ML20235M875
| ML20235M875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/22/1988 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR24077, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 NUDOCS 8902280471 | |
| Download: ML20235M875 (103) | |
Text
--
E D s-e.
NkIEr$bN'l'I4M 97 p
(53FAAYv??)
E7590-01]
g.g 1{
NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 170 end 171 L
Revision of Fee Schedules A.
' AGENCYr Nuclear Regulatory Connission.
H i
u ACTION:'
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Connission (Connission or NRC) is amending its i
regulations by revising its fee schedules contained in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.
The revised fee schedules will result in these power reactor, fuel cycle facility and' materials applicants and licensees requiring the greatest expendi-ture of NRC resources paying the grea' test fees.
This permits NRC to more completely recover under 10 CFR Part 170 costs incurred for identifiable ser-vices for power reactor, fuel cycle facility and major materials applicants 3
and licensees. This action also implements fee legislation enacted by Congress in December 1987. All applicants and licensees currently subject to fees under
-10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 are affected by this rule.
' Toq do,19 F 9 EFFECTIVE DATE:
(00 &": ' =-pe' S:tha).
Ds /0 fhE28y471segggy 170 53pyg4077 PDR
pnS "vglyHg 71/gg,..27 gp CS3 fA 2Yv ??)
E7590-01]
g.g VL.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision of Fee Schedules AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Comission or NRC) is amending its regulations by revising its fee schedules contained in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.
The ' revised fee schedules will result in those power reactor, fuel cycle facility and materials applicants and licensees requiring the greatest expendi-ture of NRC resources paying the grea' test fees.
This permits NRC to more completely recover under 10 CFR Part 170 costs incurred for identifiable ser-vices for power reactor, fuel cycle facility and major materials applicants s
and licensees. This action also implements fee legislation enacted by Congress in December 1987. All applicants and licensees currently subject to fees under l
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 are affected by this rule.
Tm Bo, t 9 2 9 EFFECTIVE DATE:
(-30 d:y: # r p b1 S:tica).
DS 10
?hE2ff471881222 170 53 ppg 4o77 pgR
~
h T -
.4
' ADDRESSES:
Copies of the written public coments are available for public inspection and copying. for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.
FOR -FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lee Hiller, Assistant Controller, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20055, Telephone: 301-492-7351.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
Background.
II.
C' nonses to Comments.
III.
Changes: Included in the Final Rules.
IV.
Section-by-Section, Analysis.
V.
Environmental Impact:
Categorical Exclusion.
N VI.
Paperwork Reduction. Act Statement.
VII.
Regulatory Analysis.
I VIII.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification.
IX.
Backfit Analysis.
X.
List of Subjects.
I.
Background
On June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24077-24093), the Comission published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking for revisions to 10 CFR Part 170 (" Fees for Facilities and Materials Licensees and Other Regulatory Services...)
and Part 171
(" Annual Fees for Power Reactor Operating Licenses").
This action was necessary for the Comission to update the current fee schedules in Part 170 and to implement the requirements of Soction 5601 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, as signed into law on December 22, 1987 (Pub. L. 100-203).
Section 5601 amended Section 7601 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA - Pub. L.99-272), which "eiuires the Comtssion to collett annual charges from its licensees.
As discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 27, 1988, the amendment requires the NRC to collect under 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171, as well 'as under other provisions of law, not less_ than 45 percent of the Comission's budget for each of Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Option 1).
l l
l
x
- The. proposed rule also sought coments on a second option to not change
- 10. CFR Part 170, but only raise the annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 to reach the 45 percent mandate of Pub. L. 100-203 for FY 1988. On August 12,
<1988, the Comission published an interim final rule for 10' CFR Part 171 (53 FR 30423) applicable to collections for FY 1988 based upon the second
-option. The interim rule increased collections from 33 percent to 45 percent of the Comission's FY 1988 budget. Adjusted invoices based on the interim
)
rule were sent to reactor licensees'on August 15, 1988.
As discussed in the interim rule, the Comission will proceed with option 1 rather than option 2 as a long-tenn rule for annual fees. The method for assessing annual fees in this final rule presents a more equitable distri-bution among the licensed nuclear power reactors of the amount needed to be collected by taking into account the kind of reactor, its location and other considerations -in relation to the generic research and other costs. associated with power reactor regulation.
Under the revised rule, those who require the larger expenditure of NRC resources will pay the larger fees.
II. Responses to Coments
.s The Comission received thirty-two (32) letters commenting on the proposed rule.
Twenty letters were from persons mainly concerned with Part 50 facili-ties and twelve comented on fees for materials licenses.
-______m-__m_m.____._.a_.__l__m_______
.m
(
^
5-
?
The coments fell into the following categories:
i Pa*t' 170 Coments:
1.
Removal of ceilings.
2.
Removal of routine inspection frequencies.
t 3.
Fees for standardized design review..
I 1
4..
Disparity in certain materials fee categories.
Part 171 Comments:
)
1.
Legality.of fees.
i 2.
Allocate costs to al.1 persons.
3.
Exclude-costs serving an independent public benefit.
N
-4.
Base fees on specific identifiable services.
5.
Exclude research until NRC acts on that research.
]
I 1
i
" 4
('
6.
Include fines,-- penalties, and interest in. fee collections.
i 7.
Othir Coments.
l The Commission's responses to the coments are as follows:
Coments on Part 170 1.
Removal of ceilings for reactor and major fuel cycle permits, li-censes, amendments, reactor related topical reports and services; and for transportation cask packages and shipping containers.
Commenters' main con-cern about the removal of ceilings for applications and other services is that
-7 it removes the. predictability of costs for budgeting purposes.
In the area of topics 1 reports', comenters were concerned that it would discourage partic-ipation in the-topical report program as well as defeat the overall objective of encouraging new and improved predictive models and products.
Response
Ceilings are being removed because the Comission strongly supports the concept that those requiring the greatest expenditure of-NRC resources should pay the greatest fees.
Ceilings contradict that objective.
.g Appendices A and 8 that were included in the proposed rule of June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24092 and 24093), cre non-binding schedules of estimated fees which may still be used for planning pure ses in the absence of ceilings and provide adequate information for planning purposes.
The upper range in these i
schedules would only be increased slightly for FY 1989 as a result of using.
FY,1989 budget costs which changed the hourly rate from $80 (based on FY 1988
-budget) to $86 for FY 1989. With respect to topical report reviews, the Commission finds no compelling argument to justify retaining a ceiling since those who request reviews of topical reports that require considerable staff work should bear their share of the review costs. The Comission recognizes, however, that there may be some topical reports that are of particular importance and use to the NRC. Therefore,.as a matter of agency policy, the NRC may, upon its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, exempt
' all or part of the topical report fee pursu. ant to i 170.11(b)(1).
2.
Removal of routine inspection frequency.
Most materials comenters are concerned that the ' removal-of the frequency for routine inspections will I
take away their ability to predict what they should budget for inspection fees and create a potential for more frequent inspections than are needed.
Response
The Commission's routine inspection program is a structured program to assure that licensees comply. with their license conditions and Commission regulations and standards to the extent that the health and safety of the company employees and public are not endangered.
As long as a licen-see's operations are in compliance with the NRC-issued license, regulations, and standards, the' frequency of inspections is not generally expected to be more frequent than what was stipulated in the previous regulation.
Therefore,
from a budgeting standpoint, if a licenste operates in conformance with its license and the Comission's regulations and standards, the predictability for
r<
s.
inspection fee budget costs remains essentially unchanged.
t 3.
Fees for standardized design.
Nuclear power industry comenters questioned the Comission~'s proposal to defer fees for review of standardized reference designs until referenced by an applicant, or at the end of 5 years (10 years if a design is certified) after design approval, whichever comes first.
A few comenters felt that fees should not be charged or should be waived for standardized design reviews to remove any disincentive for the 4
standardization program and what could poss'ibly be unusually extensive costs I
)
as a result of the review being a "fi rst-of-a-kind" that~ might require extensive safety reviews.
Response: The Comission's decision to defer fees for standard reference design reviews is based upon a balancing of policy considerations.
On the one hand, it is clearly the policy of the Government,- and the intent of the Congress, that the Comission collect fees for services rendered to applicants.
Thus, standard reference design reviews are not to be performed free of charge.
On the other hand, there-is a sound and persuasive public policy need to avoid a disincentive to the submittal of standard designs by vendors I
incorporating the best safety features available for a future generation of
.g reactors.
For years,- the Comission has supported the use of standard designs (see, e.g.,10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 0, and 10 CFR 2.110). On balance, the Comission believes that the deferral of fees for standard design reviews is a reasonable compromise that serves the public interest. Accordingly, the i
-_.__m- - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. - _ _.
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
)
.9_
1 Comission will retain its proposed treatment of fees for standard reference d: signs.
4.
Disparity in certain materials fee categories.
Two materials licen-sees questioned why the license and inspection fees in certain areas are higher.when compared with other areas.
Response
The NRC recognizes that a part of the current Part 170 fee schedule for materials licenses. is outdated and needs revisi..n.
For example, the labor rates (staff hours and fees applied) used in calculating fees' are based on 1
i I
data that is several years old.
The NRC has detennined that this is not the appropriate rulemaking to make' the necessary adjustments.
The NRC contemplates initiating a rulemaking on this issue next year.
Pcrt 171 Coments The Comission notes that the rulemaking to which the following comments are again addressed is of a very. limited scope with respect to Part 171.
The rulemaking adds two new defini.tions to which no coments were addressed, it changes the percent of recovery from 33 percent of the Comission's budget _to at least 45 percent, enters a more refined allocation of the annual fee among 6
different classes of power reactors, and eliminates the provision for refunds of collections in excess of 45 percent.
The Comission received some coments
10 -
i 1
.that go beyond these limited subjects and are.therefore not relevant to this
(
rulemaking. Nonetheless. tha Commission is responding to them. The response to j
comments beyond the scope of the rulemaking should not, however, be taken as an admission b'y the Comission that the issues raised are again open to challenge.
I Responses to these coments are seen as a matter of courtesy to the comenters and not as reopening these issues to further litigation.
These comments and-.
the responses thereto dre:
I 1.
Legality of fees.
Several commenters, in particular law fims
-l representing operators.of nuclear power reactors, comented on issues of a legal nature.
Response. These coments for the most part repeated comments addressed to the first issuance of 10 CFR Part 171 -(final rule issued Septem er 18, 1986; J
51 FR 33224) promulgated to implement Section 7601 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconc:11ation Act of 1985.
That rule was challenged and upheld in its l
entirety in ' Florida Power i Light Co. et al. v. United States, 846 F.2d 765
.(D.C.Cir. 1988). A petition for writ of certioraii challenging that decision is pending in the Supreme Court (Florida Power & Light Co. v. United States, No.88-234).
t
)
2.
Allocation of costs.
Some commenters stated that annual feed should be levied on all persons such as materials licensees receiving services from the Commission.
f t Response.
Congress provided the Comission with the discretion to deter-mine which categcries of licensees or other persons should be charged an annual i
fee by the Comission.
The Comission's decision not to charge materials li-censees annual fees was upheld in Florida Power & Light v. United States, supra.
The Comission has reaffirmed its determination that it will not impose an annual fee on its materials licensees.
The Comission has more than 8000 materials licensees.
Regulation of these entities raquires a" minimal expenditure of NRC resources (less than 3 percent of the NRC budget). Moreover, these licensees are an extremely varied class, ranging from large uranium processing operators to small operators involving well logging, radiography, or the use of gauging devices.
In light of the relatively minor resources devoted to regulating these entities and the obvious administrative diffi-culties in determining how to calculate appropriate annual fees for this large, diverse class of licensees, the Comission will not impose an annual fee on these licensees at this time.
3.
Some comenters asserted that the cost basis for annual fees should exclude costs serving an independent public benef"it.
Response. The concept that costs related to an independent public bene-3 fit should not be charged to licensees derives from the case law on applica-tion of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952, 31 U.S.C.
9701 (10AA).
