ML20212K527
| ML20212K527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/23/1999 |
| From: | Turdici J NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | Turdici J NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F537 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-64FR15876, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AG08-1-013, NUDOCS 9910060297 | |
| Download: ML20212K527 (13) | |
Text
,_ -
-m. .. . . . . . . _ . . _ _ .
/
f":%1 ~
PDA f,* " UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30000 4001 7 M
- March 23, 1999 J/i .eJ/77 MEMORANDUM TO: W. Travers Executive Director for Operations J. Lee, Director Office of international Programs J. Lieberman, Director j Office of Enforcement M. Springer, Director )
Office of Administration l I
Trip B. Rothschild, Deputy Assistant
, General Counsel / Legislative Counsel C<ffice of the !Couns FROM: Jim Turdici, Dire -
Division of Acco ing a Finance Office of the Chi Fin cial Officer
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED NOTICE OF RULEMAKING - 10 CFR PARTS 170 l AND 171 - 100 PERCENT FEE RECOVERY FOR FY 1999 l
Attached for your concurrence is a proposed rule for the FY 1999 fees to be assessed to recover 100 percent of the NRC budget authority. In order to meet the requirements to assess and collect the fees by September 30,1999, this proposed rule must be published by April 1, 1999.
Please note that in order to meet the expedited schedule for this proposed rule, we are providing each addressee a separate concurrence copy. Please provide your concurrence as quickly as possible, but no later than noon, Wednesday, March 24,1999.
If you have any questions, please contact Glenda Jackson on 415-6057. Thank you for your assistance in thir. matter.
Attachment:
As stated cc: T. Barchi, OlG C. Paperiello, NMSS S. Collins, NRR A. Galante, CIO H. Bell, OlG ,
9910060297 991001 PDR PR 170 64FR15876 PDR C\ Q \ COG C f)]
Less General Fund (Reviews for DOE -3.2 and other Federal agencies)
Total Fee Base ' $4d 9.6 i > ;
Less Part 170 Fees -103.5 Less other receipts . __42 Part 171 Fee Collections Required 341.9 ~
, Part 171 Billina Adiustment'
- Unpaid FY 1999 invoices 3.4
- 7
. Less Payments received in FY 1999 for. '
prior year invoices -15 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.
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 potential annual fee schedules for FY 1999, the FY 1999 final rule will be mailed to all 6
p-which fees are based on full' cost under 9170.31 of the fee regulations. In the FY 1998 final fee rule, these rates were $124 and $121, respectively. The FY 1998 rates represented a decrease from FY 1997 of $7 per hour for the reactor program from FY 1997, e" 'd eer hour for the materials program.
This proposed increase can be readily explained. In calculating the proposed FY 1399 hourly rates, the NRC staff discovered that a coding error in NRC's budget, which is used in the
- development of fees, occurred for FY 1998, contributing to the hourly rate decreases for that year. The NRC budget is carefully scrutinized and costs allocated by class of licensee. In f- addition, costs for direct FTEs and overhead are calculated for the reactor and materials programs and for the surcharge. Although the proposed FY 1999 hourly rates reflect an
. increase of $17 - $19 per hour 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
$10 million in contract support for regional management and suppe rt were erroneously coded as direct resources for FY 1998 rather than as overhead. The corr. tction of that error in FY 1999 results in substantial increases in the hourly rates compared t a 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 teda. allocated to the two programs, with fewer direct FTE to divide the costs among. In addition, the proportion of direct resources has shifted.
The materials program now has a larger share. Therefore, the materials program must absorb more of the overhead and management and support costs.
1 i
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 .
i 16 l
J
, k b,
pt programs, respectively. Applying oi < me salary and benefit increases of 4.4 percent from FY 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 resources from the reactor program to the materials program, that results in the materials program having a larger share and therefore absorbing more of the overhead and management and support costs.
