ML21095A275
| ML21095A275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/2021 |
| From: | NRC/OCFO |
| To: | |
| CYL2 | |
| References | |
| NRC-1419 | |
| Download: ML21095A275 (82) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
FY2021 Proposed Fee Rule Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Thursday, March 18, 2021 Work Order No.:
NRC-1419 Pages 1-81 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 FY2021 PROPOSED FEE RULE 4
+ + + + +
5 PUBLIC MEETING 6
+ + + + +
7
- THURSDAY, 8
MARCH 18, 2021 9
+ + + + +
10 The Commission met via Teleconference, at 11 10:00 a.m. EDT, Jo Jacobs, facilitator, presiding.
12 SPEAKERS:
13 JO JACOBS, Senior Budget Analyst, License Fee Team, 14 Facilitator 15 MEGHAN BLAIR, Labor Administration and Fee Billing 16 Branch 17 BILLY BLANEY, License Fee Analyst 18 GREG BOWMAN, NRR, Division of Policy and Rulemaking 19 CHRISTIE GALSTER, Sr. Accountant, License Fee Team 20 CHERISH JOHNSON, Chief Financial Officer 21 AIDA RIVERA-VARONA, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear 22 Material Safety and Safeguards 23 ANTHONY ROSSI, Team Lead, License Fee Policy 24 JASON SHAY, Director, Division of Budget 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 NRC STAFF:
1 MICHELLE ALBERT, OGC 2
RUSSELL ALLWEIN, OCFO 3
NADINE ARIDI, NMSS 4
LYNN BATES, OCFO 5
CINDY BLADEY, NMSS 6
GREG BOWMAN, NRR 7
TANYA CHAMPION, OCFO 8
MICHAEL CLARK, OGC 9
KIMBERLY CONWAY, NMSS 10 JAMES COYLE, OCFO 11 AMY CUBBAGE, NRO 12 DAVID D'ABATE, OCFO 13 KIM DARLING, OCFO 14 EVAN DAVIDSON 15 DAYNA DORITY 16 DORIS DURAN-HERNANDEZ 17 BEN FRICKS 18 JAWANZA GIBBS-NICHOLSON, OCFO 19 DUANE HARDESTY, NRR 20 MARISA HERRERA, NMSS 21 DAWN MATTHEWS KALATHIVEETIL, NRR 22 SUSAN KENNEY, OCFO 23 GRACE KIM, OGC 24 VICTOR KOCHUBA, OCFO 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 HARRY KROMER, OCFO 1
MIN LEE, OCFO 2
STEVEN LYNCH, NRR 3
MANDY MAUER, OCFO 4
PHILLIP MCWITHEY 5
FRED MILLER, NMSS 6
JENNIFER OJEDA, OCFO 7
KEVIN RAMSEY, NMSS 8
THEAVY RICHMOND, OCFO 9
LAUREN SAAH, NRR 10 MARIA SCHOFER, OCFO 11 NANDINI SHARMA, OCFO 12 SHERRY TITHERINGTON, OCFO 13 LINH TRAN, NRR 14 BERNIE WHITE, NMSS 15 JACOB ZIMMERMAN, NMSS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 ALSO PRESENT:
1 JANA BERGMAN, Curtiss-Wright 2
JOHN BUTLER, NEI 3
STEVEN DOLLEY, S&P Global Platts 4
ROGER FENNER 5
ERIC JEBSEN, Exelon 6
GREG NORRIS, Entergy 7
DARANI REDDICK, Exelon 8
ROBERT SANDERS, Honeywell MTW 9
JANET SCHLUETER, NEI 10 AMANDA SPALDING, WEC 11 KIRSTEN STOKES, PSEG Nuclear 12 TONY ZIMMERMAN, Duke Energy 13 JASON ZORN, Exelon 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
10:00 a.m.
2 MS. JACOBS: Okay, everyone, it is 10:00 3
a.m. so we can go ahead and get started with our 4
meeting this morning.
5 Good morning and welcome, my name is Jo 6
Jacobs and I'm a Senior Budget Analyst in the License 7
Fee Policy Team and the Office of Chief Financial 8
Officer.
9 I want to welcome everyone attending this 10 meeting and I will begin with a few logistics. This 11 is a Category 2 public meeting with participation from 12 NRC Staff and interested stakeholders.
13 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 14 the FY 2021 Proposed Fee Rule and related budgetary 15 considerations associated with this proposed rule.
16 The FY 2021 Proposed Fee Rule was 17 published in the Federal Register on February 22nd 18 with the public comment period ending on March 24th.
19 The agenda for today's meeting will soon be discussed 20 by the NRC's Chief Financial officer, Cherish Johnson.
21 The public will have an opportunity to 22 participate in the meeting and direct questions to the 23 NRC Staff at the designated question-and-answer period 24 of the meeting.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 A summary of today's meeting will be 1
prepared by NRC Staff and will be placed in ADAMS.
2 Our goal was to have the public meeting summary 3
completed within 30 days of this meeting.
4 The public can also provide us feedback 5
regarding the conduct of the meeting through the NRC's 6
public meeting notification system and if you need 7
instruction on how to do this, please contact me via 8
email provided in the meeting notice.
9 We are using Microsoft Teams to conduct 10 this meeting and we hope that the use of Microsoft 11 Teams will allow stakeholders to participate more 12 freely during this meeting.
13 But this will also require us to ensure 14 that we are muted when we are not speaking and to do 15 our best to not speak over each other.
16 To help facilitate the question-and-answer 17 portion of the meeting, I recommend that you utilize 18 the raised-hand feature in Teams so we can more easily 19 identify who has a question or a comment and call on 20 the individual to ask their question.
21 You can also use the chat box to alert us 22 that you have a question. Please do not use the chat 23 box to address any technical questions. The chat is 24 not part of the official meeting record and is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 reserved mainly for handling virtual meeting 1
logistical issues.
2 If you join the meeting using Microsoft 3
Teams call-in number, you will not have access to 4
these features, however, we will still have a chance 5
to call on you during the question-and-answer session.
6 If you joined using the Microsoft Teams 7
call-in number and you would like to ask a question, 8
you can press star-6 to unmute your phone. After your 9
comment has been discussed, your phone line will be 10 muted again by me and Billy Blaney.
11 So, if you need to ask additional 12 questions you will need to press star-6. Thanks in 13 advance for your patience as we continue to address 14 the remote working environment.
15 The presentation will be shown via 16 Microsoft Teams meeting link and is shown on my 17 desktop, however, you can also access the presentation 18 slides in ADAMS ML21076A376.
19 The slides have also been posted to the 20 meeting notice on the NRC's public website. And with 21 that, I'm happy to turn the meeting over to Cherish 22 Johnson, our Chief Financial Officer for her opening 23 remarks.
24 Thank you so much.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Jo. Good morning, 1
I'm Cherish Johnson, the Chief Financial Officer of 2
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3 I'm thrilled to be here today as the NRC 4
CFO to participate in this continued dialog with our 5
NRC stakeholders as we discuss the Fiscal Year 2021 6
Proposed Fee Rule.
7 First, I hope everyone is healthy and 8
remains well through these unique circumstances 9
surrounding the COVID-19 public health emergency.
10 I'd like to take the opportunity to 11 appreciate my Staff's support in the development of 12 the fee rule, the continued support of the various NRC 13 offices, and to thank our stakeholders for your 14 participation and your support in our first virtual 15 fee rule public meeting.
16 The NRC team is excited about presenting 17 this Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Fee Rule to our 18 stakeholders and we hope to continue to enhance our 19 dialog as we have over time through meetings such as 20 this.
21 I'm happy to report that we did publish 22 the Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Fee Rule on February 23 22nd. This was less than a month behind our 24 originally planned publication date as we wanted to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 make sure that the fee rule was updated to reflect the 1
NRC receiving our Congressional appropriation in 2
Fiscal Year 2021.
3 Next slide, please. There we go.
4 As we've done in previous years, we'll 5
start with a review of key highlights of the Fiscal 6
Year 2021 budget and the Proposed Fee Rule, followed 7
by the proposed policy changes, a demonstration of e-8 billing we thought would be of interest to our 9
audience, and then a forward look at the annual fee 10 policy development for Non-Light Water Reactors.
11 We'll then move into the 12 question-and-answer segment of today's meeting as Jo 13 has described. I'd now like to introduce my fellow 14 panelists, Jason Shay, the Budget Director.