It is not a concept applicable to annual fees charged under COBRA, as
~
. 4 amended.. The annual fee statute has its own standard independent of the stand-ards applicable to 10AA.
In any case, the research perfonned by the NRC pri-marily benefits power reactor licensees as part of the system under which those facilities are regulated and allowed to operate in a manner that provides ade-quate protection to the public health and safety.
Therefore, none of the ser-vices for which fees are charged provide " independent public benefits" even if this concept were deemed applicable.
The Comission's position on this issue was also upheld in' Florida Power & Light v. United States, supra.
4.
Some comenters took the position that fees should be based on specific. identifiable services benefitting individual licensees and not on
. generic' agency action.
Response. The concept that fees should be levied only for specific ser-vices to ' identifiable recipients is an 10AA standard.
It is not a standard that applies to annual fees under COBRA, as amended.
It is the Comission's continuing view that the Congress did not intend that 10AA principles be-ap-plied to the collection of annual fees under COBRA, as amended.
The Co' mis-sion's determinations in this area were upheld in Florida Power & Light v.
[
United States, supra.
3 l
5.
Some commenters stated that the Comission should not include in its cost basis for annual fees research cost until the Comission acts upon that
{
l research and it is shown to provide a benefit.
l
)
. l l-Response.
It is the position of the Comission that research devoted to the continued safety of nuclear power reactors is a present service and benefit.
.This research either confirms that reactors are safe, that some changes will improve safety, or that certain regulations may no longer be necessary for safe operation.
The conduct of research resulting in any of these outcomes is a present benefit.
This research provides continuing confidence that licensed reactors can be operated consistent with the public health and safety and the Comission's regulations.
We again note that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida Power & Light v. United States, supra, upheld the Comission's dacision to include such costs in its annual fee base.
6.
One comenter felt that monies from the collection of fines, penalties and interest should be included in the 45 percent required to be collected.
Response. Although related here to the 45 percent level of collection, the same coment was presented with respect to the rule promulgating the 33 percent ceiling.
The Comission adheres to its prior position.
- Fines, penalties and interest are not c~ost recovery me'asures, but are disciplinary and intended to deter persons who violate Comission regulations and orders, as well as other licensees, from future violations.
Public policy dictates 1
that those paying penalties, fines, or interest should not benefit by recover-ing a - portion of the penalty, fine or interest through a reduced fee. Again, this Comission decision was upheld in Florida Power & Light v. United States, j
supra.
7.
Other Coments on Part 171 Amendments, Some licensees and their vendors have stated,that the additional a.
costs asses' sed for B&W. type reactors are not justified because these plants are not problem plants requiring the greatest expenditure of staff funds and manpower when compared with other reactors.
Response.
The basis for assessing B&W owners under Part 171, or any li-censee (by vendor type), is not based upon performance, but it is an allocation of fee based upon corresponding costs (FTE and obligations) to the NRC to per-form generic type activities associated with that type of reactor (vendor type).
Some specific act.ivities questioned (i.e., "Co'ntinuing Experimental Capability" and " Technical Integration Center") have been reallocated based upon a more detailed identification matrix of licensee groups, b.
Florida Power Corporation comented that Agency and industry research supports exclusion of reactor.s east of the Rockies from the list of reactors benefitting from special seismic studies.
Response.
Although its service area lies within a region of low seis-
)
.q micity, the Florida Power Corporation, as explained below, benefits substan-tially from NRC seismic research, including maintenance of the NRC-funded seismograph networks east of the Rocky Mountains.
Seismic research through the years has shown that Florida is less prone to earthquakes than a large part of
a 1 -
)
l l
l the eastern and central U.S., and thus allows for less stringent seismic design I
bases for critical. facilities.
Ongoing seismic monitoring will continue to
{
confirm that conclusion or identify possible errors of judgment.
Recent experience (1982 New Brunswick and New Hampshire earthquakes, the 1987 southern Illinois earthquake ' and the reservoir induced seismicity at 1
Monticello Reservoir, South Carolina) indicates that high accelerations at relatively high frequencies can be generated locally by moderate to small mag-nitude earthquakes, usually at relatively shallow depths (several kilometers).
It is possible that earthquakes of these sizes could occur in ' Florida (although the probability is low).
Accelerations can result that exceed OBE or SSE ' design bases for critical facilities.
We do not believe that these
/
ground motions (short duration, high accelerations at high frequencies) are the kind that result in damage to seismically designed critical facilities, but research in this area is ongoing.
The occurrences are extremely diffi-cult to handle even with no evidence of damage.
The seismic networks are the main sources of data that are basic to resolving this issue.
Another major issue regarding eastern U.S. seismicity is the nature of the tectonic structures that are currently responsible for the earthquakes.
Suspect structures include faults in rocks ranging in age from Palozoic through Triassic and into Tertiary (several hundred millior, years old to several million years old).
These faults are widely distributed in rocks
. throughout the east, including rocks beneath Florida.
Much of current seismic
j i
and geologic research funded by the NRC is focused on identifying and defining the tectonic structures that are causing the earthquakes.
The most definitive information about seismic sources, which are deeply buried, is obtained from i
the analysis of recordings of eartfiquake ground motions.
. Builders and operators of critical facilities in low seismic areas derive as much benefit from this type of research as those in more seismic areas in view of the relatively short historic seisshe record.
c.
Level of budget detail.
Several utilities' overall criticism of the proposed rule concerns their perception of the need to breakout budgeted obligations to a level lower than the Program - Program Element - Activity structure used in the NRC planning process in the area of research.
These'
/
utilities further comment on the fact that the budget detail, maintained at the activity level and provided to the Public Document Room (PDR) does not allow them access to greater detail (to see if the NRC developed its budget, thus its user charges, accurately).
^
Response.
This suggestion has been adopted. *We have gone one level below
)
the activity level to the project level (FIN) in developing fees for research activities.
Using the FIN level permits a more detailed breakout of fee categories.
However, FIN infonnation used in developing these fees cannot be I
placed in the PDR now because it contains predecisional contracting information--amounts set aside for specific. procurement that have not yet been awarded.
To release this information before contracts are awarded would be _ in violation of the Federal Procurement Law.
Accordingly, we do not
. envision placing the FIN data used in developing this fee schedule in the PDR until sometime during the following fiscal year.
4 i
d.
MIST program costs.
Several comenters stated that the Comission agreed to share in the funding of Multi-Loop Integral System Test (MIST), the i
program with the B&W Owners. Group (OG).
However, it is in the research costs i
set forth-in Table IV-of the proposed rule.
It is inappropriate for NRC to pass its shate of the MIST costs on to B&W Owners through license fees.
Response.
The NRC does provide funding for the MIST program as well as other cooperative programs. Being an agency cost item, the MIST prcgram as well as the costs for',all other current and future cooperative program:,. should be used ini the cost allocation data base. Moreover, we do not view this as a breach of the co-funding ' agreement by NRC with the OG because the current 1
agreement is about to expire and a new agreement is being negotiated. All of the $2.7 million included in.the user fee base is for activities that would be funded by' the new agreement rather than the existing one. Before entering the new agreement, this final rule will have been promulgated putting the OG on notice of the agency's revised user fee policies.
It should also be pointed out that in the past two phases of MIST co-op research (Phase 3 and Phase 4), the owners group paid 'only about one-half of the NRC contributions for Phase 3 and did not contribute any funds for Phase 4 Because almost 90 percent of all funds budgeted in areas subject to fee recovery under Part 171 will be collected through user fees, if co-op research programs
were exempt from the fee base, the co-op groups would receive fee exemptions not available for other research--inequitably shifting the fee burden to other licensees.
l
-e.
Coments on specific changes to Part 171.
Coments on the proposed
{
changes to Part 171 fall into three primary groups: (1) the Comission is in error in considering the. 45 percent collection target' as a floor, and not as a ceiling, '(2) the Commission is in error in eliminating the provision for refunds of excess annual fee collections (i 171.21), and (3) the. Comission should adopt option 2 identified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Under that option, the previously adopted method for calculating annual fees would be retained.- The only significant change would be raising the annual fee to. collect 45 percent of 'the NRC budget.
Other comenters suggested that Option 2 not be adopted.
i Response.
The Comission addressed all three of these issues in its notice of. interim rule published August 12, 1988, in the Federal Register (53 FR 30423).
There the Comission stated its view that reading the 45 per-cent in Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) (amending COBRA) as a ceiling would be contrary to the language and plain meaning of the statue, quoting,
,y
"...in no event shall such percentage be less than a total of 45 percent of such costs in each such fiscal year."
(Section 5601, Omnibus Budget Recon-ciliation Act of 1987.)
The Comission adheres to that view again emphasizing that fees will exceed the 45 percent target by a trivial amount.
The elimination of the provision for refunds results from the Commission's.
view of the operative effect of the 45 percent constituting a floor for collections.
In presenting the 45 percent as a floor, and not a ceiling, OBRA removed the necessity to make refunds which was implicit in COBRA when the
-latter imposed a 33 percent ceiling prior to 'its amendment.
In short, the change in the law from a 33 percent ceiling to a 45 percent floor for collec '
tions eliminates the need to make a refund 'of amounts collected in excess of 45 percent. Accordingly, consistent with its view of Congressional intent', the Commission is permanently removing i 171.21 from its regulations.
t With respect to the suggestion that option 2 be adopted -and the fee collection methodology remain unchanged, the Comission does not support this approach. The Comission is firmly comitted to assessing fees based on the principle' that those licensees requiring the greatest expenditure of NRC resources pay the greatest fees.
Option 2 is contrary to this policy.
f.
One comenter requested that consideration of the utility's rate base be included among the exemption cri.teria in 10 CFR 171.11.
Respcnse.
This comment is also outside the scope of the rulemaking
.g because the rulemaking does not propose any change to the exemption criteria in Part 171.
Nonetheless, the Comission believes that factors related to a utility's rate. base may be considered in passing on requests for exemptions in
~
l 171.11.
Rate base matters may be considerf.d under 9 171.11(c) and under i
._-____________-_______A
l,
i 171.11(e).
.In the Comission's view, the commenter's request is already accommodated in Part 171 as initially codified.
m III.
Changes Included in the Final Rules The changes included in the final rule are as follows and permit the NRC to recover approximately, but not less than, 45 percent of its budgeted costs
- for fiscal years 1988 and 1989, respectively.
These changes were set forth in
. the proposed rule published on June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24077).
Any differences between the final rule and the proposed rule are explained in the following
\\
-discussion.
1.
Changing the hourly rates under 10 CFR 170.20 which range from $53 to
$62 far the various program offices to $86 for all program offices based on the FY 1981 budget and providing for an annual adjustment if there is a need for increase or decrease.
The $86 hourly rate is an increase from the proposed $80 hourly rate.
This increase fs as a result of using the FY 1989 budget in lieu of the FY 1988 budget.
The method used for cal'culating the hourly rate is exactly the same as that used in the proposed rule.
An analysis of the budget which generated this rate is provided in the Part 171 Section-by-Section 9
. Analysis.
2.
Removing the 10 CFR Part 170 fee ceilings for application reviews, services, and inspections for reactors; luel cycle facilities; transportation cask packages and shipping containers.
1
{
l 3.
Amending 10 CFR 170.31 to charge for each routine inspection conducted -
-by the NRC and to delete the maximum billing frequency. For user convenience, the fee schedule previously included in 10 CFR 170.32 h4s been incorporated in 10 CFR 170.31.
4.
In 10 CFR Part 170, removing the application fee and deferring the payment of costs for the review of applicat ons for standardized reactor design reviews and certifications until a standardized design is referenced.
5.
In 10 CFR Part 170, removing application filing fees for reactor applications and for reactor related topical reports.
6.
Increasing the annual fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 171 and charging b' ased on the principle that licensees requiring the greatest expenditure of NRC resources shall pay the greatest fee.
Again, as in the development of the hourly rate, the method used for determining the annual fee is the same as that
. described in the proposed, rule except that budget obligations have been identified one level below the detail shown in the proposed rule based on the connents received, and FY 1989 budget data have been used in lieu of the FY 1988 data used in the proposed rule.