The method used to determine the two professional hourly rates is as follows:
- a. Direct program FTE levels are identified for both the reactor program and the nuclear material and waste program, b.- 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
~
L becauce the costs for direct contract support are charged directly through the various categories of. fees.
- c. 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 FTEs for the program. In addition, salaries and benefits plus contracts for non-program direct oN 0 W
< management and support and the Inspector General are allocated to each program based on A
that program's direct costs. This method resuits in the following costs which are included in the ai hourly rates.
17 m
TABLE ll - FY 1999 Budget Authority to be included in Hourly Rates (Dollars in millions).
t Reactor Materials Procram Prooram 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 $104.2 $28.1 Subtotal $257.5 $69.5 Less offsetting receipts .1 ------
Total Budget included in Hourly Rate $257.4 $69.5 Program Direct FTEs 1,028.0 279.7 Rate per Direct FTE M $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 il above, dividing the $257.4 million (rounded) budget for the reactor program by the reactor program direct FTEs (1,028) 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 set l
18 j i
i
p i
l Table til below shows the FY 1999 proposed annual fees under both rebaselining i options for representative categories of licensees.
t.
TABLE lil' Class of Licensees . Prooosed FY 1999 Annual Fee Option A Option B (without a cao) (with a cao)
Power Reactors (including spent fuel $2,769,000 $2,775,000 storage / reactor decommissioning annual fee)
Spent fuel storage / reactor decommissioning 199,000 199,000
~
Nonpower Reactors 85,900 85,600 High Enriched Uranium Fuel 3,281.000 3p';8,000 Facility Low Enriched Uranium Fuel 1,100,000 1,103,000 Facility UF. Conversion Facility 472,000 473,000 Uranium Mills 131,000 92,100 Solution Mining 109,000 52,100 Transportation Users and Fabricators 66,700 66,800 Users only 2,200 1,500 32
F Tvoical Materials Licenses Radiographers 14,700 14,700 i i
Wellloggers 9,900 10,000 Gauge users 2,600 2,500 i
Broad scope medical 27,800 27,800 Broad scope manufacturers 26,000 24,800 I
1 The annual fees assessed to each class of licensees includes a surcharge to recover those NRC budgeted costs that are not directly or solely attributable to the classes of licensees but must be recovered from the licensees to comply with the requirements of OBRA-90. The FY 1999 budgeted costs that would be recovered in the surcharge from all licensees are shown
]
'in Table IV.
TABLE IV - Surcharge Category of Costs FY 1999 Budgeted Costs l l
($,M)
- 1. Activities not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee:
- a. International activities 6.3 33 i
'l b.' Agreement State oversight 6.4
-c. Low-level waste disposal generic 4.1 activities, and
. d. Site decommissioning management plan 4.6 activities'not recovered under Part 170
. 2. Activities not assessed Part 170 licensing and inspection fees or Part 171 annual fees based on existing law or Commission policy: }
l
- a. Fee exemptiori for nonprofit education institutions 6.9'
+-
- b. Licensing and inspection activities associated with - 2.8 other Federal agencies;
- c. Costs not recovered from small entities under 5.3 Part 171
- 3. Activities supporting NRC operating licensees and others
- a. Regulatory support to Agreement States 14.6 k
34 L_;_. _
s
- b. Decommissioning / reclamation, except those related to 4.2
. power reactors Total Budgeted Costs 55.2 The NRC would continue to allocate the surcharge costs, except LLW surcharge costs, to each class of licensees based on the percent of budget for that class. The NRC would continue to allocate.the LLW surcharge costs based on the volume disposed by the certain classes of licensees. The proposed surcharge costs allocated to each class are included in the annual fee that would be assessed to each licensee. The FY 1999 surcharge costs that would
' be allocated to each class o'f licensee are shown in Table V.
4 TABLE V- Allocation of Surcharge i
LLW Surcharge Non-LLW Surcharge Total Surcharae Percent LM Percent EM LM Operating power ' 74 3.0 80.3 41.0 44.0
. reactors -
Spent fuel storage / - -
6.3 3.2 3.2 reactor decommissioning
' Nonpower reactors - -
0.1 0.0 0.0 x.