15 He will be discussing how our budget 16 reflects our activities and the relationship between 17 the budget and the fees. Christie Galster, the Senior 18 Accountant on the License Fee Policy Team, will 19 provide a license fee policy overview of the Fiscal 20 Year 2021 Proposed Fee Rule.
21 Greg Bowman, Deputy Director in the 22 Division of risk assessment in the Office of Nuclear 23 Reactor Regulation, NRR, will discuss the operating 24 and new reactors business line.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 Ida Rivera Verona, Acting Deputy Director 1
in the Division of Decommissioning Uranium Recovery 2
and Waste Programs in the Office of Nuclear Materials 3
Safety and Safeguards, or NMSS, will be discussing the 4
decommissioning and low-level waste business line.
5 Meghan Blair, the Branch Chief of the 6
Labor Administration and Fee Billing Branch, and Billy 7
Blaney, a Budget Analyst in the Licensee Fee Policy 8
Team, will discuss the two policy changes that have 9
been included in our Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Fee 10 Rule.
11 And last but not least, Anthony Rossi, our 12 License Fee Policy Team Lead will provide a brief 13 overview of the future regarding the development of a 14 future annual fee policy for Non-Light Water Reactors, 15 specifically for micro reactors. And then we'll move 16 into the question-and-answer period.
17 Next slide, please. As we get started, I 18 wanted to briefly emphasize the type of comments that 19 would be considered in scope for the feel rule to 20 ensure that the responses to your inquiries are 21 answered in a timely matter.
22 Previously, we've received comments that 23 are covered out of scope for the fee rule, however, 24 for the last few years we've noticed a large decrease 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 in the number of those out-of-scope comments.
1 Hopefully, this is due to our increased 2
outreach, transparency, and our stakeholders' overall 3
knowledge of the fee rule. A few examples of in-scope 4
comments are focusing on our methodology for 5
calculating the fees, changes to the fee regulations, 6
or the fee schedule.
7 A few examples of what we consider to be 8
out-of-scope comments are Agency efficiencies to 9
achieve our mission goals, streamlining the regulatory 10 practice, reviewing the changing technical guidance to 11 licensees, risk-informed performance-based licensing 12 and regulatory process, public participation in the 13 budget formulation process.
14 Even though this meeting on our fees is 15 not the proper venue for those out-of-scope questions, 16 we really do want to hear from you so we encourage you 17 to use the appropriate venue so we can address any 18 questions or concerns directly.
19 In closing, I want to emphasize that the 20 NRC is continually evaluating our fee-setting process 21 to determine improvements to increased transparency, 22 equity, and timeliness.
23 As always, we welcome your questions and 24 formal comments and look forward to a continued dialog 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 with you, our stakeholders.
1 Once
- again, thank you for your 2
participation and I will now turn the meeting over to 3
our Budget Director, Jason Shay, who will provide a 4
budget overview of the key considerations that relate 5
to the Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Fee Rule.
6 Next slide, please.
7 MR. SHAY: So, thank you, Cherish, if you 8
can go to the next slide, please, Jo? As Cherish 9
mentioned, I'm going to provide an overview of the 10 2020 enacted budget.
11 The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 12 2021 appropriated approximately $844.4 million to the 13 NRC, which is a decrease of $14.4 million from the FY 14 2020 enacted budget.
15 The Act also authorizes the use of $35 16 million of carryover funds, which is shown at the 17 bottom of the table that you see on your screen right 18 now. This is a decrease of $5 million from the 19 previous years authorized carrier amount.
20 I do want to pause here really quickly to 21 define what the term carryover means. The term 22 carryover can be used to describe funds that were 23 appropriated but not obligated in the prior Fiscal 24 Year, or funds that were de-obligated because the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 funds were no longer needed in subsequent Fiscal 1
Years.
2 And I'm going to provide you some examples 3
here shortly. So, let's say there's a change in 4
workload between the time that we formulate and the 5
time that we're expected to execute that funding.
6 These changes, while normal, may cause 7
delays in utilizing budgeted resources and thus, maybe 8
carried over and used in subsequent years, resulting 9
additional carryover for the Agency.
10 In addition, carryover can also increase 11 of contract ends and work is completed but resources 12 still remain on that contract. So, these resources 13 can be deobligated, which results in additional 14 carryover for our Agency.
15 And lastly, carryover can also increase 16 for the Agency if there are delays in hiring. If the 17 time between when an employee leaves and when we back-18 fill that employee creates unused S&Bs, or salaries 19 and benefits, which may result in additional carryover 20 if we don't use the S&Bs.
21 Next, I kind of want to give you some 22 insights about the authorized carryover that has been 23 previously authorized in previous years.
24 In FY 2020 the authorized carryover was 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14
$40 million for the Agency. In FY 2019 it was $20 1
million. In FY 2018 it was $15 million. And in FY 2
2017 it was $23 million.
3 Now, while Congressional direction to use 4
carryover has been a trend, I do want to highlight 5
that in FY 2021 the NRC was directed to use $35 6
million in prior year unobligated carryover funds, 7
including $16 million to fund the University Nuclear 8
Leadership Program, which is formally the Integrated 9
University Program, or IUP, and $19 million to offset 10 the Agency's FY 2021 budget requests.
11 We dispersed that $19 million into three 12 areas. $17.8 million went to the Nuclear Reactor 13 Safety Program, $1 million went to the Nuclear 14 Materials and Waste Safety Program, and $200,000 went 15 to the Decommissioning and Low-level Waste Program.
16 If you can turn to Slide 8 now please?
17 So, this chart is really our most widely used chart 18 and it's included in most, if not all, of our external 19 presentations.
20 As you can see in the chart, the Agency's 21 budget has trended downwards over the past eight 22 years. We compare our budgets to the 2014 budget 23 because that's the pinnacle of our budget 24 historically.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 The total budget decreased by 1
approximately 20 percent or $211.5 million since FY 2
2014 and similarly, the Agency also reduced FTEs by 3
approximately 25 percent, or 932 FTEs during that same 4
period.
5 That concludes my presentation on the 6
overview of the 2021 budget. I'll now turn the 7
presentation over to Christine Galster, who will go 8
over the FY 2021 fee overview.
9 MS. GALSTER: Thank you, Jason. Good 10 morning, today I'll be presenting, like Jason said, 11 the overview of the Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Fee 12 Rule. Next slide.
13 The statutory and regulatory framework 14 authorizing NRC's fee policy includes the Independent 15 Office's Appropriation Act, or IOAA, which requires 16 the NRC to collect fees for service, which are 17 established under 10 C.F.R. Part 170.
18 E-services provide a specific purpose and 19 have identifiable recipients who are billed as hours 20 expended times the NRC hourly rate, and offer services 21 such as license reviews and inspections.
22 The other law affecting NRCP collections 23 during 1990 through 2020 was the Omnibus Budget 24 Reconciliation Act of 1990, or OBRA 90, requiring NRC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 to collect approximately 90 percent for the majority 1
of those years of its appropriation by September 30th.
2 As well as recover through 10 C.F.R. Part 3
171 the budget authority not recovered through fees 4
for service is under Part 170, such as research and 5
rulemaking activities.
6 OBRA 90 also directs the NRC to allot ten 7
percent of its budget for certain activities that do 8
not directly benefit NRC licensees, referred to as fee 9
relief.
10 Through the establishment of NEIMA, OBRA 11 90 has been superseded in 2021. The Nuclear Energy 12 Innovation and Modernization Act of 2018, or NEIMA, 13 replaced OBRA 90 this year and in subsequent Fiscal 14 Years.
15 NEIMA sets a ceiling on the annual fee for 16 power reactors at the 2015 rate as adjusted with 17 yearly inflation. The collection percentage is 18 revised to 100 percent of the budget authority to the 19 maximum extent practical.
20 And under NEIMA, the excluded activities 21 remain the same as OBRA 90 as well as the fee relief 22 categories that were utilized in the 2021 final fee 23 rule.
24 The major change in the fee rule 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 methodology was the elimination of the fee relief 1
adjustment. NEIMA removes a fixed amount of 2
designated for the fee relief activities so any of the 3
adjustments or the surcharges or credits as part of 4
the annual fees will no longer exist.
5 And lastly, the annual appropriation 6
provides the budget authority and fee recovery amounts 7
as well as authorizes the use of prior carryover, of 8
which NRC is authorized to use, like Jason mentioned, 9
$35 million in carryover funding this year.
10 Next slide. As stated in the proposed 11 2021 fee rule, the budgetary authority is based on the 12 21 appropriations for the salaries and expense and 13 Inspector General appropriation in the amount of 14
$844.4 million, a decline of $11.2 million from the 15 prior year.