7.
Including in the NRC collection, moneys recovered from the Nuclear Waste Fund, as managed by the Department of Energy under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, for costs incurred by the NRC in preparing for licensing a high-level waste repository.
- - 1 The agency workpapers which support the changes to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 are available in the Public Document Room, at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washing-ton, DC, in the lower level of the Gelman Building.
i s
IV.
Section-by-Section Analysis
~
The following section-by-section analysis of the affected sections pro-vides additional explanatory information.
All references are to Title 10, Chapter I, Code of. Federal Regulations.
Part 170 Section 170.12 Payment of fees.
~
Paragraphs (c),
(d),
(e), and (f) are changed to remove the $150 application fee for reactor license amendments and other approvals.
Within paragraph (e), Approval fees, the current reference to facility standard reference design approvals is changed to remove the application fee and to permit deferral of review and certification fees until the design is 3
4 referenced, payable thereafter in 20 percent increments as the design is referenced.
However, regardless of whether the design is referenced, the full costs of a preliminary design approval (PDA)/ final design approval (FDA) will j
be recovered by the NRC from the holder of the design approval within 5 years from the date of approval.
If the design is certified, the five-year period is
4 extended to 10. years from the date o'f the design certification with the same
)
proviso that '20 percent of th; costs will be payable each time the design is l
referenced.
In. the event the standardized design approval application is denied, withdrawn, suspended, or action on the application. is postponed, fees will be collected when the review, to that point, is completed and the five-(5)'
installment payment procedure will not apply.
Section 170.20 Average cost per professional' staff-hour.
This-section-is modified to reflect an agency-wide professional staff-hour rate based on~the FY.1989 budget.
The section is also modified to reflect that the hourly rate will be adjusted each fiscal year, with notice of the new rate published, in the Federal Register if the hourly rate increases or decreases. -
Accordingly, the _ professional staff rate for the NRC for FY 1989 is $86 per
~ hour,'or $150.9 thousand per FTE'(professional staff year) rather than $80 per hour as set forth in the proposed rule. An analysis of the budget which generated this rate is provided in the Part 171 section-by-section analysis.
~
In each subsequent year, the houriy rate will be adjusted to reflect current cost per direct staff FTE.
N On August 19,1987, Part 170 and other regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations were amended to reflect NRC organizational changes.
These revisions as published August 21, 1987 (52 FR 31601), in final form, inadvertently changed 10 CFR 170.20 to delete the $53 hourly rate for regional staff inspection and other identifiable services.
In computing costs for
1..
invoices, the $53-hourly rate will continue to be used for regional review staff time until the effective date of this final rule at which time the.$86 hourly rate will be used. -
Section 170.21 Schedule of fees for production. and utilization facilities, review of standard reference design approvals, special projects, and inspections.
Within the schedule of fees, all services (other than most application filing fees) will' be changed from the current specified cost to " Full Cost."
The schedule for. Standard Reference Design Review is modified to reflect the amendment of i 170.12 addressed above.
With the removal of ceilings for certain services, the costs for those reviews for which a ceiling previously established has been reached will not be billed if prior to the effective date of this rule the review of the application is completed.
For administrative reasons, where the review has not yet been completed, NRC will not seek to recover those costs which it incurred after. the current ceiling was reached and before this revised rule becomes effective.
Costs incurred after the effective date 'of this final rule will be 3
billed.
The professional staff-hours expended up to the effective date of.this rule will be at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 rule.
~ Any professional hours expended after the effective date of this rule will be
. assessed at the FY 1989 rates reflected in this final rule.
The same apolies to. the. removal of ceilings under the revisions of i 170.31 below.
The
. footnotes to this schedule also are modified to bring them into confomity with the amendments to this schedule.
Section 170.31 Schedule of fees _ for materials licenses and other regulatory.
i
. services; I
~ Li ke: 1 170.21, this section is modi'fied to (a) reflect the removal of ceilings on' certain categories of fees, (b) charge full costs for those ser-vices, and.(c) incorporate the inspection fee schedule previously set forth in Section 170.32.-
I Inspection fee ceilings for selected services are also removed and the remaining fixed fees are retained since the ratio of NRC costs to fees m
collected is approximately equivalent to the percentage of the budget to be collected into the General Treasury.
Currently if the frequency of inspection, for example, for a category is 2 years and an inspection is next conducted 1 year and 11 months after the' previous inspection, no fee is assessed.
Often times inspections of different lic' nsees are scheduled because of their close e
t proximity.
This scheduling represents a more efficient use of resources.
Accordingly, i 170.31 and the footnotes are being revised to indicate that fees T
will be assessed for each inspection conducted by the NRC.
Footnotes to the schedule that are affected by this action are rev'ised to be consistent with
'this revision.
Previous inspection footnotes 1 through 4 are now being combined as one footnote and will become 1(e) and footnote 5 remains as 5.
l
.. i eSection 170.32 Schedule of fees for health safety, and safeguards inspections for materials ifcenses,
- Under the proposed rule Section 170.32 was published as a separate.
schedule to cover iIispection fees for materials' licensees. -The reformatting to include materials. inspection fees under Section 170.31 is for user convenience
'and to shorten the. rule. ' By doing this, as in Section 170.21, all fees for -
l each license category are now together rather than in two different schedules.
The ~ rule has. not been changed from its proposed fenn.
Footnotes have been consolidated and renumbered ac specified above.
3 i
Part 171
/
The following is a section-by-section analysis of those areas affected by this final rule.
All references are to Title 10 Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations.
i i
Section 171.5' Definitions.
The following definitions are behig added.
3 The tenn " Budgeted obligations" is defined to be the projected obligations of the NRC that likely will result in payments by the NRC during the same or a future fiscal year'to provide regulatory services to licensees. Budgeted obligations include, but are not limited to amounts of orders to be placed.
{
contracts to be awarded, and services to be provided to licensees. Fees billed to licensees are based on budgeted obligations because the NRC's annual budget is prepared on an obligation basis.
The term " Overhead costs" is defined to include three components: (1)
Government benefits for each employee such at leave and holidays, retirement and disability costs, health and life insurance costs, and social security costs; (2) Travel costs; (3) Direct overhead, e.g., supervision, program suppori. staff, etc.; and (4) Indirect costs, e.g., funding and staff for administrative support activities.
Factors have been developed for these overhead costs which are applied to hourly rates developed for employees providir,g the regulatory services within the categories and activities applicable to specified types or classes of reactors.
The Connission views these costs as being reasonably related to the regulatory services provided to the licmees and, therefore, within the meaning of Section 7601, COBRA.
Section 171.13 Notice.
4 Under the current rule, one fee is applicable to all licensed reactors.
Under this final rule, each reactor will be assessed fees based on those NRC
.q activities from which it benefits as a type or within a class of reactors.
Accordingly, annual fees are expected to be different for each of the various e
e types or classes of reactor operating licenses.
Each bill will reflect those specific activities applicable to each operating license as required by the revised i 171.15 discussed below.
9 Section 171.15 Annual Fee:
Power reactor operating licenses.
Paragraph. (c) is modified to reflect a minimum target percentage of 45
- percent rather than a maximum percentage of 33 percent.
The formula used to
' calculate the annual fee is modified to reflect the inclusion of moneys 4
expected to be collected from the Nuclear High Level Waste (HLW) Fund admin-istered by.the Department of Energy and the estimated collections' under Part 170 for each fiscal year.
Funds will be c611ected from the Nuclear HLW Fund beginning in FY 1989.
The sum of these funds will be subtracted from ?he amount reflecting 45 percent of the NRC bu'dget prior to detennining the annual fee for each licensed power reactor.
f In FY 1989, the Connission must recover not less than 45 percent of its congressionally enacted budget of $423,000,000.
Applying the fee rates set out in this-rule, the NRC estimates that it will collect in FY 1989 $50 million pursuant to Part 170 and $15 million from the Nuclear Waste fund.
In accordance with the formula provided in i 171.15, for FY 1989:
$189 million minus approximately $50 a 4111on-for. Part 170 plus $15 million for Nuclear Waste Fund equals approximately $124 million to be recovered through annual fees.
Because at 1 cast 45 percent is to be collected, the amount charged under Part 3
171 will also 'oe dependent on the number of exemptions granted pursuant to 5.171.11 and the number of new power reactor licenses' issued during the fiscal year.
l l
The following areas are those NRC programs which comprise the annual fee..
They have been expressed in terra.of the NRC's FY 1989 budget program elements and associated activities ~ in lieu of the FY 1988 activities used in the proposed rule..
PROGRAM ELEMENT ACTIVITY
-Reactor Performance Evaluation
-Generic Communications
-Engineering / Safety Assessments
-Reactor Maintenance and
-Maintenance and Surveillance Surveillance
-License Performance Evaluation
-Quality Assurance
-License and Examine Reactor
-Program Development and Assessment /
Operators Regional Oversight
-Generic Activities
'-Region-B,ased Inspections
-Lab and Technical Support
-Regional Assessment
-Specialized Inspections
-Vendor Inspections
-Regulatory Improvements
-Technical Specifications
-Safety Goal Implementation
-Inspection / Licensing Integration and Research and Standards Coordination
-Licensee Reactor Accident
-Concept of Operations and Management Evaluation Implementing Technical Procedures
-Regional Assistance Committees
'N
-Safeguards Licensing and
-Hegulatory Effectiveness Reviews Inspection
-Reactor Vessel and Piping
-Pressure Vessel Safety Integrity
-Piping Integrity
-Inspection Procedures and Techniques
-Chemical Effects I
PROGRAM ELEMENT ACTIVITY l
-Aging of. Reactor Components
-Aging Research
-Reactor Equipment Qualification
-Equipment Qualification Methods
-Seismic and Fire Protection
-Earth Sciences
'Research
-Component Response to Earthquakes
-Validation of' Seismic Analysis
-Seismic Design Margin Methods-1
-Accident Management-
-Individual Plant Examinations
-Ex-Vessel Accident Management
-In-Vessel Accident Management
-External Event Safety Margins
-Reactnr Applications.'.
-Containment / Balance of Plant
-Tochnical 'apport Center
-Nuclear Plant Analyzer / Database /
Simulator
'-Plant Performance
-B&W Testing
-PWR Large Break LOCA Testing
?
-PWR Small Break LOCA Testing
-Other Experimental Programs
-Modeling
-Human Performance
-Human Factors Research
-Human Error Data Collection and Analysis
-Reliability of Reactor Systems
-Performance Indicators
-Plant and Systems Risk and Reliability
-Dependent Failure Analysis
-Core Melt and Reactor Coolant
-Fission Product Behavior System Fa!;1ure and Chemical Form
-Natural Circulation in the
,5 t
-Reactor Containment Safety
-Core Melt Progression and Hydrogen Generation
-Steam Explosion
-Core / Concrete Interactions
-Direct Containment Heating
-Integrated Codes and Applications
-Hydrogen Transport and Combustion
4 a
31 -
PROGRAM ELEMENT-ACTIVITY
-Reactor Accident Risk Analy' sis
-Severe' Accident Management
-Risk model development
-Risk' Uncertainty-Methodology
-Risk Rebaseline Analyses
-Risk-Based Management Methodology
-Severe Accident Program
-Severe Accident Policy Implementation Implementation
)
-Regulatory Application of 1
New Source Terms l
-Radiation Protection and
-Reduce Uncertainty in H2alth Effacts.
Health Risk Estimates
-Health Physics Technology
. Improvements
-Dose reduction
'-Generic and Unresolved Safety
-Engineering Issues Issues
-Reactor System Issues
-Human Factors Issues
-Severe Accident Issues
-Management of Safety Issue Resolution'
-Developing and Improving Regulations
-Regulation Development or Modification
-Independent Review and l.
