a spent fuel storage / decommissioning annua i
fee would address these concems. Section 171.15 of Part 171 would be revised to include the spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning annual fee to be assessed to Part 50 power reactor ;
licensees and those Part 72 specific licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license. The annual fees in $171.16 for fee categories 1B and 138 would be eliminated. This change would not affect the manner in which licensing and inspection costs are recovered; i.e., Part 170 fees !
would still be assessed to Part 72 licensees and to Part 50 licensees in decommissioning or possession only status for licensing and inspection services.. The NRC would continue to 1 21 l \
L i
U .
i and reductions of approximately 7 to 49 percent for certain materials licensees. However, annual fees would increase dramatically for certain other licensees. For example, rebaselining l without a cap would result in an increase of approximately 238 percent for solution mining licensees,127 percent for transportation cask users, and up to 56 percent for certain other materials licensees. Factors contributing to the annual fees increases are changes in budgeted l cos ,NerYaMourly rates,' decreases in the numbers of licensees and, for the smaller materials licenses, the results of the biennial review required by the CFO Act as described in above. The average time to conduct inspections and review new license applications
[
for the smaller materials license fee categories are used to allocate the materials budget for rebaselining the annual fees because they reflect the complexity of the license. Thus, increases in the average professional time for inspections and reviews of new license applications results 'in increased annual fees for the affected fee categories, if all else remains the same. In addition, rebaselining reflects the renewal and amendment costs that would be included in the annual fee for these materials licensees, which were not included in FY 1995.
Q g uze &WUd%$%
Option B, rebaselining with a cap, would so result in annual fee decreases for FY 3,w d I i 1999 for operating power reactor licensees an rtain materials licensees, and increases for [co other licensees, but the increases would M -;;M :t 50 p n ,h- However, the decreases under Option B would be slightly less than under Option A because the 50 percaN 7 ea -
annual fee increases would result in approximatel $800, ing added to the annus! fe e $70s, yo surcharge assessed to other licensees who pay annual fees. Because approximately 80 percent of the FY 1999 surcharge would be assessed to operating power reactors, the net result of Option B (rebaselining with a cap) would be a 6.76 percent reduction in annual fees for l FY 1999 for operating power reactors compared to a 6.95 percent reduction under Option A (rebaselining without a cap), a difference of approximtely $6,000 for each power reactor. The decreases under both options include the new spent fuel storage and reactor decommissioning annual fee to be assessed to operating power reactor licensees. Other licensees whose
)
rebaselined annual fees do not increase by 50 percent or more would also pay slightly more under. Option B (rebaselining with a cap) than they would under Option A (rebaselining without L a cap).
l Table 111 below shows the FY 1999 proposed annual fees under both rebaselining 24 1
l l
m
___._.,s__. _ _
fees, public comments are also being sought on whether the NRC should, in future. years, 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.
l 3. REVISED FUEL CYCLE AND URANIUM RECOVERY MATRIXES QpYh9 se revised
)U matrixes Db in the determination of annual fees for fuel facility and uranium L,/
W 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 material and use/ activity and the relative programmatic effort associated with each category,
- s. Fuel Facility Matrix 1
i
";; : bedbn ;f ";;; 171 is; hs n;; bsn ret:nllsd dse the FY 05 F;; Rub. F;r l
t the FY 1000 fee Rub, th; S:::27 Regd: ;;i 0;mm:::::-n asut;d ; r;t::: bbg b:::::P;;
.;;;h ; ds gn ;bje;;ti; ;' dadhg is; L:::d ; , ; d;k t:::d ;ppre:ch :nd The NRC is proposed to use a revised fuel facility matrix based on the commensurate level of, regulatory effort 0; ;; san ;r ;;difj th; related to the various fuel facility categories from both safety and safeguards perspectives. Th; b;; bits; st:":d ut :bbg th; mdhedebsy d;nbped f;r the f 05 Ps Rub ith ; revised matrix wtweh results in the annual fees more accurately reflecting the cost of providing generic and other regulatory services to each fuel facility type.
'P -
m The allocation of the N 's $ m n in budgeted costs to the Individual fuel facilities is based on the revised matrix. 7.fer; sed sibr. ";; ;bj;dia; ;f r;;bbg th; mdd b ::
mer;;-:-:urdfi .;" ;; Ass;y gs;rb a;;; .;;,;but.bb 0;';;;;ye's f;;;;;;illanns. The revisions to the matrix were necessitatsu by the addition of the enrichment plants to the fee 26
7 base, changes in process operations at certain licensees and deletion-of a reduction of three /
licensees ( B&W Parks Township, B&W Research and General Atomic) 7.;.T. i.; f;; iz as the result of the termination of licensed activities. In the revised matrix, licensees are grouped i
f into five categories according to their licensed activities ( l.e., nuclear material enrichment,
~
processing operations and material form) and according to the level, scope, depth of coverage and rigor of generic regulatory programmatic effort applicable to each category from safety and safeguards perspectives. This methodology can be applied to determine fees for new licensees, current licensees, licensees in unique license situations and certificate holders.