16 This slide is going to illustrate the 17 budget and fee recovery amount set forth in the 18 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.
19 As you can see from that top purple 20 circle, the NRC's budgetary authority minus the 21 excluded activities of $123 million calculates the 22 fee-based budget of the $721.4 million.
23 The recovery rate is now again 100 24 percent, resulting in a required recovery amount of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 the same of the fee-based budget.
1 The Part 171 billing adjustment of the 2
$12.6 million, it relates to the COVID-19 referral of 3
collections to 2021, which is reducing the current 4
year amount of fees to recover.
5 The second circle displays the adjusted at 6
the moment, the $708.8 million that we must recover 7
through Part 170 and 170 fees. Right below that are 8
two subsets of budgetary authority of the excluded 9
activities.
10 First, the original fee relief resources 11 authorized by the Commission and the second is a set 12 of statutory activities, specifically identified 13 within the NEIMA regulation.
14 And you'll see a detail of this in the Fee 15 Rule Table 1 as well as the work papers. We'll go 16 into specifics detailing the activities.
17 Next slide, please. An important step in 18 estimating our Part 170 fees is, first, we have to 19 develop the hourly rate and understand the components 20 that are involved.
21 In developing the hourly rates budget, the 22 components include the mission-direct salaries and 23 benefits, mission-indirect resources which support the 24 Agency's core activities such as supervisory and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 administrative assistant support.
1 The third component is the Agency support, 2
which consists of the corporate support business line 3
along with the Inspector General funding. These three 4
components will sum to $732.2 million and that is the 5
budgetary resources that are included in the Part 170 6
rate.
7 The next step is multiplying the mission-8 direct FTEs of 1684 and mission-direct FTE annual 9
productive hours of 1510. From that, we divide by the 10 budgetary resources of the $732.2 million.
11 This calculates the Part 170 hourly rate 12 of $288. This is an increase of $9 or 3.2 percent 13 from the previous year.
14 The hourly rate increase is driven by the 15 rise in the salaries and benefits to support federal 16 pay raises, the decline of 17 mission-direct FTEs from 17 the previous year, as well as reduced prior year 18 carryover funding compared to 2020.
19 As you can see, the FTE rate at the bottom 20 represents the full cost of an FTE.
21 The amount of is calculated by utilizing 22 the budgetary resources of that $732.2 million from 23 above divided by the mission-direct FTEs, the 1684, 24 giving us a rate of a full and constant FTE of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 434,811.
1 Next slide. So, before we start going 2
into the calculations for the annual fees, I believe 3
it's necessary to understand the formulation of the 4
fee-based budget compared to the CBJ requested budget, 5
beginning with the FY21 Congressional budget 6
justification business lines.
7 The Agency's program offices analyze in 8
detail those resources and allocate them out to the 9
various fee classes or fee relief categories.
10 The chart that you see here illustrates 11 where the majority of each business line budget is 12 allocated by a fee class. There are six notable 13 differences between the business line budgets and the 14 fee class budgets.
15 So, those consist of the budgetary 16 resources that are excluded from fee calculations, 17 WEIR, Homeland Security, this year, fee relief, just 18 to give a few examples, your mission-indirect program 19 support resources, which go directly into calculating 20 your Part 170 hourly rate.
21 Mission business line resources allocated 22 to other fee classes or fee relief categories and 23 increases into the business line from other business 24 lines. The utilization of a fully costed FTE rate and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 as well as the appropriation revision such as 1
utilizing carryover.
2 Next slide. These pie charts present the 3
significance of reconciling between an appropriated 4
budget versus the allocation of the budget by fee 5
class.
6 As you can see on the left-hand side, the 7
pie chart has business line budgets totaling $844.4 8
million, the total of the two appropriations.
9 The one on the right is our fee class 10 budget, the $721.4 million. So the difference between 11 the two is all those excluded activities, which 12 totaled that $123 million.
13 Next slide. So, here we'd like to 14 increase our transparency, improving our fee rule work 15
- papers, and beginning last
- year, we included 16 reconciliations from the CBJ business line budgets to 17 the fee rule class budgets.
18 And the next three slides will illustrate 19 a sample of the reconciliation format located with 20 NR2021 fee rule work papers.
21 This illustration combines the operating 22 and the new reactor business line budgets, categorized 23 by product line for the contract funding as well as 24 the FTEs utilizing the salaries and benefit rate.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 And due to unknown timing of our 1
appropriation, the license fee policy team will always 2
begin in the Proposed Fee Rule calculations with the 3
Congressional budget justification, which for 2021, 4
that was published in February of 2020.
5 So, what you see in the CBJ for those two 6
business line budgets for the operating and the new 7
reactors, you have $95.8 million for contract dollars, 8
you have 1708 FTEs. So, a grand total that you'll see 9
in the CBJ budget for the reactors is $435.1 million.
10 Next slide. So, from the basis of the CBJ 11 budget for the operating and the new reactor business 12 lines, we take into account those six reconciling 13 items and I put them on the right-hand side of this 14 slide as well when performing the reconciliation.
15 So, you've got the deductions up top so 16 you've got the CBJ budget that is excluded from this 17 particular fee class for the power reactors. And then 18 you have increases coming in from other business lines 19 and that's by contract dollars and FTE.
20 As you can see here, the reactor business 21 line budget posts the fee rule allocations total $59.5 22 million in contracts and 1270.3 in FTEs.
23 The final adjustment is then converting 24 those FTEs by the fully costed FTE rate, resulting in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 the FTE cost of $553.2 million and then a total for 1
the power reactor fee class budget is the $611.8 2
million.
3 Next slide? So, presented on this slide 4
is the reconciliation summary comparing those reactor 5
business line budgets to the adjusted fee class budget 6
for the power reactors.
7 And the fee class budget here is the 8
initial step in what we do, our first step in 9
calculating the annual fees. Next slide, please?
10 The reconciled business line budget to the 11 fee class budget we just saw was $611.8 million. This 12 year's budgetary resources allocated to the power 13 reactors is 2 percent or $12.1 million less than it 14 was in 2020.
15 Factors contributing to the decline 16 include a completed lessons learned related to 17 Fukushima, FTE reductions due to the closure of Duane 18 Arnold in October, and the completed NuScale design 19 certification review as well as the construction 20 activities for Vogtle Unit 3.
21 And if you compare this to six years ago, 22 we had 100 operating reactors, the budgetary resources 23 have been reduced as a total of $308.6 million or 18.5 24 percent due to a reduction of our 7 reactors since 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 2016.
1 So, next the Part 170 estimated billings 2
process, which includes the four quarters of actual 3
billings from the prior year for power reactors, with 4
updates for current work utilizing the hourly rate.
5 Current projected work I should say.
6 These estimated billings total $157 7
million this year, which has declined by $29.7 million 8
or 16 percent from the previous year. The decrease is 9
primarily due to the reductions for licensing actions 10 and inspections caused by the shutdown of Duane Arnold 11 at Indian Point Unit 3.
12 The completions for NuScale and Vogtle 3 13 in addition to the impact of the continued travel 14 restrictions and limited onsite presence involving 15 inspection activities due to COVID-19.
16 Adjustments for the power reactors of 8 17 million including one-time-only credit of $2.7 million 18 due to the collections of Indian Point Unit 3 before 19 terminating at the end of this month.
20 The remaining annual fee recovery amount 21 for this fee class is $446.8 million. This is an 22 increase of $7.8 million or 1.8 percent from last 23 year. The total is then divided by the 93 operating 24 reactors resulting in an annual fee per reactor of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25
$4,804,000.
1 Next slide, please. This year's budgetary 2
resources allocated to our spent fuel storage and 3
reactors and decommissioning fee class is 11 percent 4
or $4.3 million higher than in 2020.
5 This totals the $42.2 million. Factors 6
contributing to the rise include the support of the 7
reactors transitioning into decommissioning program 8
and waste research associated with the accident 9
torrent fuel and enrichment extension fuels.
10 Next is the Part 170 estimated billings 11 totaling the $12.4 million this year. And this is 12 declining by 22 percent or $3.5 million from prior 13 year.
14 The decrease is primarily due to 15 reductions of Staff hours pertaining to the renewal 16 and amendment reviews, inspections pertaining to 17
- ISFSIs, the independent spent fuel storage 18 installation, in addition to the near completion of 19 the interim storage partners consolidated interim 20 storage facility application.