Control'of Rulemaking
-Regulatory Analysis of-Regulation
. -Rules for License Renewal l
-Safety' Guide Implementation
-Performance Indicators
-Manage Performance Indicator Program
-Diagnostic Evaluations
-Conduct Diagnostic Evaluations of Licensee Performance l
-Incident Investigation
-Management Incident
~~
Investigation Program u
PROGRAM ELEMENT ACTIVITY
-NRC Incident Response
-Emergency Response Data System
" Develop and Maintain Response Center Equipment, Procedures and Analytical Tools
-Program Coordination and Development,
-Operations Officers
-Technical' Training Center
-PWR/BWRTechno1hgyTraining
-Operational Data Analysis.
-Analysis of Operational Experience
-Analysis o'f Operational Trends and Patterns
-Operational Data Collection
, -Collect, Screen and Feed Back and Dissemination Operational Data
-Operational and Reliability Data Systems
-Section Supervis. ion
-Section Supervision Each of these activities is related to providing services to operating nuclear' power plants.
NRC's efforts in each of these areas contribute to the licensees' continued safe operation of their facilities and therefore are of benefit to them.
A broader description of these programs is contained in the NRC's annual budget submission to Congress.
See NUREG-1100, Volume 4, " Budget Estimates FiscaJ Year 1989" (February 1988).1 While these activities also i
1 Copies of NUR"G-1100, Vol. 4 may be purchased from the Superintendent of 3
Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, P.O.
Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.
Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
A copy is also avail-able.for public inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document' Room, 2120 L Street NW., Lower Level of the Gelman Building, Washington, DC.
l
~
i provide benefits-to the public, because they benefit eur licensees, these are -
not " independent public benefits!' as that term is used in user fee ' case law.
Accordingly, it is legally permissible to charge licensees for these services.
Paragraph (c) is being revised to reflect that the basis for each annual fee'will be the budgeted obligations for activities (regulatory services) applicable to each nuclear power reactor'as one of a type or class of reactors,
- e. g., boiling water reactors or pressurized water reactors.
Using this approach, the Commission will, each year, establish the budgeted obligations (including overhead costs) for each activ'ity on a per reactor unit basis, and utablish the total costs for those regulatory services provided to each reactor licensed to operate.
NRC labor costs attributable to these activities will be determined using the hourly rates established on the basis of an analysis'of direct and, indirect (overhead as defined herein) staffing costs attributable to the regulatory services provided.
I Paragraphs (d) and (e) of the current rule are being deleted as super-i fluous to the proposed approach to annu~al' fees.
Supplemental Analysis on Annual Fee Determination Under S 171.15 3
Under current legislation, the NRC is to collect and deposit to the General Fund of the Treasury, an amount to approximate but not be less than 45
~
percent of its budget.
In fiscal yeai 19ts9 the President's budget for the NRC
e 4 is $420.0 million.
Thus, in FY 1989 the NRC should collect at least $189 nillion.
In FY 1989, it is estimated that approximately $50 million will be collected from specific licensees under Part 170, and $15 million from the Department of Energy High-Level. Waste Fund.
Thus, the remaining funds, at least $124 million ($189 million less $65 million), will have to be collected under Part 171.
A multiplier will be used such that the amount to be collected will be equal to Part 170 collections, plus High-Level Waste Fund collections, plus Part 171 potential collections multiplied by a factor "M," which in FY 1989,
~
will probably be less than one.
Thus"M"equalshor.84ofthebudgetbase.
For FY 1989, the budgeted obligations 'by direct program are:
(1)
Salaries and Benefits,
$184.0 million; (2) Administrative Support, $70.0 ctillion; (3) Travel, $12.0 million, and (4) Program Support, $154.0 million.
In FY 1989,1603.4 FTEs are considered to be in direct support of NRC pro-grams applicable to fees (See Table I).
About 337 FTEs are utilized in efforts associated with Part 171, with the remainder being utilized in efforts associated with Part 170, or to be recovered from the DOE Nuclear Waste Fund or other efforts.
Of the ' total 3,180 FTEs,1,577 FTEs will be considered overhead (supervisory and support)'or exempted (due to their program function).
Of the 3,180 FTEs, a total of 291 FTEs and the resulting $23.9 million in support are exempted from the fee base due to the nature of their functions (i.e., enforcement activities and other NRC functions current'y exempted by.
Commission policy).
't
(
-TABLE I l _
.4 Allocation _of Direct FTEs by Office.
Office Number of Direct FTEs1 NRR/SP 968.0 RESEARCH 155.0 NMSS 307.2 AE00 93.0
- ASLAP-5.2 ASLBP-17.0-
- ACRS 25.0 OGC 33.0 1603.4-l 1 Regional. employees are counted in the office of the program each supports.
1 In _ determining' the cost for each direct labor FTE (an FTE whose
{
i position / function is such that it can be identified to a specific licensee or class-of licensees) whose function, in the NRC's judgment, is necessary to the regulatory process,'the following rationale is used:
1.
All such direct FTEs are identified by office, d
I 2.
NRC_ plans, ' budgets, and controls on the following -four major
- categories _(see: Table II):
.2
~..
a.
Salaries and Benefits.
i b.
Administrative Support.
c.
Travel.
d.
Program Support.-
i 3.
Program Support, the use of contract or other services for which the NRC pays for support.from outside the Coms.ission, -is charged to various cate-
- gories as used.
' 4..
'All other costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel', and Administra-tive Support). represent "in-house" costs and are to be collected by allocating them uniformly over the-total number of direct FTEs.
Although this method differs from previous methods for recovery of costs, it is equally as accurate because 1c allocates all "in-house" resource require-ments over the universe of direct FTEs (those staff memb'ers who would be
- billed to licensees based upon work performed either directly for a specific licensee or a specific. group of licensees).
Using this method which was described in the proposed rule and the FY 1989 budget, and excluding budgeted Program Support obligations, the remaining
. TABLE II-j FY 1989 Budget By Major Category i
(5 In Millions) y Salaries and Benefits
$184 Administrative Support 70 Travel 12 Total Non Program Support Obligations
$266 a
Program Support 154 Total Budget
'SPl5 l
The Direct FTE Productive Hourly Rate ($86/ hour rounded down) ) is calculated by dividing the annual nonprogram support costs ($266 million) less the amount i
applicable to-exempted functions ($23.9 million) by the product of the direct l
FTE (1,603.4 FTE) and the number of productive hours in one year-(1,744 hours0.00861 days <br />0.207 hours <br />0.00123 weeks <br />2.83092e-4 months <br />) as indicated in OBM Circular A-76, " Performance of Commercial Activities."
$242 million allocated unifomly to ' he direct FTEs (1603.4) results -in a t
calculation of $150.9 thousand per FTE for FY 1989 (an hourly rate of $86).
1 i
Because Part 171 is desjgned to collect fees for NRC efforts of a generic
- or-multi-license nature concerning licensees with power reactor operating licenses, the most feasible method to accomplish this is to develop fees based i
a on NRC budgeted obligations for each NRC generic or multi-licensee program
,q concerning plants with operating licenses.
Additionally, because many of the j
research programs expend effort for specific types of~ reactors (i.e.,
l 1
Westinghouse, CE, B&W, and GE), containment types (i.e. MARK I, II, III, etc.),
~
- or plants in a ~ specific geographic location (e.g., reactors east of the Reckies),
these parameters were also used in refining NRC cost by
)
reactor / operating license.
Table III presents a summary of Part 171 fees, by reactor category, using the FY 1989 budget for Program Support costs and FTEs.
L 1
i As can be :seen from Table -III, a-reactor which is a B&W reactor, east of the-Rockies would have a fee ($1,592) imposed which is higher than the fee q
($1,121) imposed on a GE Mark I reactor west of the Rockies.
This example also1 represents the normal range of fees to be charged under Part 171 of
$1,121 thousand to $1,592 thousand.
Table IV provides a detailed presenta-tion of the budgeted obligations by budget program element and activity and shows how the annual fees were determined for the various types of reactors.
Table V is a specific-listing of the annual fee to be assessed for each reactor in FY 1989.
I e
m E
4 l
I
TABLE III Part 171 Fees By Reactor Category - Sunmary u
1 (FeesInMillions)
WITH MINOR ADJUSTMENTS FOR PLANTS WEST OF ROCKIES OR WESTINGHOUSE P ICE CONDENSERS THE FOLLOWING APPLY TO PLANT / CONTAINMENT TOTAL TYPE NUMBER BUDGET BASE X.84 FEE COLLECTED GE
' MARK I (24)
$1.349
$1.133
$ 27.19 GE
' MARK II
( 7) 1.443 1.212 8.48
^
GE MAKK III
( 4) 1.373 1.153 4.61 B&W
( 8) 1.896 1.592 12.74 CE (15) 1.391 1.168 17.52 WESTINGHOUSE (48) 1.352-1.135 54.48
'?
106
$125.0 L
FEE BASIS BY VENDOR / CONTAINMENT TYPE-
SUMMARY
(5000)
ALL GE MARK I's (24)*
$1,219 (ALL) 98 (ALL BWR) 18 (MARK I) 14 (EAST OF ROCKIES)-
51,349
]
)
ALL GE MARK II's (7)*
$1,219 (ALL)
'{
98 (ALL BWRs) 70 (MARK II) 42 (MARK II/III) 14 (EAST OF ROCKIES) l 51,443 j
ALL MARK III's (4)*
$1,219
.(ALL) 98 (ALL BWR) 42 (MARK II/III) 14 (EAST OF ROCKIES)
'i 51,373
i
.\\'.
40 TABLE-III (Contd)
'ALL-'B&Ws-(8)*
$1 219 (ALL) 112-(ALL PWR) 7.
(ALL PWR - LDC) 544* -!(ALL B&W) 14~
-(EAST OF ROCKIES) 6 ALL CE's (15)
$1,219 (ALL) 112 (ALL PWR) 7 (ALL PWR-LDC)-
39 (ALL CE).
14 (EAST OF ROCKIES) 51,391
= ALL WESTR!GHOUSE (48)*
'$1,219 (ALL) 112 (ALL PWR) 7**
(ALL PWR-LDC) 14 (EAST OF ROCKIES)
U FEE BASIS BY CATEGORY - SlM4ARY-i (5000)
'ALL PLANTS (106)
$1,219 ALL PWRs 112 t
PWRs with LDC 7
+-
ALL 8&Ws 544 or-ALL CEs 39 ALL BWRs 98
+
ALL MARK I's 18
+
ALL MARK II's 70
+-
ALL MARK II's & III's 42 ALL PLANTS EAST OF ROCKIES (SEISMIC) 14 s
- All except plants west of Rockies which pay $14,000 less C* 8 Westinghouse plants with ice condenser are not charged this $7,000 fee l
l I
L
(<
2,
Table IV FEE BASIS FOR ALL REACTORS - DETAIL (5000)
PTS $
FTE$
' GENERIC (ALL REACTORS) (106)
NRR/SP
$ 4,092
$19,949 AE00' 9,255 13,355 RES (ALL) 29,251 8,149 1RES.(PWRs & BWRs) 36,212 5,915 RES SEISMIC (ALL)-
2,603 438 81,413 47,806
' TOTAL
.$129,219 TOTAL
$129,219 1,219 Per
=
NUMBER REACTORS
=
106-Reactor.