The methodology is amenable to changes in the number of licensees or certificate '
holders, licensed-certified material / activities and total programmatic resources to be recovered through annual fees. When a license or certificate is modified, given that NRC recovers approximately 100 percent of its generic regulatory program costs through fee recovery, this fuel facility fee methodology may result in a change in fee category and may have an effect on the fees assessed to other licensees ar.f certificate holders. For example, if a fuel facility licensee amended its license / certificate in such a way that it resulted in them not being subject to Part 171 fees applicable to fuel facilities, the budget for the safety and/or safeguards component would be spread among those remaining licensees / certificate holders, resulting in a higher fee for those remaining in the fee category.
The methodology is applied as follows. First, a fee category is assigned based on certain criteria and the nuclear material and activity authorized by license or certificate.
. Although a licensee / certificate holder may elect not to fully utilize a license / certificate, the license / certificate is still used as the source for determining authorized nuclear material 27
possessic,n and use/ activity. Next, the category and license / certificate information are used to determine where the licensee / certificate holder fits into the matrix. The matrix depicts the
. categorization of licensees / certificate holders by authorized material types and use/ activities and the relative programmatic effort associated with each category. The programmatic effort (expressed as a value in the matrix) reflects the safety and safeguards risk significance associated with the nuclear material and use/ activity, and the commensurate generic regulatory program (i.e., scope, depth and rigor).
Utllbbs thb in;'t:-dc':-;;y, the m;;rb to cuppe-; th; FY 00 F;; Rub ;;;; r;;b;d to ;;T.;d th; lm;:e:^ ef th; ;-f fSba c' th; enibhri.ent inllltb; to it; fu t:::, 2.=ge; in ;;the.-bed presu
- dt;;tb; ;t a-t;b llcr.
- ::: ad the d;btbn of 00?!I;;%; T;;.n;h;p, 00?! nnn:2, ad Om;;;' ^.terab n the r;;;M ci th; t;mb;'bn of lbennd edichb;. T;kbg 'h; ;b;; C.ng;;
bt; seeunt, th; The relative weighted factors for the various subclasses are as follows:
l No. of Relative Weiaht Per Facility ,
1 Facilities Safety Safeguards
. High Enriched Uranium Fuel 2 Enrichment 2 Low Enriched Uranium Fuel 4 l
UF6 Conversion 1 Limited Operations Facility 1 :
~ Others 1 The above weighted factors for the safety and safeguards portion are appli to the $ million
/
base fee. To this base fee, the LLW and other surcharges are added. -
28
}
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 D o major program elements of the generic uranium recovery program are activities related to facility operations and those related to facility cGosure; (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 activihe lreated to the operation of the mill, activities related to the handling and disposal of waste, and acti'/ities related t ntion of groundwater contamination. The three major subelements of ge ric activitis rela d to uranium facility closure are activities related to k
decommission of facilities and cleanup of land; reclamation and closure of the tailings impoundment, s'nd 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.
{
The resulting relative weighted factor per facility for the various subclasses and the proposed FY 1999 annual fee for each are as follows:
1 Number of Relative Weight Facthines Per Facility 30 l
/
Class I facilities
. Class 11 facilities 11e(2) disposal.
11e(2) disposalincidental to existing tailings sites Rare Earth Facilities For rare earth facilities, the generic and other regulatory costs of $ have been
. spread uniformly among licensees who have a specific license for receipt and processing of source material. This results in an annual fee of $ for each rare earth facility.
Materials Users To equitably and fairly allocate the $ million directly attributable to the approximately diverse material users and registrants plus the materials share of the surcharge ( ), the NRC has continued the methodology used in FY 1995 to establish baseline annual fees for this class. The annual fee is based on the Part 170 application fees i
and an estimated cost for inspections. Because the application fees and inspection costs are indicative of the complexity of the license, this approach continues to provide a proxy for allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse categories of licensees based I on how much Jt costs NRC to regulate each category. The fee calculation also continues to consider the inspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting i
regulatory costs associated with the categories of licensees. The annual fee for these j
- categories of licensees is developed as follows:
31
I.
i . .
O\g4hc1 9
! ~ Annual fee = (Application Fee + Average inspection Co spection Priority 1x constant l '
+ ((Unique Category Costs).
l The constant is the multiple necessary to recovery million in FY 1999 is .
j the unique bre any special costs that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category o A
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 Faime*: 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 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 1
(
effective date of the FY 1999 rule. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date l
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 !
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, i l
l l
__ ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS 1
l i
l l
- a. Section 171.13 would be amended to accomodate the proposal to establish an annual fee for power reactors in a decommissioning or possession only status. l 32
l
- b. Section 171.15 would be revised to as follows:
l (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 Y
(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 decommissioning or possession only status, and Part 72 licensees who do not hold Part 50 licenses. Fiscal year references would bt, 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, which includes an annual fee of for spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning..
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. l l
1 (3) Paragraph (e) of Section 171.15 would be revised to show the amount of the i
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 ll i