21 Within the reactor decommissioning 22 program, decrease in Staff hours are as a result of 23 the near completion of the licensed termination for 24 Lacrosse boiling water reactor, which has been in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 decommissioning status since 1987.
1 And the completion of licensing actions, 2
portion site release requests, and a decrease in 3
confirmatory survey work at multiple sites.
4 The remaining annual feel recovery amount 5
for the fee class is $30.1 million. This is an 6
increase of $7.8 million or 1.3 percent from last 7
year. We then divide that by the 122 licensees 8
resulting in an annual fee of 4246,000.
9 Next slide? Included in the fee rule work 10 papers in this chart illustrating the utilization of 11 carryover funding in the Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021 by 12 budget business line and the subsequent allocations 13 for the development of the fee rule.
14 You can notice for instance in 2021 the 15 overall carryover is $21 million, discussed earlier by 16 Jason. And it was $20 million less than the previous 17 year of carryover funding.
18 And this is due to the appropriation 19 requiring $16 million specifically earmarked for the 20 university nuclear leadership program, formally known 21 as IUP, resulting in our 2021 $19 million that we 22 could utilize in prior year obligated funding.
23 This reduces this year's overall annual 24 appropriation. And as you can see in the reactor 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 business lines, they had a decline of $3.1 million in 1
carryover funding from the previous year, however, 2
reactors did receive 94 percent of that $19 million 3
available carryover funding this year.
4 Another significant variance of prior 5
carryover is the reduction within the corporate 6
support business line by $13.2 million. This impacted 7
Agency costs that are associated with the rise of the 8
Part 170 hourly rate.
9 And that was mentioned earlier regarding 10 the hourly rate. This concludes the proposed Fiscal 11 Year 2021 fees overview presentation and now I'd like 12 to turn it over to Greg Bowman for a discussion on 13 operating and new reactor budgets.
14 MR.
BOWMAN:
- Thanks, Christie, good 15 morning, everyone. My name is Greg Bowman, I'm the 16 Deputy Director of the Division of Risk Assessment at 17 NRR.
18 I'll be providing an overview of the 19 budget for the NRC's nuclear reactor safety program 20 and that's comprised of both the operating reactors 21 and the new reactors business lines.
22 The program encompasses licensing and 23 oversight of the civilian nuclear power reactors as 24 well as non-power production utilization facilities, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 our research and test reactors, for example.
1 The goal of the program is to ensure those 2
activities are completed in a manner that protects 3
public health and safety. It also provides reasonable 4
assurance of the security of facilities and protection 5
against radiological sabotage.
6 The operating reactors and new reactors 7
business line can be split into mission-direct, 8
mission-indirect -- sorry, if you can go back to the 9
previous slide, Jo? Thank you.
10 Mission-direct research accounts for about 11 75 percent of the enacted budget of 1755 FTE in FY 12
- 2021, mission-indirect resources account for 13 approximately 25 percent of the enacted budget, and 14 that supports supervisors, administrative assistants, 15 program analysts, and travel needs.
16 So, Jo, if you could go to the next slide, 17 please? Thank you. Licensing and oversight are the 18 most significant mission-direct product lines.
19 Examples of some of the activities performed within 20 those product lines are provided on this slide.
21 The NRC ensures safety and security of 22 operating power reactors and non-power production and 23 utilization facilities within our established 24 regulatory framework.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 We license reactors to operate and we 1
ensure that new and existing reactor designs meet 2
regulatory requirements. We also oversee the 3
continued safe operation of those reactors through our 4
inspection program.
5 In the operating reactor business line, we 6
continue to see interest in programs that provide 7
increased operational flexibility as well as upgrades, 8
like those associated with digital instrumentation and 9
control systems.
10 Requests for subsequent license renewals, 11 which represents an increase in the life of a plant 12 from 60 to 80 years continues to increase. And we've 13 invested significant resources in ensuring that can be 14 done safely.
15 Oversight activities are the largest 16 portion of our business line and that includes the on-17 site resident inspectors at each power reactor, as 18 well as the safety and security inspections conducted 19 by our four regional offices.
20 In the new reactors business line, work on 21 the NuScale design certification was recently 22 completed and we continue to review license amendment 23 requests for Vogtle Units 3 and 4.
24 Construction inspection at Vogtle 3 and 4 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 is led by our Region 2 Office and the NRC's Office of 1
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, my office, has a small 2
team of licensing ITAAC and construction experts to 3
ensure the NRC is able to make the findings necessary 4
to support the transition from construction to 5
operation.
6 We also anticipate additional workload is 7
applications to license advanced reactors and small 8
module reactors are submitted. The review of the Oklo 9
Combined Operating License is ongoing.
10 We're also conducting pre-application 11 meetings with multiple advanced reactor developers and 12 we're reviewing topical reports and white papers 13 associated with advanced reactor designs.
14 Next slide, please, Jo. To develop the 15 budgets for the operating reactors and new reactors 16 business
- lines, we first review the current 17 environment and we perform workload forecasting.
18 As part of that, we look for significant 19 drivers that could impact our future workload. This 20 includes technical, regulatory, and legislative 21 developments that have the potential to generate 22 additional work-order-reduced work.
23 That could include a rulemaking or 24 guidance change that we expect to drive new submittals 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 for licensees or known plant closures that will reduce 1
the overall size of our program.
2 We then look at historical data and trends 3
to measure how our execution in previous years winds 4
up with the budget assumptions at the time. We use 5
that data to inform the future budget and identify 6
areas where the assumptions we previously used may not 7
hold up.
8 The historical data also allows us to 9
employ some trending for areas where workload in a 10 given year can be highly variable in terms of quantity 11 and complexity.
12 We also rely heavily on communications 13 from our stakeholders to identify plant submittals.
14 We consider letters of intent provided by licensees to 15 the NRC, we collect information from our Project 16 Managers, and we consider responses to our periodic 17 regulatory issue summaries on that topic.
18 In order to budget for large licensing 19 projects, we try to balance the anticipated resource 20 needs against the relative certainty that an 21 application will be submitted on schedule.
22 We do recognize that plans within the 23 industry our subject to change and can be influenced 24 by a lot of different factors but this is an area, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 getting reliable information from the industry, where 1
we can ensure better certainty to help us be more 2
accurate in our budgeting in the future.
3 Once we have identified the workload 4
drivers we set about estimating the level of effort in 5
each area of responsibility, we develop an assign 6
resources for major projects and then allocate those 7
resources across the NRC offices to align with the 8
type of work being performed.
9 Next slide, please, Jo? One point I 10 wanted to make clear is we developed our budget and 11 the Part 170 fee estimates on different timelines.
12 The operating reactors and new reactors budgets, just 13 like our other business line budgets, our prepared two 14 years in advance.
15 This budget includes resources to be 16 recovered through the assessment of Part 170 fees in 17 addition to resources for other mission-direct and 18 mission-indirect programs.
19 The budget reflects anticipated changes in 20 the Part 170 workload such as permanent plant 21 closures. However, it's important to note there is 22 not a directly proportionate relationship between the 23 Part 170 fee estimates and the budget.
24 That's because unlike the budget, the Part 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 170 fee estimates are prepared at the beginning of a 1
given Fiscal Year. Fact of life changes in the 2
intervening time will drive the Part 170 fee estimates 3
lower or higher than what was anticipated in the 4
budget.
5 Changes such as a
application being submitted earlier, a delayed 7
application for a design certification, an early 8
reactor closure, or a cancelled application for an 9
combined operating license will impact the Part 170 10 fee estimates.
11 And in turn, that will impact the Part 170 12 annual fee.
13 Next slide, please, Jo. The FY 2021 14 operating reactors budget includes reductions for 15 plant closures, and reductions associated with the 16 completion of Fukushima Lessons Learned initiatives.
17 These reductions were partially offset by 18 an increase in license renewal and subsequent license 19 renewal applications.
20 In addition to changes anticipated in the 21 budget, the FY 2021 Part 170 fee estimates were 22 reduced due to the impacts of COVID-19 and related 23 travel restrictions on our operating reactor oversight 24 program.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 Next slide, Jo? For new reactors, the FY 1
2021 budget was reduced due to the completion of the 2
NuScale design certification activities and delay of 3
the NuScale SDA application.
4 Licensing and construction inspection 5
activities at the new Vogtle Units were also reduced 6
as Unit 3 nears the completion of construction. These 7
reductions were partially offset by an increase or 8
review of combined operating license applications for 9
Oklo.
10 In addition to the changes anticipated in 11 the budget, the 2021 Part 170 fee estimates declined 12 due to delays in the submittal and review of certain 13 licensing applications.