4
% F e e d
i
I FEE-BASIS FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES BY NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM VENDOR AND CONTAINMENT TYPE - DETAIL PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS PTS $
FTE$
.I'51T50)
'(TUUO)
$6,200
$1,720 TOTAL'- PWRs~
=
$7,920 TOTAL
=
$7,920
$111.55 Per
=
71 Reactor i-NSSS (ALL LARGE DRY CONTAINMENT
$335
$105
[LDC] PWRs) (63)
TOTAL-PWR LDCs-
=
$- 440 TOTAL PWR LDCs
=
$ 440
= 46.98 Per NUMBER OF REACTORS "TJ Reactor
=
$3,975
$ 377 TOTAL LDC - B&Ws
$4,352 TOTAL LDC - B&Ws
$4,352 -
$544.00 Per
=
=
NUMBER OF REACTORS
=
8 Reactor NSSS, LDC
.CE ONLY (15)
$475
$105 TOTAL LDC - CEs
$ 580 TOTAL:LDC - CEs
$ 580
=
38.67 Per-
=
~F Reactor BOILING WATER REACTORS
$3,048
$377 TOTAL - BWRs
=
$3,425 TOTAL BWRs
=
3 425
$97.86 Per
~
NUMBER OF REACTORS
=
35 Reactor
- .t '
E PTS $
FTE$
U550)-
IT000)
$ 400
$30 i
TOTAL MARK I
$ 430 TOTAL MARK Is
' =
.$430 -
$17.92 Per
=
NUMBER OF REACTORS F
=
Reactor
$400
$ 90 TOTAL MARK II
$490 I
TOTAL MARK IIs =,
= $ 490
=
$70.00 Per NUMBER OF REACTORS 7
=
Reactor NSSS, BWRs (TOTAL MARK II/ MARK III)
$325
$135 (7/4)
TOTAL MARK II/ MARK III S
$460 TOTAL MARK II/ MARK IIIs
=
$460
$41.82 Per
=
NUMBER OF REACTORS
~TI Reactor SEISMIC WORK - ALL PLANTS
$2,603
$438 TOTAL SEISMIC - ALL PLANTS
$3,041 I
TOTAL SEISMIC ALL PLANTS
$3,041
=
$28.69 Per
=
NUMBER OF REACTORS
=
106 Reactor
' SEISMIC WORK (APPLICABLE PLANTS-
$1,220
$151 l
EAST OF ROCKIES)
TOTAL EAST OF ROCKlES
$1,371 TOTAL EAST OF ROCKIES
$1,371
=
$14.43 Per
=
j NUMBER OF PLANTS 1
=
95 Reactor 1
l l
i
_ 44 TABLE IV-(Contd)
DETAIL ELEMENTS FY 1989 Program Support 7 p FTE l
, Part 171 Work by'NRR GENERIC EFFORT - ALL PLANTS 1
a 1.
Reactor' Performance Evaluation
)
a.
Generic Communications 0
10.5 b.
Engineering / Safety Assessments 387
- 6. 4.
2.
Reactor Maintenance and Surveillance 175 2.2 3.
Licensee Performance Evaluation Quality Assurance Program 0
4.5 4.
License and Examine Reactor Operators' a.
Program Development and Assessment /
0 8.1
-Regional Oversight 5.
Region-Based' Inspections,
a.
' Lab and Technical Support 670 10.6 b.
Regional Assessment 0
0 6.
Specialized Inspections Vendor Inspections ~
815 15.1 l
7.
Section Supervision 0
37.3 1
- 8.. Regulatory Improvements a.
Technical-Specifications 345 11.9 b.
Safety Goal Implementation 0
.6 Generic Issues / Rules / Reg. Guides / Policy.
150 11.4 i
c.
' 9.
Licensee R'eactor Accident Management Evaluation a.
Emergency Procedures 1,115 5.2
- b..
Regional Assistance Committees 0
2.0
.g
- 10.
Safeguards Licensing and Inspection Regulatory Effectiveness Reviews 435 6.4 Total Part 171
$TU92 1T2.7 FTE; 132.2 X $150.9 $19,949 PTS 4,092
' TOTAL'- NRR - (ALL PLANTS)
$2T,041 -
=
i
1 A
45 -
~
'FY 1989 Program Support 5 FTE LPart 171 Work by AE00 GENERIC EFFORT - ALL PLANTS 1.
Diagnostic Evaluations 0
2.0 2.
Incident Investigation 50 2.5
- 3. ~NRC Incident Response 2,635 27.0 4;- Technical Training Center 2,650 22.0
~
- 5.. Operational Data Analysis 2,020 25.0 6.
Performance. Indicators 150 4.0 7.-
Operational Data Collection and Dissemination 1,750 6.0 Total Part 171 Work by AE0D
$9,255 88.5 FTE = 88.5 X $150.9 =
$13,355 PTS 9,255 TOTAL - AE00 = (ALL. PLANTS) = $22,610 E
. e
____.Eh__m_. _.. - - - - - - -
-Part 171 Work by Research A.
Generic Efforts - All Plants PTS $-
,.c mm 1
Agi of teactor Components
'6,245 6.-7 Ag ng Research Reactor Equipment Qualifications -
400
.3
~ Equipment Qualification Methods
-Component Response'to Earthquakes 2,460 2.6
-Validation of Seismic Analysis 1,200 1.0-Seismic Design Margin Methods 350
.7 Prevent Reactor Core Damage 200
.3 e 'Other Experimental Programs o-Modeling 50 0
j Human Performance -
o' Human Factors Research 3,020 3.8 o Human Error Data Collections 936 1.2 and Analysis.
Reliability of Reactor System -
800 1.5 Performance Indicators Diant'&SystemRisk& Reliability 1,411
'2.4 IDependant Failure Analysis
~
225
.2 Individual Plant Exams 1,490 1.1 Reactor Containment 2,970 2.3 Structural Integrity l
' Regulatory Application of 25' 1.0 New Source Terms 1
J
'Rediation Protection of Health Effects -
835
- 1. 8 Reduce uncertainty in Health Risk Estimates Health Physics Technology 415 1.5 Improvements i
E
47 -
- \\,
~
PTS $-
FTE N)
. Dose Reduction 825
- 1. 5
- Generic and Unresolved Safety Issues 790 6.2 Reactor System Issues 150 1.2
-Human Factors Issues 1,000 1.3
. Severe Accident Issues.
370 1.0 Management of Safety Issues 300
- 6. 5 Resolution Regulation Development and Modification 350 2.9
-Regulatory Analysis of Regulations 1,044 3.0 Rule for License Renewal 1,190 1.0 Safaty Goal Implementation 200
- 1. 0 Generic Efforts - All Reactors - TOTAL = $29,251 54.0 m
t a
'k i
\\
E '
1 B.:. Generic ~ Efforts - All Plants Except HTGR PTS $--
FTE IT665)
J Integrity of Reactor Component -
Reactor Vessel & Piping Integrity -
~
Pressure Vessel Safety 8,195
- 2. 6
- t Piping Integrity ~
1,385
.5 q-Inspection Procedures and Techniques 1,280
.9 1
Chemical Effects 2,050 4.0 Aging of Reactor Components -
. Aging Research-950.
1.1 Reactor Equipment Qualification -
Standards' Development 455
.4 Prevent Reactor Core Damage - Modeling 450
.4
. Reactor Applications - Containment / Balance 460 1.0
-of Plant
~
Technica1-Support Center 1,050
- 1. 2 NPA/ Database / Simulator 400
.8
' Accident Management - Ex-Vessel 1,050'
- 1. 5 Accident Management In-Vessel Accident Management 1,400
- 1. 5
' External Events Safety Margins 325
.4 Core Melt Progression and H2 Generation 3,820
- 1. 8 Natural Circulation in the RCS 690
- 1. 0
' Steam Explosions 185 0
Fission Froduct Behavior and Chemical Form 990
.8
. Reactor. Containment Safety -
1,750
.8 Core Concrete Interaction Hydrogen Transport and combustion 650
- 1. 0
.I
. 4 PTS $'.
. Integrated Codes and Applications 2,762
' 2.1 Reactor Accident Risk Analysis -
~
' Assessment of Plant Risks 300
.5 Risk Model. Development, QA and Maintenance 2,025
- 3. 0 Risk Model Applications 2,690 2.0 Severe Accident Policy Implementation 200
.6 Regulatory Application'of New Source Term 125 5.0 Generic and Unresolved _ Safety Issues -
75
.6 Engineering Issues Reactor System Issues 500 3.7 TOTAL (PWRs & BWRs)
$36,212 39.2 1
i 1
e i
1 j
l l
L
50 '
j C.
Seismic - All Plants PTS $
' Seismic.and' Fire Protection -
2,270 '
- 1. 8 Earth Sciences Reactor Accident Risk Analysis -
273
.5 1
Assessment of Plant Risks Resolve Safety Issues and 60
.6 Developing Regulations -
Engineering Issues EMI TI
- TOTAL $3,041k D.
Seismic - Plants East of Rockies Seismic and Fire Protection -
1,220
- 1. 0 Earth Sciences E.
Seismic - Plants West of Rockies TOTAL = $0 0
0 8
s e
G
_m____
______e._______
O
' F.
Nuclear Steam Supply System (PWR only)
PTS $
FTE Integrity of Reactor Component Piping Integrity 100 0
Inspection Procedures and Techniques 170
.1 Prevent Reactor Core Damage -
PWR Large Break LOCA Testing 1,000
.9 PWR Small Break LOCA Testing 300
.4 Modeling 1,700 1.5 Core Malt Progression and H2 Generation 300
.2
~
4 Fission Product Behavior and Chemical Form 300
.2 Direct Containment Heating 1,620 1.0 Resolving Safety Issues and Developing 235 2.4 Regulations - Engineering Issues Reactor System Issues 475 4.7 TOTAL NSSS - PWR Only
$6,200 11.4 G.
NSSS - All Large Dry Containments - (PWRs ONLY)
PTS $'
FTE TTUUU)
Severe Accident Implementation -
Sevene Accident Policy Implementation 225
.6 Resolving Safety Issues and Developing Regulations - Reactor 110
.1 Systems Issues 335.
7 H.
NSSS PWR LDC -(Westinghouse only) 0 0
I
~
'4
- n I..
PTS $
FTE N)
Prevent Reactor Core Damage -
Plant Performance - B&W Testing 3,500
- 1. 8 Reactor Accident Risk Analysis -
' Assessment of Plant Risks 475
.7
$3,975
- 2. 5 i?
'J.
NSSS CE - Large Dry Containments Reactor Accident Risk Analysis -
475
.7
?
Assessment Plant Risks s'
d 4
K.
PTS $
FTE IlDUU)
~~~
Integrity of Reactor Component
= Piping Integrity 1,080 *
.5 Prevent Reactor Core Damage -
800
.7 Modeling Reactor Containment Safety -
1,128
.9 Integrated Codes and Applications Resolve Safety Issues 40'
.4
. $ 3,048 2.5 L.
GE - MARK I Reactor Containment Safety -
400
.2 Core / Concrete Interactions M.
GE - MARK II Reactor Accident Risk Analysis -
400
.6 Assessment of Plant Risks N.
GE - MARK II & III Severe Accident Implementation 6 -
325
.9 Severe Accident Policy Implementation.
The costs to NRC for these programs should be paid for on a prorata basis, by all plants included in the specified categories.
By adding the program support costs to the NRC staff cost for each category of effort and prorating these costs over the population (plants) of that category, a fee is established
- hich requires those licensees who require the greatest expenditure of NRC resources to pay the largest annual fee.
l 1
54 -
TABLE V ANNUAL FEES FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS FY 1989 Westinghouse Reactors Containment Type Annual Fee 1.
Beavsr Valley 1 PWR-Large Dry Containment
$1,135,000 2.
Beaver Valley 2 1,135,000 3.
Braidwood 1 1,135,000 4.
Braidwood 2 1,135,000 5.
Byron 1 1,135,000 6.
Byron 2 1,135,000 7.
Callaway 1 1,135,000 8.
Diablo Canyon 1 1,124,000 9.
Diablo Canyon 2 1,124,000 10.
Farley 1 1,135,000 11.
Farley 2 1,135,000 12.
Ginna 1,135,000 13.
Haddam Neck 1,135,000 14.
Harris 1 1,135,000 15.
Indian Point 2 1,135,000 16.
Indian Point 3 1,135,000 17.
Kewaunee 1,135,000 18.
Millstone 3 1,135,000 19.
North Anna 1 1,135,000 20.
North' Anna 2 1,135,000 21.
Point Beach 1 1,135,000 22.
Point Beach 2 1,135,000 23.
Prairie Island 1 1,135,000 24.
Prairie Island 2 1,135,000 25.
Robinson 2 1,135,000 26.
Salem 1 1,135,000 27.
Salem 2 1,135,000 28.
San Onofre 1 1,124,000 29.
Sesbrook 1 1,135,000 30.