Fuel facilities - 8 0.4 5.0 2.6 2.9 Materials users 18- 0.7 5.9 3.1 3.8 35
(
'm.1 L
I Transportation - -
1.0 0.5 0.5 Rare earth facilities - --
0.1 0.0 0.0 Uranium recovery - --
1.3 Ql AZ s
Total Surcharge 4.1 51.1 55.2 The budgeted costs allocated to each class of licensees and the calculation of the rebaselined fees are described in 3. and 4. below. The workpapers which support this proposed rule show in detail the allocation of NRC budgeted resources for each class of licensee and how the fees are calculated. The workpapers may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001.
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 effectivs 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 bnsees, 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 rate in FY 1999. Those materials licensees vehose 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.
36
in addition to comments on the rebaselining method for determining FY 1999 annual 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 statement of considerations, or return to a policy of rebaselining annual fees every year.
- 3. Revised Fuel Cvele and Uranium Recoverv Matrixes.
Use revised matrixes in the determination of annual fees for fuel facility and uranium recovery licensees. As part of the recaselining 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.
- a. Fuel Facility Matrix.
The NRC is proposing to use a revised fuel facility matrix based on the commensurate level of reguMory effort related to the various fuel facility categories from both safety and safeguards perspectives. The revised matrix results in the annual fees more accurately reflecting the cost of providing generic and other regulatory services to each fuel facility type.
The FY 1999 budgeted costs of approximately $16.3 milli ci s to ' recovered in annual fees assessed to the fuel facility class is allocated to the individual fuel facility licensees based on the revised matrix. The revisions to the matrix take into account changes in process 37
p i recovered in annual fees assessed to the approximately 5700 diverse material users and registrants, the NRC has continued the methodology used in FY 1995 to establish baseline annual fees for this class. The annual fee is bhsed o7 the Part 170 application fees and an i
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 I generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse categories of licensees based on how much it costs NRC to regulate each category. The fee calculation also continues to consider the
{
1 laspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting regulatory I costs associated with the categories of licensees. The annual fee for these categories of i licensees is developed as follows:
1 Annual fee = (Application Fee [ Average inspection Cost divided by inspect x constant + (Unique Category Costs).
The constant is the multiple necessary to recovery $30.5 million and is 1.3 for FY 1999.
The unique category costs are any special costs that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licensees. For FY 1999, unique cost of approximately $955,400 were identified for the medical development program which is attributable to medical licensees. The proposed annual fees for each fee category under Option A and Option B are shown in $171.16(d).
- f. Transoortation.
Of the approximately $3.6 million in FY 1999 budgeted costs to be recovered through annual fees assessed to the transportation class of licensees, approximately $870,000 would 44 I
r convenience purposes.
Each operating power reactor would pay an FY 1999 annual fee of $2,769,000 under Option A or $2,775,000 under Option B, which includes the proposed annual fee of $199,000 for spent fuel storage / reactor decommissionirg. 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 $199,000 under Option A or Option B in FY 1999.
(3) Paragraph (e) of $171.15 would be revised to show the amount of the FY 1999 annual fee for nonpower (test and research) reactors. The NRC would continue to grant exemptions from the annual fee to Federally-owned and State-owned research and test reactors that meet the exemption criteria specified in $171.11(a)(2).
I l
(4) Paragraph (f) of 171.15 would be revised to change fiscal year date references.
]
I i
- c. Section 171.16 would be amended as follows:
(1) Section 171.16(c) covers the fees assessed for those licensees that can qualify as small entities under NRC size standards. A materials licensee may pay a redeced annual fee if the licensee qualifies as a small entity under the NRC's size standards and certifies that it is a small entity using NRC Form 526. This section would be revised to clarify that failure to file a small entity certification in a timely manner could form the basis for the 46