14 So, that concludes my presentation, I 15 appreciate your time. I'll now turn things over to 16 Aida to cover the budget for decommissioning of low-17 level waste.
18 MS. RIVERA-VARONA: Thank you, Greg. Good 19 morning, my name is Aida Rivera, I'm an Acting Deputy 20 Director in the Division of Decommissioning for 21 Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs in the Office of 22 Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.
23 Today I'm going to provide you information 24 on the activities that drive the budgetary resources 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 needed to implement the NRC's strategic goals, 1
objectives for the decommissioning and low-level waste 2
business line.
3 Next slide. The decommissioning of 4
low-level waste business line provides licensing and 5
oversight for the decommissioning of complex material 6
facilities, fuel facilities, uranium recovery 7
facilities, power reactors, and research and test 8
reactors with the ultimate goal to terminate the 9
license.
10 Additionally, the decommissioning of 11 low-level waste business line provides licensing and 12 oversight for uranium recovery facilities that are 13 licensed to operate are the national low-level waste 14 program and the military and non-military radium 15 programs.
16 Some of the major activities that 17 decommissioning of low-level waste business line are 18 conducting this year are the following. We are 19 conducting licensing reviews and the decommissioning 20 activities for 25 power reactors, with 4 of them 21 nearly licensing termination.
22 We are also supporting the decommissioning 23 of four research reactors. We continue to support the 24 licensing and oversight of 11 complex material sites 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 undergoing decommissioning at depleted uranium sites.
1 Support to the licensing and the oversight 2
of five private uranium meal sites undergoing 3
decommissioning and we are also doing 36 4
decommissioning uranium meal disposal and processing 5
facilities that are undergoing long-term care, 6
surveillance, and maintenance by DOE.
7 We're supporting the national low-level 8
waste program, including the development of guidance 9
providing support to the impact evaluations in the 10 low-level waste area and responding to unique 11 inquiries from the agreement states.
12 We also provide oversight of the 13 activities related to the WEIR program, including 14 monitoring activities at the DOE seven and reverse 15 site and the Idaho National Laboratory.
16 We also have support oversight of the 17 military and non-military radium programs.
18 As described in the Agency reform plan, 19 the rulemaking center of expertise will coordinate the 20 rulemaking activities related to the decommissioning 21 of low-level waste business line, including rule 22 development, associated guidance development, and 23 environmental reviews.
24 Finally, we plan to conduct research 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 activities 2
support the application of new 1
technologies at complex sites and also provide 2
analytical tools used in the decommissioning reviews.
3 Next slide, please. To support our budget 4
development as similar to what Greg provided before, 5
we begin with the workload forecasting.
6 We maintain continuous communications with 7
our licensees and we use letters of intent that we 8
might receive for upcoming license applications.
9 In developing our budget, we estimate the 10 necessary resources needed to complete licensing 11 activities such as safety and environmental reviews as 12 well as oversight through inspection activities based 13 on where the licensing and decommissioning process of 14 each of those facilities will stand.
15 The cost of completing our licensing 16 reviews and oversight activities vary depending on the 17 level of complexity that might be before us, whether 18 it is for a power reactor in active decommissioning or 19 safe storage.
20 Each one requires a different level of 21 effort and resources. We also estimate our resources 22 based on historical information such as reviewing the 23 level of resources associated with similar past 24 efforts and reviewing historical resource utilization.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 All this information functions as a 1
benchmark during our budget development. In addition, 2
we budget for hearings with consideration of the 3
number of hearings that we may get based on the 4
licensing actions we expect.
5 We also try to gauge those resources based 6
on the level of public interest in that particular 7
project. The estimates resources associated with 8
those hearings are also budgeted based on historical 9
figures and costs to support hearings in the past.
10 Next slide, please. All right, so I'm 11 going to talk a little bit about our workload 12 adjustment in Fiscal Year 2021, primarily driven by 13 work on the reactor decommissioning area.
14 This workload adjustment fall within the 15 spent fuel storage reactor decommissioning feed class, 16 which also includes other adjustment from the spent 17 fuel storage area.
18 Today, I will be discussing only the 19 workload for the reactor decommissioning portion of 20 this feed class and it falls within the 21 decommissioning of low-level waste business line.
22 Some of the decreases in the 23 decommissioning of low-level waste workload in Fiscal 24 Year 2021 would be the completion of the licensing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 actions and partial site release requests and 1
decreasing the confirmatory surveys work at multiple 2
sites near completion.
3 We have four reactors in this group that 4
will be nearly completing activities. The reduction 5
in contract support due to a decrease in confirmatory 6
survey and work is expected to happen. So, that's 7
also included in the decrease for those sites.
8 But then there is also an increase based 9
on Indian Point Unit 3 shutting down this spring. We 10 will see now an increase in the number of overall 11 reactors in the decommissioning in our current 12 inventory.
13 17 of the 26 will be inactive 14 decommissioning and 9 will be in safe store. With 15 each power reactor that transitions from operations to 16 decommissioning, we see an increase in resources to 17 support both licensing and oversight activities.
18 In addition to the overall increase in the 19 number of power reactors in decommissioning, there is 20 also an increase in the number of power reactor sites 21 pursuing active decommissioning.
22 Sites inactive, the Commission is required 23 greater amount of licensing and oversight work given 24 the activities that are happening on site.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 Based on our review of work inspected at 1
each of those sites in our inventory in 2021, we did 2
see an increase forecast per hour at many of these 3
facilities.
4 I do want to add that COVID-19 impacted 5
some of our oversight activities. We expect that more 6
inspection activities will be happening later this 7
Fiscal Year that were supposed to happen in 2021.
8 With this, I'm going to finish my 9
presentation and now I'm going to turn it over to 10 Billy Blaney, who is going to talk about some proposed 11 policy changes.
12 MR. BLANEY: Thank you, Aida. Good 13 morning, my name is Billy Blaney from the Licensee Fee 14 Policy Team and the Office of the Chief Financial 15 Officer.
16 This morning I will be discussing one of 17 the policy changes regarding the assessment of annual 18 fees for future 10 C.F.R. Part 50 non-power production 19 or utilization facility licensees and for small 20 modular reactor licenses.
21 Next slide, please. The NRC has not 22 previously established a policy for assessing 10 23 C.F.R. Part 171 annual fees for future non-reactor 24 non-power production or utilization facilities, or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 NPUF licensees.
1 The Agency currently assesses only 10 2
C.F.R. Part 170 service fees to NPUF construction 3
permit holders and Applicant for construction permits 4
and operating licenses.
5 In anticipation that the NRC could issue 6
an operating license in the future, the NRC is 7
proposing to assess annual fees under 10 C.F.R. 8 171.15 to non-reactor NPUFs.
9 Based on its assessment, the NRC is 10 proposing to amend 10 C.F.R. 171.15 to allow the 11 assessment of annual fees to begin after NPUF 12 licensees complete startup testing and the licensee 13 provides written notification to the NRC.
14 In addition, the Staff expects that NPUF 15 facilities will request that a single license 16 authorize the operation of multiple utilization and/or 17 production facilities.
18 The number of Staff hours dedicated to 19 licensing and oversight activities for these 20 facilities is not expected to differ significantly 21 based on the number of facilities authorized to 22 operate under a single license.
23 NRC therefore believes a single annual fee 24 would be appropriate even where an NPUF licensee has 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 multiple facilities operating under a single license.
1 The Staff is also proposing to rename the 2
research and test reactors fee class to the non-power 3
production and utilization facility fee class to 4
account for new NPUF technologies which were not 5
previously included in the research and test reactor 6
fee class.
7 Non-reactor NPUF licensees would be 8
included in the same annual fee class as currently 9
operating research and test reactors that pay 10 10 C.F.R. Part 171 annual fees.
11 This approach would be consistent with the 12 current approach of assessing 10 C.F.R. Part 171 13 annual fees to the fee class.
14 This approach would also be consistent 15 with the NRC's expectation that licensing and 16 oversight activities to regulate future NPUF 17 facilities would be comparable to those for the 18 current operating fleet of research and test reactors.
19 Next slide, please. The NRC is also 20 proposing to amend 10 C.F.R. Part 171.15 so that the 21 assessment of annual fees for a small modular reactor 22 or an SMR licensee commences after the successful 23 completion of power ascension testing and the licensee 24 provides a written notification to the NRC.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 The NRC does recognize that subsequent to 1
the issuance of an operating license under 10 C.F.R. 2 Part 50 or a combined operating license and a 10 3
C.F.R. 52103(g) finding under the 10 C.F.R. Part 52.