South Texas 1 1,135,000 31.
Summer 1 1,135,000 32.
Surry 1 1,135,000 33.
Surry 2 1,135,000
.g 34.
Trojan 1,124,000 35.
Turkey Point 3 1,135,000 36.
Turkey Point 4 1,135,000 37.
Vogtle 1 1,135,000 38.
Wolf Creek 1 1,135,000
~
39.
Zion 3 1,135,000 40.
Zion 2 1,135,000 41.
Catawba 1 PWR-Ice Condenser 1,130,000 42.
Catawba 2 1,130,000
17
- 43. ~ Cook 1 44.
Cook 2:
1,130,000' l
45.
McGuire 1 1,130,000.
- 46. LMcGuire 2 1,130,000
.47.
Sequoyah 1 1,130,000' 148.. Sequoyah 2 1,130,000 1,130,000 Combustion Encineerina Reactors Containment Type Annual Fee
.1.
Arkansas 2 PWR-Large Dry Containment
$1,168,000
- 2. -
Calvert Cliffs.1 3.
Calvert Cliffs 2 1,168,000
. 4. -
Ft. Calhoun.1 1,168,000 5.
Maine: Yankee 1,168'000 6.
Millstone 2 1,168,000 7.
Palisades 1,168,000 8.
Palo-Verde 1 1,168,000 1,157,000 9..
Palo Verde 2-110.. Palo Verde 3 1,157,000-11.
San Onofre 2 1,157,000
- 12.. San Onofre'3 1,157,000
- 13. :St.-Lucie'l 1,157,000 14.
St. Lucie 2 1,168,000 15.
Waterford 3 1,168,000' 1,168,000 i
- Babcock & Wilcox, Reactors 1.
- Arkansas 1
- 2... ' Crystal River 3-.
PWR-Lirge Dry Containment 1,592,000 3.
Davis Besse 1 1,592,000 1,592,000 4.
Oconee 1 5.
Oconee 2 1,592,000.
1,592,000 6..
Oconee 3.
1,592,000 7.
Rancho Seco 1 8.
Three Mile Island 1 1,581,000
.1,592,000 General Electric Plants T
1.
Browns Ferry 1 Mark I 1,133,060 2.
Browns Ferry 2 1,133,000 3.
Browns Ferry 3 1,123,000 4..
Brunswick 1 1,133,0uG 5.
Brunswick 2 1,133,000 6.
Clinton 1 Mark III 1,153,000 7.
Cooper Mark I 1,133,000 t
.- m.- - _
_____._m.m
-__._____.___._mm___
_________m
-__._m_.__.
d
. 8.-
Dresden 2 1,133,000 9.
.Dresden 3~
1,133,000
- 10. Duane Arnold 1,133,000 1,133,000
. 11.
Fermi 2 12.
Fitzpatrick 1,133,000 13.
Grand Gulf 1 Mark III 1,153,000
~
- 14. Hatch 1~
Mark -I 1,133,000 15.
Hatch 2 1,133,000 16.
Hope Creek 1-1,133,000 17.
LaSalle 1-Mark II 1,212,000 18.
LaSalle 2 Mark II 1,212,000 19.
Limerick 1 1,212,000
- 20. Millstone 1 Mark I 1,133,000
-21.1 Monticello-1,133,000 22.
Nine Mile Point 1 1,133,000 23.
Nine Mile Point 2 Mark II
- 1,212,000
- 24. Oyster Creek' Mark I 1,133,000
- 25. Peach Bottom 2 1,133,000 26.
Peach Bottoir 3 1,133,000 27.
Perry 1 Mark III 1,153,000
- 28.. Pilgrim 1 Mark I 1,133,000
- 29. -Quad Cities 1 1,133,000
-30.
Quad Cities 2.
1,133,000 31.
River Bend 1 Mark III 1,153,000-32.
Susquehanna 1 Mark II 1,212,000 33.
Susquehanns 2 1,212,000 34.. Vermont Yankee Ma rk I.
1,133,000 35.
Washington Nuclear 2 Mark II 1,200,000 1
Other Reactors 1.
Three Mile I'sland 2 B&W-PWR-Dry Containment 1,592,000-2.
Shoreham GE-Mark II 1,212,000 1.
3.
Big Rock Point GE-Dry Containwer.
1,118,000 4.
Yankee Rowe-Westinghouse-PWR-Dry 1,135,000 Containment 5.
Ft. St. Vrain High Temperature Gas Cooled 822,000 These licensea reactors have not been included in the fee base since historically they have been granted either full or partial exemptions from the annual fees.
The fees shown for these reactors are those fees for the,
particular type' of reactor, no adjustments have been made based on size or particular circumstance of the reactor.
Nonetheless, unless full waivers are granted, these licensees will pay at least a portion of the amount specified above.
1
a Section 171.21 Refunds.
This section is being eliminated.
Under current legislation, at least 45 percent should be collected.
No refunds will be provided, although the fees will be. calculated in such a manner as to not greatly exceed the 45 percent floor imposed by the legislation.
V.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
VI.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule contains no information collection requirements and, I
therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
\\
9 VII.
Regulatory Analysis Section 7601 of COBRA required the NRC, by rule, to establish an annual charge for regulatory services provided to its applicants and licensees, that j
. when added to other amounts collected, equaled up to 33 percent of Comission costs in providing those services.
Section 5601 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 requires that the NRC, for the fiscal years 1988 and 1989, increase the moneys collected pursuant to section 7601 and other authority to at least 45 percent of the Commission's costs.
For FY 1988, the NRC issued an interim rule which raised the collection of annual fees to be at least 45 percent of its budget and accordingly raised the annual fee for operating power reactors.
For FY 1989 the NRC is revising its fee schedules in 10 CFR Part 170 to remove the fee ceilings'on certain categories, to revise its professional hourly rate to reflect inflationary and other increases since FY 1981, to revise the ceiling of 33 percent contained in 10 CFR Part 171 to a target which approximates but will be at least 45 percent, and to include the coll'ection of moneys from the High. Level Waste Fund administered by the Departme.nt of Energy.
This final rule will, not have significant impacts on state and local governments and g'eographic.a1 regions; on health,
- safety, and the environment; or, create substantial costs to licensees, the NRC, or other Federal agencies'. The foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for this final rule.
t VIII.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact
. i l
on a substantial number of small entities.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 27,1988 (53 FR 24085), the NRC invited any li-censee who considered itself to be a small entity subject to this regulation who determines that, because of its size, it is likely to bear a dispropor-tionate adverse economic impact to notify the Comission by providing responses to four general questions.
The proposed rule was mailed to approximately 10,000 licensees under 10 CFR Parts 30-35, 39, 40, 50, 60, 61 and 70-73. About 9,000 of these licensees could be considered small entities, particularly in the area of materials licensing under 10 CER Parts 30-35 and 39.
Of the 32 letters of coments received, only twelve were from licensees in the materials category and interest area.
Of the twelve, only one licensee addressed the four. questions on the impact as a small entity. This commenter was concerned that the removal of ceilings for topical reports, dry storage systems, and t
transport packages would have a much greater impact on that company than it would on a larger company and place an unfair competitive burden on small entities.
It is readily recognized that this final rule will cause some licensees to pay more fees for topical report reviews and other services.
However, the financial impact is related to the services provided by the NRC.
j ThG size of the licensee is not a factor in the costs imposed.
Based upon the
)
j number of. coments received on the proposed rule and on analysis of these coments, the NRC believes that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
I
L
(
L IX.
Backfit Analysis l
.The NRC has determinea that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not-apply to this' final rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is _not required for it because the final rule does not impose any new, more stringent safety requirements on Part 50 licensees.
i X.
List of Subjects 1
Part 170 - Byproduct material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and
\\
reactors, Penalty, Source material, Special nuclear material.
1 Part 171 - Annual charges, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 170 and l71.
PART 170 - FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER. REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC E,NERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED 1.
The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:
I
1
{
- 61'--
l
= AUTHORITY:
31 U.S.C.
9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301,. Pub. L.92-314,
)
86-. Stat. 222-(42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201', 88 Stat.,1242,' as amended (42 U.S.C.
l 5841).
l l
2.
. In i 170.12, paragraphs (b) through-(g) are revised to read as follows:
6-170.12 Payment of fees.
o i
(b)
License fees.
Fees. for applications for permits and licenses that are subject to fees based on the full cost of the reviews are payable upon notification by the Commission.
Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant has on file for review by the Commission until' the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications, and costs related to each.
Fees for applications for materials license.s not subject,to full cost recovery must accompany the application when it is filed.
N (c) Amendment fees and other required approvals.
Fees for applications for license amendments, other required approvals 'and requests for dismantling, decommissioning and termination of licensed activities that are subject.to full cost recovery are payable upon notification by the Comission.
Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs for each i
- ~ - - _ _. _ - - _ - _ - - _ - _ _ - -. _ _. -. _. - - _ _ _.. _. _
...-___-.___-_.____--__--..--____,.z_-..._--__.-__.__.___$__--___._-__-------.
l.
application the applicant basron file for review by the Comission, until the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and costs related to each.
Amendment fees for materials licenses and approvals not subject to full; cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.
l (d)
Renewal fees.
Fees ~ for applications for renewals that are subject to full cost of the review are payable upon notification by the Comission.
Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals for all accumulated costs on each application that the applicant has on" file for review by the Comission until the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.
Renewal fees for materials licenses and approvals not s'ubject to full cost reviews must accompany the application when it is filed.
(e) Approval fees.
(1) Applications for transportation casks, packages, and shipping container approvals, spent fuel storage facility design approvals, and construction approvals for plutonium fuel processing and fabrication plants must be accompanied by an application fee of $150.
t h
(2) There is no application fee for standardized design approvals.
The review fees for facility reference standardized design approvals and certifi-I cations will be paid by the holder of the design'approvel or certification in five (5) installments based on payment of 20 percent of the application and approval / certification fee (see footnote 4 to 9170.21) as each of the first
. f five units of the approved / certified design is referenced in an, application (s) filed by a utility or utilities.
If the design (s) is'not referenced or if all costs are not recovered within 5 years ~after the preliminary design approval (PDA) or the final _ design ap' proval (FDA), the vendor applicant will pay the costs, or remainder of those costs, at that time.
If the design is certified, j
I the five-year deferral period is extended to ten years from the certification j
l with the same proviso that 20. percent of the costs will be payable each time j
the design is referenced.
(3)
Fees for other applications that are subject to full cost reviews are j
payable upon notification by the Commission.
Each applicant will be billed at six-month intervals. un'til the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.
Fees for applications for materials approvals that are not subject to full cost reccvery must accompany 1
the application when it is fileo.
1 j
J (f)
Special project fees.
Fees.for applications for special projects such as topical reports, are based on full cost of the reviews and are payable upon' notification by the Commission.
Each applicant will be billed at
,5 six-month intervals until the review is completed.
Each bill will identify the applications and the costs related to each.
All applications filed pursuant to 5 170.31 must be accompanied by the $150 application fee.
4
-____._____________?_._.-___..._______
_.___.________.______.a
- i. {
(g)
Inspection fees.
Fees for all routine and non-routine inspections will be assessed on a per inspection basis, and will be billed quarterly if they are based on full cost recovery.
Inspection fees for small materials pro-grams are billed upon completion of the inspection.
Inspection fees are payable upon notification by the Commission.
Inspection costs include prepar-ation time, time on site and documentation time and any associated contractual service costs but exclude the time involved in the processing and issuance of a notice of violation or civil penalty.
e 3.
Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:
6 170.20 - Averace cost per professional staff-hour.
Fees for permits,
- licenses, amendments,
- renewals, special
- projects, Part 55 requalification and replacement examinations and tests, other required i
approvals and inspections under il 170.21, 170.31 and 170.32 will be calculated based upon the full costs for the review using a professional staff rate per N
]
hour equivalent to the sum of the average cost to the agency for a professional staff member, including salary and benefits, 6 administrative support and travel.