4 Fuel must be loaded in power ascension 5
testing for SMRs, must be completed before the 6
facility begins full licensed operation.
7 As discussed in the statement of 8
considerations for the FY 2020 final rule, 10 C.F.R. 9 Part 52 COLs for power reactors contain a standard 10 license condition that requires a submittal of written 11 notification to the NRC upon successful completion of 12 power ascension testing.
13 Therefore, the NRC would incorporate a 14 similar license condition into all future 10 C.F.R. 15 Part 50 operating licenses and 10 C.F.R. Part 52 COLs 16 to ensure the licensee would promptly notify the NRC 17 of successful completion of power ascension testing.
18 These proposed policy changes are 19 consistent with the FY 2020 final fee rule that 20 amended the timing of the assessment of annual fees 21 for future 10 C.F.R. Part 50 power reactors and 10 22 C.F.R. Part 52 COL holders.
23 This concludes my presentation and now I 24 would like to turn it over to Meghan Blair to discuss 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 our other policy changes regarding accurate invoicing.
1 MS. BLAIR: Thank you, Billy. Good 2
morning, my name is Meghan Blair and I am the Labor 3
Administration and Fee Billing Branch Chief in the 4
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
5 I'm going to talk about the accurate 6
invoicing section of NEIMA and a proposed regulation 7
change in the FY 2021 fee rule. The accurate 8
invoicing section of NEIMA is applicable to our fees 9
for services billed under 10 C.F.R. Part 170.
10 It emphasizes the need to ensure a proper 11 review and approval is performed prior to issuing the 12 invoices, having processes in place to ensure 13 accuracy, transparency, and fairness, and ensuring 14 there's a fair and efficient process in place for 15 Applicants and licensees to request a review of or 16 dispute their invoice.
17 We've completed several projects to 18 respond to the first two actions and part of the third 19 action, which I will briefly highlight. I will also 20 discuss the proposed regulation changes and associated 21 process that will fully address the third requirement.
22 After that, I will play a short video that 23 highlights many of the features of our electronic 24 billing system, e-billing.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 Next slide, please. This slide lists some 1
of the projects we have completed that address NEIMA 2
Section 102D, Actions 1, 2, and part of 3, which are 3
also discussed in the Proposed Fee Rule.
4 Invoice and billing structure redesign.
5 In FY 2018 we implemented a new data structure used 6
for tracking NRC Staff time and contractor costs that 7
is also used on our bills.
8 We incorporated the new data structure 9
when we redesigned the invoices to improve clarity and 10 transparency for our Applicants and licensees.
11 The new data structure includes a data 12 element called the enterprise project identifier, or 13 EPID, which allowed us to group costs at the project 14 level or by licensing action or inspection.
15 Using this code, we're able to provide a 16 description of each project on the invoice and some 17 costs at the project level.
18 We also standardize our cost activity 19 codes or CACs, which are used to track the specific 20 work activities being performed in order to complete 21 the project, licensing action, or inspection.
22 The standardization provides licensees 23 with consistent descriptions of the work being 24 performed across licensing action inspections as well 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 as over multiple dockets.
1 We improved the overall content and design 2
of the invoice by adding Staff and contractor company 3
names associated with the charges as well as a legend 4
of acronyms.
5 We organized the charges by separating 6
cost by project and then by Staff hours versus 7
contractor costs. These changes have led to a much 8
more transparent invoice.
9 Standardization of the fee billing 10 validation process. In FY 2019, we developed and 11 implemented a new process to ensure a reasonable 12 review of billable Staff time and contractor charges 13 as performed consistently across the Agency.
14 The standardized process defines roles and 15 responsibilities for performing fee billing validation 16 and certification.
17 It utilizes the EPID data element I 18 mentioned earlier to identify the proper individual 19 responsible for overseeing the project and thereby 20 responsible for validating the charges to that 21 project.
22 It also requires management oversight to 23 improve accountability and internal controls over the 24 process.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 The process requires offices with few 1
billable charges to regularly review and validate NRC 2
Staff hours and contractor costs for accuracy before 3
we send the bills out to licensees.
4 Each office provides a certification 5
ensuring all steps in the process were followed and 6
completed. The new standardized process improves 7
accountability and oversight within the NRC to help 8
ensure that fee billing data is accurate before 9
appearing on the licensee's invoice.
10 E-billing, at the beginning of FY 2020, we 11 implemented the electronic billing system or e-12 billing. It's a web-based application that provides 13 Applicants and licensees with the immediate delivery 14 of their invoices along with many other benefits.
15 I'd like to highlight a couple of the 16 features that address the transparency aspect of 17 NEIMA.
18 First, e-billing provides licensees with 19 the ability to export their invoice details to 20 Microsoft Excel, which allows for easy parsing of the 21 billing data and the ability to perform data 22 analytics.
23 A newer functioning that we implemented in 24 May of 2020 is the accrual report feature. On a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 biweekly basis after each NRC pay period, e-billing 1
provides access to costs that have accrued during the 2
billing quarter but have not yet been billed.
3 This feature allows individuals enrolled 4
in e-billing to improve their financial planning and 5
review charges before the invoice is issued. The 6
accrual reports are also available in Microsoft Excel 7
format for easy data analysis.
8 I do also want to mention that currently, 9
e-billing sign-up is completed through an email 10 process, however, we are working to implement a new 11 online registration functionality to increase 12 efficiency.
13 We expect this enhancement to be ready in 14 May. The video clip that we'll play in a few minutes 15 will show these features as well as many of benefits 16 of e-billing.
17 NRC Form 527 requests for information 18 related to fees for service.
19 In FY 2019 we developed a form to 20 facilitate a standardized and efficient process for 21 licensees to request additional information on charges 22 related to their fee-for-service invoices.
23 The process requires that the licensee 24 complete a small portion of the form with information 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 necessary to identify the invoice and specific charges 1
in question.
2 This enhances efficiency by enabling the 3
licensee to provide all the necessary information 4
upfront in the process.
5 Once received, the NRC Project Manager or 6
lead inspector will review the included form and add 7
the requested additional information to the form. The 8
form goes back through OCFO for review and then is 9
provided to the licensee.
10 If an error is identified at this point, 11 OCFO will coordinate with the technical staff and the 12 licensee until the error is corrected.
13 The form includes detailed instructions 14 and a process map to aid and clear understanding of 15 both the licensees' and the NRC's roles, as well as 16 the various steps in the process.
17 The implementation of this form provides 18 and efficient, fair, and appropriate process for 19 licensees and Applicants to seek review of these on 20 their invoices.
21 These are the improvements we've 22 implemented so far that serve to address the accurate 23 invoicing section of NEIMA. Let's move on to the 24 proposed regulation changes that will serve to address 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 the dispute portion.
1 Next slide, please. Section 102D3 of 2
NEIMA requires the NRC to modify regulations to ensure 3
fair and appropriate processes to provide licensees 4
and Applicants an opportunity to a efficiently dispute 5
or otherwise seek review and correction of errors in 6
invoices for service fees.
7 The NRC is proposing requirements for a 8
standard methods for licensees and Applicants to do 9
this. The process is illustrated in this map which is 10 also provided on Page 3 of the NRC Form 529 dispute of 11 fees for service charges in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 12 Part 170.51.
13 The proposed process follows the 14 established method for licensees and Applicants to 15 submit requests for the review of fees under 10 C.F.R. 16 Part 170 via the NRC Form 527 that I just mentioned.
17 If the Applicant or licensee wishes to 18 pursue a dispute after receiving NRC's response to the 19 Form 527, they will complete their portion of the Form 20 529 and submit it to the NRC.
21 The form may be submitted via email or 22 regular mail and we're actually in the process of 23 enabling the form in e-billing so that it will be 24 available to submit directly in the system for even 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 greater efficiency.
1 After that, the NRC will acknowledge the 2
receipt of the dispute form and review it to determine 3
if there are any errors pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 15.
4 We will communicate our findings back to the licensee 5
and if the dispute is valid, make corrections and 6
issue a new invoice.
7 The NRC will complete the dispute process 8
by returning the Form 529 back to the Applicant or 9
licensee with the NRC's dispute determination.
10 Standard use of an NRC form and amendments 11 to the current regulations as outlined in the Proposed 12 Fee Rule will increase efficiency by providing 13 licensees and Applicants with clear guidelines and 14 expectations for submitting a fee dispute.
15 It will also eliminate ambiguity regarding 16 the appropriate information needed for NRC to consider 17 and decide on a fee dispute. These proposed changes 18 outline the interactions between the submitter and the 19 NRC.
20 They will also enhance understanding by 21 setting out the process for submitting a fee dispute, 22 the stages of the decision-making process while the 23 dispute is under review, and the manner by which the 24 NRC will notify a debtor after it makes a final 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 determination on a dispute.
1 Additionally, the proposed revisions 2
provide consistent terminology to differentiate fee 3
disputes under 10 C.F.R. Part 15 from fee exemptions 4
under 10 C.F.R. Parts 170 and 171.
5 This wraps up the proposed regulation 6
changes to address Action 3 under the accurate 7
invoicing section of NEIMA. Let's move on to the e-8 billing video.
9 Hey, Jo, I don't think there's any sound.
10 MS. JACOBS: Can you hear the music?
11 MS. BLAIR: No.
12 (Video plays.)
13 Thanks, Jo. So, this wraps up the e-14 billing portion of this meeting. Next up is Tony 15 Rossi.
16 MR. ROSSI: Thank you, Meghan. Good 17 morning, My name is Anthony Rossi, I'm the Licensee 18 Fee Policy Team Lead in the Division of Budget, Office 19 of the Chief Financial Officer.
20 This morning I will briefly describe our 21 efforts concerning the initiative to develop a future 22 annual fee policy for Non-Light Water Reactors, 23 including consideration for very small Non-Light Water 24 Reactors, commonly referred to as micro reactors.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 Next slide, please, Jo. The current 1
annual fee structure in 10 C.F.R. Part 171 would 2
require small Non-Light Water Reactors to pay the same 3
annual fee as those paid by the operating power 4
reactor fee class.
5 Although the NRC revised this part of the 6
fee rule in 2016 to establish a variable annual fee 7
structure for small modular reactors, this revision 8
defines small modular reactors for the purposes of 9
calculating fees as the class of Light Water Power 10 Reactors having a licensed thermal power rating of 11 less than or equal to 1000 megawatts thermal per 12 module.
13 This limits the annual variable fee 14 structure to Light Water Reactors excluding all 15 Non-Light Water Reactor designs. Also, consideration 16 needs to be given for very small reactors commonly 17 referred to as micro reactors.
18 In order to develop a fair and equitable 19 fee structure for Non-Light Water Reactors, we have 20 formed a Work Group comprised of Staff from several 21 NRC Offices including the Office of the Chief 22 Financial Officer, the Office of Nuclear Reactor 23 Regulation, the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 24 Safeguards, and Our Office of General Counsel to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 discuss various fee rule alternatives for Commission 1
consideration.
2 The Staff plans to work within the 3
existing rulemaking process to propose and develop 4
changes to 10 C.F.R. Part 171 that would be fair and 5
equitable for Non-Light Water Reactors, including very 6
small Non-Light Water Reactors.
7 The Staff first initiated stakeholder 8
outreach on this topic in the May 2020 public meeting 9
and we continue to engage the stakeholders in an 10 ongoing series of advanced reactor stakeholder public 11 meetings.
12 These meetings will help inform the 13 development of a proposed Non-Light Water Reactors 14 annual fee policy along with stakeholder input.
15 While this policy change will not be part 16 of the FY 2021 fee rule, the Office of the Chief 17 Financial Officer is currently evaluating the 18 appropriate timeline for a proposed policy change for 19 Commission consideration.
20 With these comments, I'll now turn the 21 meeting back over to our moderator, Jo Jacobs.
22 MS. JACOBS: Good morning, thank you, Tony, 23 for that. Now we are moving on to the designated 24 question-and-answer session which Billy Blaney and I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 will be moderating.
1 We currently have allotted 20 minutes for 2
questions and answers and if there are any follow-up 3
questions that cannot be addressed in this meeting, we 4
will address these questions as part of our public 5
meeting summary.
6 When you have a question, please speak 7
clearly and state your name and affiliation and 8
identify the panel member that your question or 9
comment is directed towards so that we are able to 10 record this on the record.
11 At this time, Billy is going to check if 12 anyone in the chat box has raised their hand to ask a 13 question or make a comment.
14 We will take a few questions by this 15 method and then we will see if anyone on the phone has 16 any questions.
17 With that, Billy?
18 MR. BLANEY: I'm checking now to see if 19 there's any hands raised. I'm not seeing any at this 20 particular time.
21 MS. JACOBS: Okay.
22 MS. JOHNSON: This is Cherish, I can see 23 some hands are raised. How would you like to do that?
24 Sorry I'm stepping in, I just want to help.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 MR. BLANEY: Thanks, Cherish, because I'm 1
not seeing it on my end for some reason.
2 MS. JOHNSON: The first one I see is John 3
Butler.
4 MS. JACOBS: Okay. John?
5 MR. BUTLER: Yes.
6 MS. JACOBS: Thank you for participating 7
in our meeting. Do you have a question or comment?
8 MR. BUTLER: Yes, first off, thank you for 9
conducting the meeting. These are always very 10 valuable to me.
11 My question is on the limit for operating 12 reactor Part 171 annual fees that came as part of the 13 NEIMA bill. Can you give me just a brief overview of 14 how that limit is calculated?
15 MR. BLANEY: Jo, do you know which slide 16 we're talking about here?
17 MS. JACOBS: Was it a slide or just about 18 the CAC John?
19 MR. BUTLER: It's about the CAC. I'm just 20 looking for the specifics of how it's calculated. Do 21 you use an average CPI from the period of 2015 up to 22 the prior year, the year you're considering?
23 MS. GALSTER: John, this is Christie 24 Galster, our base is the 2015 annual fee that, yes, we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 do an analysis with the CPI and we actually have all 1
the figures.
2 We go each month and we look at that and 3
it's actually in our work papers under the power 4
reactors, just so everyone can kind of see how we come 5
up with the inflated rate.
6 MR. BUTLER: Thank you.
7 MS. JACOBS: Are there any other questions 8
in the chat box? Or John, do you have another 9
question?
10 MR. BUTLER: I had a couple of questions, 11 yes.
12 MS. JACOBS: Okay, I understand the 13 difficulty and coming up with accurate Part 170 14 estimate as part of the proposed budget.
15 I'm curious whether or not there has been 16 any attempt to go back and look at prior-year budgets 17 and how compare how accurate those proposed budget 18 estimates of Part 170 compared with the Part 170 19 collections or even what was in the final fee rules.
20 MR. BOWMAN: This is Greg Bowman, I can 21 take a first crack at that if you like and then if 22 anybody from OCFO or from the NRR budget team wants to 23 chime in, that would be great.
24 I'm not a budget guru, I'll put that out 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 first, John, but I'm taking part in budget formulation 1
for FY 2023 right now.
2 And what I have seen is us doing a lot of 3
work to take a look at how we've been executing budget 4
in prior years when we're looking at the FY 2023 5
budget to look for areas where we really didn't expend 6
the resources we were expecting to.
7 And in those cases, we do take a very 8
critical look to see whether we're at the right place 9
in the budget or whether we need to reduce, or if 10 we're over-executing, whether we need to add.
11 So, that is kind of an integral part of 12 what we do for budget formulation. I can't speak to 13 how it's been in years past because I'm relatively new 14 to this but it is a relatively significant part of how 15 we're doing the formulation this year.
16 Does that answer your question? I guess 17 I would ask if anybody from either OCFO or EPID if 18 you'd like to add anything that I might have missed?
19 MR. BUTLER: I mean, that's what I would 20 expect you to do. I appreciate the response and I 21 appreciate the fact that you're looking at that.
22 I know in prior years the budget estimates 23 have been higher than what has actually been in the 24 final rules. So, I'm just looking for some level of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 review and correction if necessary.
1 MR. BOWMAN: Understood, thanks.
2 MR. BUTLER: I had an initial question, if 3
I could ask it?
4 MS. JACOBS: Sure, John.
5 MR. BUTLER: Thanks. The Form 529, I was 6
curious whether or not when a fee is disputed through 7
the Form 29, do you put the disputed fees into 8
abeyance?
9 I guess that's the quickest way of asking 10 the question.
11 MS. BLAIR: Hi, John, are you asking 12 whether we kind of put the invoice on hold or under 13 review during that period?
14 MR. BUTLER: Yes.
15 MS. BLAIR: Yes, we do.
16 MR. BUTLER: Okay, good. And one final 17 question which may or may not be in scope, is there an 18 estimate of when you'd expect the CBJ for FY 2022 to 19 be released?