The professional staff rate will be revised on a fiscal tear basis using the most current fiscal data available and the revised hourly rate will be
4 1
65 -
l published in the Federal Register for each fiscal _ year if the rate increases or-i l
decreases.
The professional-staff rate for the NRC.for FY 89 is $86~ per hour.
j 4.-
Section 170.21 is revised to read as follows:
l l
6 170.21 Schedule of fees for production and utilization facilities, review of standard reference design approvals, special projects, and inspections.
Applicants for construction permits., manufacturing licenses, operating
' licenses, approvals of facility standard reference designs, requalification and replacement examinations for reactor operators, and special projects and J
i holders of construction permits, licenses, and other approvals shall pay fees for the following categories of services.
I
~
m
)
s l e
' \\
SCHEDULE OF FACILITY FEES (See footnotes at end of table)
Facility categories and type of fees Fees,2 1
A.
Nuclear Power Reactors Application for Construction Permit.................................
$125,000 Construction Pe rmit, Operating License.............................. Full Cost Amendment, Renewal, Dismantling-Decommissioning and Te rmi nati on, Other Approval s...................................... Ful l Cos t I,nspections3........................................................
Full Cost B.
Standard Reference Design Review 4 Preliminary Design Approvals, Final Design Approval s, certi fi cation.........'............... $................. Ful l Cost Amendment, Renewal, Other Approval s................................. Ful l Cost N
l 1
1
4 C.
Test Facility /Research Reactor / Critical Facility
]
Application for Construction Permit................................
$ 5,000' Construction Permit,~0perating License.............................
Full Cost
{
Amendment, Renewal, Dismantling, Decommissioning and Termination, Other Approvals..........."..........................
Full Cost
)
l j
Inspections 8..................................................'......
Full Cost i
D.
Manufacturing License i
i J
lApplication.........................................................
$125,000 Preliminary Design Approval, Final Design Approval.................. Full Cost 7
Amendment,, Renewal, Othe r Approval s................................. Full Cost j
Inspections 3........................................................ Full Cost
)
q k
3 E.
Uranium Enrichment Plant 1
j i
Application for Construction Permit.................................
$125,000
-Construction Permit, Operating License............................... Full Cost i
S Amendment, Renewal, Other Approvals................................. Full Cost Inspections 8........................................................ Full Cost 4
. e F.
Advanced Reactors.
Application for Construction' Permit.................................
$125,000 Construction Permit, Operating License.............................. Full Cost Amendment,- Renewal, Other Approval s................................. Full Cost.
Inspections 8........................................................ Full Cost G.
Other Production and Utilization Facility 4
' Application for Construction Permit.................................
$125,000 Construction Permit, Operating License.............................. Full cost Amendment, Renewal, Other Approvals................................. Full Cost Inspections 8........................................................ Full Cost H.
Production or Utilization Facility Permanently Closed Down Inspections 8........................................................ Full Cost I
1 l
I.
Part 55 Reviews 1
1 Requalification and Replacement Examinations for l
Reacto r Ope ra to rs................................................. Ful l Co s t s
t.
-,g3
. f' *
. m
' J.
Special Projects Approvals........................................................... Full Cost 1 Fees will not'be charged for orders issued by the Commission pursuant to
'S 2.204 of 'this chapter nor for amendments resultkng specifically from 'such Commission orders.
Fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a j
specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., $$ '50.12, 73.5), and any other sec-i tions now or hereafter in effect regardless of whether the approval. is in
-]
the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other ' form.
Fees for licenses in this schedule that are initially issued for '.less than full power are based on -review through the issuance of a full power license (generally full power is considered 100% of the facility's full rated power).
Thus, if a lice,nsee received a low power license or a temporary license,for less than full power and subsequently receives full power authority
-(by way of license amendment or' otherwise), the total costs for the license will be determined through that period when authority is granted for full power
.q operation.
If a situation ar.ises in which the Commission determines that full operating power for a particular facility should be less than 100% of full rated power, the total costs for the license will be at that decided lower operating' power level and not at the 100% capacity.
~~
i
)'
2 All charges will be based on expenditures for professional staff time and appropriate contractual support.' services.
However, in no' event will the charges be less than the application fee or, where no application' fee is speci-fied, will charges be 1.ess than $150.
For those applications currently on
~ file, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the' application l
t Lup to the effective date of this rule will be determined at the professional rates established for the June 20, 1984 rule.
For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling estab-lished by the June 20, 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the costs incurred after.the ceiling was reached up to the effective date cf this rule will not be billed to the applicant.
Any professional hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the rate established by S 170.20.
This rate will be reviewed and adjusted annually as necessary'to take into consideration increased or decreased costs to the Com-mission.
If such rate increases or decreases in a given fiscal year, the new rate will be published in the Federal Register.
In the event a review covers a combination of licensing actions in a one-step licensing process such as a combined construction permit and operating license. review (interim, temporary, or other), the fees charged will be the. total of the costs for the licensing action.
N 8 Inspections covered by this schedule are both routine and non-routine safety and safeguards inspections performed by NRC for the purpose of review or followup of a licensed program.
Inspections are performed throughout the full term of the license to ensure that the authorized activities are being l
i 1
n.
1 conducted in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, other legislation, Commission regulations or orders, and the terms and conditions of the license.
Non-routine inspections that msult from third party allegations will not be subject to fees.
I 4 Collection of. the review costs for a preliminary design approval (PDA) and final design approval (FDA) are deferred, respectively, for a period of five years from the approval; except that, if the design is referenced during l
that period, 20 percent of the total costs wit 1 be payable by the holder of the design approval or certificate as each' reference 'is made util the full costs are paid.
If the design is certified, the five year deferral period is extended to 10 years from the certification, with the same proviso that 20 per-cent of the costs will be payable each time the. design is referenced.
In the event the full costs are not recovered by the and of the applicable deferral period, the holder of the design approval or certif5cate must pay the remainder of any costs not previously terwered by the NRC. # applications for amendments to PDAs, FDAs and certifications are subject to fuiFi costs and will be billed upon completion of the review.
h
$ b g
e s
i l
.- j 5.
Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:
~
s I
l S 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services, l
including inspections.
Applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services and holders of materials licenses shall pay fees for the following categories of services.
This schedule includes fees for health'and safety, and safeguards inspections, where applicable.
SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES (See footnotes at end of table)
Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 2
Fee
,3 1.
Special Nuclear Material:-
A.
Licenses for possession and use of 200 grams or more of plutonium in unsealed form or
'N 350 grams or more of contained U-235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more of U-233 in unsealed form.
This~ includes applications to terminate licenses and to authorize I
i
n
'{
4 i
{ '
1 decommissioning,' decontamination, rec 1&mation, i
i or site' restoration activities as well as.
I licenses authorizing possession only:
1 L
i
~
Application....................................
$ 150 1
License, Renewal, Amendment....................
Full Cost j
Inspections:
i i
Routine...................................
Ful'1 Cost l
Nontoutine.................................
Full Cost i
B.
Licenses for receipt and storage of spent.
I 1
\\
fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI):
{
l App l i c at%n....................................
$ 150 i
License, Renewal, Amendment....................
Full Cost j
Inspections:.
Routine...................................
Full Cost Nonroutine................................
Full Cost i
N C.
Licenses.for possession and use of special nuclear material in realed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems:4
__a
o 1'
1 Application - New' license......................
$ 230-Renewal........................................
$~ 120 Amendment......................................
60 1
Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 210 Nonroutine...............................
$ 640 1
1
~D.
All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in unsealed form in combination I
that would' constitute a critical quantity, as defined in S 150.11 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same-fees as those for Category 1A: 4 Application
,New-license......................
$ 350
~ Renewal.......................................
$ 350 Amendment.......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 320 8
Nonroutine.......................,,........
$ 370
1 2.
Source material:
i A.
Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, ore buying stations, 3
ion exchange facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or. thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery i
operations, and licenses authorizing deconinissioning, reclamation or restoration activities as well as licenses authorizing
-l l
the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode:
3 Application....................................
150 Lic'ense, Renewal, Amendment....................
Full Cost Inspections:
Routine...................................
Full Cost Nonrouti ne................................
Ful l Co st
B.
Licenses for possession and use of source material for shielding, except as provided for in S 170.11(a)(8):
Application - New license......................
60 Renewal........................................
60 Amendment......................................
60 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 130 Nonroutine............'....................
$ 160 C.
All other source material licenses:
Application - New license......................
$ 350 Renewal........................................
$ 230 i
Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine............'...........*...........
$ 370 Nontoutine................................
$ 690 3.
Byproduct material:
i A.
Licenses lof broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to l
'j
~
Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter _for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct
{
material for commercial distribution to licensees:
Application - New license.....................:
$1,200 j
. Renewal........................................
$ 700 I
Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections: 5 j
l Routine...................................
$ 950 Nonroutine.............'...................
$1,000 LB.
Other licenses for possession and use of t
byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution to licensees:
Application - New license......................
$ 460 Renewal........................................
$ 460 s
Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:s Routine...................................
$ 480
~~
Nonroutine................................
$ 900
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^
4,.
l L
C.-
Licenses issued pursuant to il 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing.
and distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material:
Application - New License......................
$1,400 Renewal........................................
$1,400 Amendment......................................
$ '230 Inspections:
Routine....................................
$ 640 Nonroutine................................
$ 850 D.
Licenses and approvals issued pursuant to il 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of Part 32 oft $is'chapterauthorizingdistribution-of radiopharmaceuticals, generntors, reagent kits and/or sources or. devices not 3
involving processing of byproduct.;aterial:
Application - New License......................
$ 700 Renewal......................................,
s 700 Amendment......................................
120
____-__-_-__-----_--_---------------------A
H
. 79 4
Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 370 Nonroutine................................
$ 530 E.
Licenses for possession and use of byproduct u
L material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units):
. Application - New License../...................
$ 230 Renewal........................................
$ 170 Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine..................................
$ ~210 Nonroutine................................
$ 320 F. -
Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct. material in sen. led sources for irradiation of materials 11n which the source is exposed for irradiation 3
purposes:
I ti j
Application - New License......................
$ 580
{
Renewal........................................
$ 350 Amendment......................................
$ 230
-^~
~
Inspections:
Routine.............................
$ 270 Nonroutine.................................
$ 580 G.
Licenses.for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source.is exposed for irradiation purposes:
Application - New License......................
$2,300 Renewal........................................
$ 930 Amendment......................................
$ 230 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 480 Nonroutine................................
$ 640 H.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this
~
chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been
authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:
Appli^ cation - New License......................
$ 580 Renewal........................................
$ 230-Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 320 Nonroutine.............'...................
$ 320 I.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart A of'
/
Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses
- authorizing redistribution of items that l
have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter 1
l 6
Application - New License......................
$ 290 Renewal........................................
$ 230 Amendment......................................
60 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 210
\\
Nonroutine.................................
$ 320 J.
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing
' redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:
Application - New License......................
$1,200 Renewal........................................
$ 700
.g Amendment......................................
$ 230 Inspections:
Routin'e...................................
$ 320
~~
Nontoutine................................
$ 320
E
- it I
K.:
Licenses issued pursuant to Subpart B of o
l Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require-l l
sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter:
Application - New License......................
$ 290
/
' Renewal........................................
$ 230 Amendment......................................
60 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 320 Nonroutine................................
$ 320 L.
. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research.
and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:
~~
8
i
)
s ~
i Application - New License......................
$1,200 Renewal........................................
$ 700 Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 420 Nonroutine...........'....................
$ 530 M.
Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:
Application - New License......................
$ 700 Renewal........................................
$ 460 Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine..;................................
$ 370 Nontoutine.....,..............,...........
$ 420 N.
Licenses that authorize services for other
.g licensees, except for leak testing and waste disposal pickup services:
Application - New License......................
$ 930 Renewal........................................
$ 930
Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 320 Nonroutine................................
$ 320 0.
. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued pursuant to Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations:
Application
.New License..:...................
$ 700 Renewal........................................
$' 700
' Amendment......................................
$ 230 Inspections:s Routine...................................
$ 530 Nontoutine................................
$1,200 P.
All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories,4A through 90:.
Application - New License......................
$ 230 9
Renewal........................................
$ 120 l
Amendment..........................
60 Insputions:
Routine...................................
$ 530 j
Nonroutine................................
$ 530 I
I 4..
Waste disposal:
A.
Licenses specifica11y' authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material or special nuclear material from other persons for
~
the purpose of commercial disposal by land burial by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for treatment or disposal1 by incineration, packaging of residues resulting from incineration and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material:
l Application....................................
$ 150 License, renewal, amendment....................
Full Cost Inspections:
Routine.......................:...........
Full Cost Nontoutine................................
Full Cost N
B.
Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of
~
waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the I
L__
-.87 -
material.
The licensee will dispose of the material _ by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material:
Application -.New License......................
$1,400 Renewal........................................
$ 930 Amendment......................................-
$ 350 Inspections:
Routine....................................
$1,000 Nonroutine............'....................
$ 740 C.
Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source
' material, or special nuclear material -from other persons.
The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer ~to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material:
1 Application - New License......................
$ 930 Renewal........................................
$ 460 s
Amendment...............................'.......
$ 120
']
Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 740
]
i Nonroutine................................
$ 950
]
{
5.
Well logging:
4 l
A.
Licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies:
I I
Application - New License..:...................
$ 700 Renewal........................................
$ 700
{
Amendment......................................
$ 170 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 370
?
Nonroutine................................
$ 370 B.
Licenses specifically authorizing use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies:
Application........'.....'...........".'..........
$ 150 License, renewal, amendment....................
Full Cost Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 320 Nonroutine................................
$ 480 1
' i
- 89 6..
Nuclear laundries:.
A.
. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or_special nuclear material:
Application - New License......................
$ 700 Renewal........................................
$ 700 Amendment......................................
$ 170 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 530 Nonroutine................................
$ 850 7.
Human use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material:
A.
Licenses issued pursuant to Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source materiaic or s'pecial nuclear
'aterial in sealed sources contained in teletherapy t
m devices:
N 9 s Application - New License......................
$ 580 Renewal........................................
$ 350 l
Amendment......................................
i$" 230 i
' Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 530
-Nonroutine................................
$ 850 B.
Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians pursuant t'o Parts 30, 33, 35, 40 and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or
~
special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices:
1 Application - New License......................
$1,200 Renewal........................................
$ 700 Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine.......................'...........
$ 740 Nontoutine................................
$ 800 C.
Other licenses issued pursuan.t to Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70_of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear
~~
material, except licenses for byproduct material, t
o.
p 4
source material, or special nuclear material in sealed' sources contained in teletherapy devices:
Application - New License......................
$ 580 Renewal........................................
$ 580 Amendment......................................
$ 120 Inspections:
Routine...................................
$ 480 Nonroutine................................
$ 690 8.
Civil defense:
A.
, Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities:
1 Appl i ca ti o n - N'ew Li ce ns e......................
$' 290 g
Renewal.............'...........................
$ 230 Amendment......................................
60 Inspections:
1 Routine...................................
$ 320 Nonroutine................................
$ 320 9.
Device, product or sealed source safety evaluation:
. A.
Safety-evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material,
- or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution:
Application - each device......................
$1,600
~ Amendment - each device........................
$ 580 Inspections....................................
None B.
Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in
,accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices:
Application - each device......................
$ 800 Amendment - each device.......................
$ 290 t
Inspections.....................................
None N
4 C.
Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing I
byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for
\\
commercial distribution:
\\
L Application - each source......................
$ 350 Amendment - each source........................
$ 120 Inspections....................................
None D.-
Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing
~
b'yproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by a single applicant, except reactor fuel:
Application - each source.......................
175 Amendment - each source..........................
60 Inspections....................................
None
- 10. Transportation of~ radioactive material:
A.
Evaluation of casks, packages, and shipping containers:
Application....................................
150 Approval, Renewal, Amendment....................
Full Cost Inspections....................................
None B.
Evaluation of Part 71 quality assurance programs:
Application....................................
150 Approval, Renewal, Amendment....................
Full Cost
4
'O l
Inspections....................................
None i
l a
11.
Review of standardized spent fuel facilities:
Application....................................
$ 150 Approval, Amendment, Renewal...................
Full Cost
, Inspections....................................
None 12.
Special projects:
w,
,e
, ~,.
Application....................................
$ 150 a cve,<c45
's Approval.......................................
Full Cost
~'
Inspections....................................
None q
w.
l 1
Types of fees - Separate c.harges as shown in the schedule will be i
assessed for applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new j
1 1
licenses and approvals, and amendments and renewals to existing licenses and
,5 approvals and inspections.
The following guidelines apply to these ' charges:
(a) Application fees - Applications for new materials licenses and approvals or those applications filed in support of expired 1teenses and l
a
Q,
approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category, except that' applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source material must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category.
(b)
License / approval fees - For new licenses and. approvals issued in fee Categories 1A and 1B, 2A, 4A, 58,10A,108,11 and 12. the recipient shall pay the license or approval fee as determined by the Comission in accordance with i170.12(b),(e),and(f).
(c) Renewal fees - Applications for renewal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except.tha't applications for renewal of licenses and approvals in fee Categories 1A and 18, 2A, 4A, 58, IDA,108, and 11 must be accompanied by an application fee of $150, with the balance due spon notification by the j
Comission in accordance with the procedures specified in i 170.12(d).
(d) Amendment fees - Applications for amendments must be accompanied by l
the prescribed amendment fees.
An application for an amendment to a license or
.q approval classified in more than one category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is appliccble to two or more fee categories in which case the
{
amendment fee for the highest fee category would a'pply, except that
- applications for amendment of licenses in fee Categories '1A and 18, 2A, 4A, SB 10A, 108, 11, and 12 must be accompanied by an application fee of $150 with the, balance due upon notification by the Comission in accordance with i 170.12(c).
An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that would place the license or approval in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new i
. category..
l
' An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a licensee's program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.
Applications. to terminate licenses authorizing small materials programs,
/
when no dismantling or ' decontamination procedure is required, shall-not be subject to fees.
1 (e) Inspection fees - Separate charges will be assessed for each routine and nonroutine. inspection performed, except that inspections resulting from
~
investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and nonroutine in-spections that result from third-party allegations will not be subject to fees.
If a licensee holds more than one materials license at a single location, a fee N
equal to the highest fee category covered by the. licenses will be assessed if E
the inspections are ' conducted at the same time, except in cases when the inspection fees are based on the full cost to conduct the inspection.
The fees assessed at full cost will be determined based on the professional staff time required to conduct the inspection multiplied by the rzte established under
' ^ ' - ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^
' ^ ~ ~ ~ ~
I 170.20 of this part, to which any applicable contractual support service costs incurred will be added.
See Footnote 5 for other inspection notes.
Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Comission in accordance with i 170.12(g).
~2 Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Comission pursuant to 6.2.204 of. Part 2 nor for amendments resulting 'specifically from such Comission orders However, fees will be charged for approvals issued pursuant to a specific exemption provision of the Comission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal ' Regulations (e.g., li 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other such sections now or hereafter in effect) regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval,
. safety evaluation report, or other form.
In addition to the fee shown, 'an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in Categories 9A through 90.
3 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time
~
and appropriate contractual suppor'. services expended for review of the t
application or to conduct the inspection.
For those applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of this rule will be determined at t'he professional ri.te established for the June 20,1984 rule.
For those applications currently
_______m__._
________________.______._____m___
____a
on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling estab-lished by the June 20, 1984 rule, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after the ceiling was reached up to the effective date of this rule will not be billed to the applicant.
Any professional hours expended on or after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the rate established by 9 170.20 of this part.
In no event will the total review costs be less,than the application fee.
l 4 Licensees paying fees under Categories IA and IB are not subject to fees l
l under Categories 1C and ID for sealed sources authorized in the same license except in those instances in which an application deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license.
Applicants for new licenses or renewal of existing. licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nucl(ar material in sealed sources for use in gauging devices will pay the applicable application or renewal fee for fee Category IC only.
5 For a license authorizing shielded radiographic installations or manufacturing installations at more than one address, a separate fee will be assessed for inspection of each location, except that if the multiple installations are inspected during a single visit, a single inspection fee will be assessed.
<4+
i e e
6.
.Section 170.32 is revised to read as follows:
{
l 170.32 Schedule of Fees For Health and Safety, and Safeguards Inspections-For Materials Licenses Materials licensees shall pay inspection fees as set forth in i 170.31.
PART 171 - ANNUAL FEE FOR POWER REACTOR OPERATING LICENSES l
l 7.
The authority citation for Part 171 is revised to read as follows:
l AUTHORITY:
Section' 7601, Pub. L.99-272,100 Stat. 146, as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L. 100-203, 101' Stat. 1330-275 (42 U.S.C. 2213); sec. 301, Pub.
L.92-314, ' 86 Stat. 222, (42 U.S.C. 2201(w)); sec. 201, 82 Stat. 1242,, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
a 8.
In 5 171.5, the following definitions are added:
i 171.5 Definitions
'N l
[
" Budgeted obligatiers::" means the projected obligations of the NRC that likely will result in payments by the NRC during the same or a future fiscal
- 100 -
year in providing regulatory services to licensees.
For this purpose budgeted obligations include, but are not limited to, amounts of orders to be placed, contracts to be awarded, and services to be provided to licensees.
Fees billed to licensees are based on budgeted obligations because the NRC's annual budget is prepared on an obligation basis.
" Overhead costs" means (1) the Government benefits for each employee such as leave and holidays, retirement and disab'ility costs, health and life insur-ance costs, and social security costs; (2) Travel Costs; (3) direct overhead, e.g., supervision, program support staff, etc.; and (4) indirect costs, e.g.,
j funding and staff for administrative support activities.
Factors have been developed f"or these overhead costs which are applied to hourly rates developed for employees providing the regulatory services within the categories and activities applicable to specified types or classes of reactors.
The Com-mission views these costs as being reasonably related to the regulatory services provided to the licensees and, therefore. *within the meaning of sec-tion 7601, COBRA.
e 9.
In i 171.15 paragraphs (d) ~and (e) are removed and paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
4
101 -
6 171.15 Annual Fee:
Power reactor operatino licenses, o
(c)
If the basis for the annual fee is greater than 45 percent of the NRC budget, less the sum of moneys estimated. to be collected from the High Level Waste (HLW) fund administered by the Department of Energy and'the total estimated fees chargeable under Part 170 of this chapter, then the maximum annual fee for each nuclear power reactor that is licensed to operate shall be-calculated as follows:
(NRC FY Budget x.45) minus Sum of HLW moneys and estimated Part 170 fees -
J equals fees to be collected under Part 171.
h i
l
p
)
.j' 102 -
Part 171 fees-to be collected on a schedule based on the total from categories shown in the following table:
l Part 171 Fees By Reactor Category - Summary (Fees In Millions)
WITH MINOR ADJUSTMENTS FOR PLANTS WEST OF ROCKIES OR WESTINGHOUSE PLANTS WITH ICE CONDENSERS THE FOLLOWING APPLY TO PLANT / CONTAINMENT TOTAL TYPE NUMBER BUDGET BASE X.84 FEE COLLECTED GE:
MARK I.
(24)
$1.349
$1.133
$ 27.19 GE MARK II
( 7) 1.443 1.212 8.48 GE MARK III
( 4) 1.373 1.153 4.61
.B&W
( 8)
~1.896 1.592 12.74 CE (15) 1.391 1.168 17.52 WESTINGHOUSE (48) 1.352 1.135 54.48 106
$125.0 e
t e e me 0
0
103 -
5 171.21 [ Removed].
10.
Part 171 is amended by removing $ 171.21.
Dated t.t Rockville, Maryland this A day of W
, 1988.
.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
t ohn C. Hoyle Assistant Secretary of the Commission f
e O
g e'e l
u
- ---- ---- ----- = - ------
- - - - '