20 MR. SHAY: Hey, John, this is Jason, the 21 Director. We've gotten estimates for late March.
22 Unfortunately, we would have loved to have the 2022 23 data in this presentation. As you can see from my 24 presentation, I didn't touch upon 2022 for a reason.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 We talked to our OMB examiner and these 1
are just estimates but we're hopeful for the end of 2
March, but obviously, until OMB releases the FY 2022 3
budgets, I really can't comment on the data on 2022.
4 But we would sure love to have it, that's for sure.
5 MR. BUTLER: Great, that answers my 6
question. That's all the questions I have, thank you 7
very much.
8 MS. JACOBS: I think now we can see if 9
anyone else on the phone -- we'll move to the phone --
10 MS. JOHNSON: I still see some hands up.
11 MR. BLANEY: Yes, I had some hands too, 12 Jo.
13 MS. JACOBS: We're going to see if there's 14 anyone on the phone and then we're going to come back 15 and check the chat box for the hands raised.
16 Does anyone on the phone have any 17 questions. If so, please hit star-six to unmute your 18 phone. Hearing none, Billy, we can move back to the 19 chat box.
20 MR. BLANEY: Sure, Eric Jebsen has his 21 hand raised.
22 MR. JEBSEN: Hello, this is Eric Jebsen 23 from Exelon Generation, can you hear me okay?
24 MS. JACOBS: We can hear you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 MR. JEBSEN: Thank you. I had two 1
questions, one is I think for Christine Galster.
2 I study the determination of the hourly 3
rates, what goes in and out and I've always had a 4
question, and it may have been answered before and I 5
just lost my notes, about the mission-direct non-labor 6
exclusion and why other non-labor is included.
7 And maybe some examples of what is in the 8
non-labor? So, just a little discussion about, again, 9
why the mission-direct non-labor is excluded from the 10 hourly fee calculation but other non-labor is 11 included, and maybe some examples.
12 And that's the first question.
13 MS. GALSTER: The mission-direct labor is 14 included into the Part 170 rate.
15 MR. JEBSEN: This would be the non-labor.
16 MS. GALSTER: The non-labor, the contract 17 dollars are not included. The direct mission contract 18 dollars are not included because those are contract 19 dollars so more than likely those are all billed 20 individually on your invoices.
21 So, we would be double-counting those if 22 they were included in your invoices as well as being 23 counted in the Part 170 calculation.
24 MR. JEBSEN: That's helpful to me because 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 knowing their contract and looking at invoices, I 1
agree, I'll see invoices from National Labs and so 2
forth on the invoices.
3 So, I understand that.
4 Now, how about then why would non-labor 5
and maybe an example of non-labor indirect is 6
included?
7 MS. GALSTER: Everything for indirect and 8
Agency costs are all included. Indirect, it's just 9
basically we can't identify it's not an 10 identifiable recipient within that fee class or within 11 a fee class.
12 So, that is indirect just like indirect 13 supplies, that would all have to be included and 14 overhead is all included in the Part 170 rate because 15 we have to collect 100 percent of our budget.
16 So, all those resources have to be 17 combined together and charged in the Part 170 hourly 18 rate.
19 I'm just trying to think of an example.
20 If we had a contract with admin assistants that we use 21 for NRC, that would be included in I believe indirect.
22 And possibly also Agency support as well.
23 MR. JEBSEN: Right, there's the other 24 category too. Okay, so I think I understand those.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 The big thing was why is the one not included?
1 It's billed later as contractors and the 2
other is just a whole grab bag of stuff that doesn't 3
seem to fit anywhere else, that's indirect non-labor.
4 And then I guess a segue to that, and 5
maybe you're not the right person, looking at the 6
overhead part of this, I know that NEIMA had certain 7
caps on the overhead.
8 And again, I apologize, you may have said 9
it and I missed it, but what is the overhead projected 10 to be for Fiscal Year 2021 versus the CAC?
11 MR. SHAY: Thank you, Eric. So, the cap 12 was 30 percent for 2021 and 2022, 29 percent for 2023 13 and 2024, and 28 percent for 2025 and beyond.
14 We made every effort, to the maximum 15 extent practicable, to meet that cap in 2021. We are 16 just slightly over it, we're at 31 percent with the 17 budget that we submitted to Congress in our CBJ.
18 So, we're just slightly over it but we've 19 made every attempt to do so in 2022 and you'll see 20 that data come out once OMB releases our budget.
21 MR. JEBSEN: Okay, thank you very much for 22 that. And I just thought of another one and since I'm 23 holding the stick I'm going to ask this. I think this 24 is for Meghan Blair and this was regarding the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 disputes and adjustments, and John's question made me 1
think of this.
2 Right now, I've had experience with 3
getting not very regularly but sometimes we'll get a 4
refund check. And we get those as paper checks, it's 5
a Federal Government check.
6 The only thing I'm asking that we push for 7
is if there's a way to -- just because it's so 8
difficult handling paper anymore -- get those as a 9
credit against a future billing.
10 I don't know if there's an internal 11 Federal Government rule that says you can't carry it 12 across Fiscal Years.
13 I don't know if there's something like 14 that but I would encourage the NRC to maybe pursue 15 being able to use credit in lieu of a paper check.
16 MS. BLAIR: Thank you, Eric. That's 17 something we can look at I think. With some new 18 business processes implemented around e-billing, we're 19 maybe unable to do that.
20 But I will take that into consideration 21 and just double-check into that.
22 MR. JEBSEN: Okay, that's all from me, 23 thank you. To echo John Butler, this is always very 24 helpful and I very much appreciate the information.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 Thank you.
1 MS. GALSTER: Eric, I just wanted to add 2
on one more thing.
3 You were mentioning you would like to get 4
examples for what is indirect non-labor and in our fee 5
rule work papers we actually have a list by product 6
line and product for what is indirect and what is 7
Agency support.
8 So, you might want to check that out as 9
well.
10 MR. JEBSEN: Awesome, I probably just 11 didn't go back that far. Thank you.
12 MS. JACOBS: Billy, I think we should see 13 if anyone on the phone?
14 MR. BLANEY: Yes, I'll double-check the 15 phone and then we can double back too because we have 16 a couple more hands raised in the chat box.
17 MS. JACOBS: Perfect, does anyone on the 18 phone have any questions that hasn't already spoke?
19 MS. JOHNSON: Jo, Steven Dolley's been 20 waiting some time now.
21 MS. JACOBS: Okay, hi, Steven.
22 MR. DOLLEY: Hi, good morning, this is 23 Steven Dolley with SMP Global Platts, can you hear me 24 okay?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 MS. JACOBS: Yes.
1 MR. DOLLEY: Great, thanks very much. I 2
want to echo the previous speakers who thanked you all 3
for putting the presentations together. It's always 4
interesting and useful to get under the hood of the 5
fee rule, if a little bit scary.
6 Two quick questions, the first is just 7
quite simply high-level, when does Staff plan to 8
finalize and send up the final fee rule?
9 MS. JACOBS: This is Jo Jacobs. Right 10 now, we are hoping to have the final fee rule 11 published no later than June 30th.
12 Obviously, if we can have it published 13 sooner, we are doing everything possible to work 14 towards an earlier date. But right now, we're hoping 15 to have it published by June 30th at the latest.
16 MR. DOLLEY: Thanks, I appreciate that and 17 I understand the constraints there.
18 And the second question is on NEIMA fee 19 recovery requirements and I apologize, I probably 20 missed some nuance here and I will go back and listen 21 to that section again.
22 But would it be accurate to say for FY 23 2021 under the NEIMA requirement there be 100 percent 24 fee recovery for FY 2021?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 MS. JACOBS: That's correct.
1 MR. DOLLEY: A simple statement like that 2
would not be inaccurate.
3 MR. SHAY: Minus our excluded activities.
4 MR. DOLLEY: I'm sorry. Sorry, that was 5
Jason?
6 MR. SHAY: Yes, sorry about that.
7 MR. DOLLEY: I had my notes up rather than 8
the video. Okay, well, this is why I was asking about 9
it, excluded activities defined as...? This is the 10 waste incidental reprocessing and --
11 MR. SHAY: It's the items in our net 12 budget authority, the $123 million that Christine had 13 mentioned. Those are off the fee base so we have to 14 recover the rest of our fees minus the $123 million of 15 net budget authority.
16 MS. GALSTER: Steven, Jason was saying the 17 fee relief that used to be under OBRA 90, we used to 18 have a cap of that 10 percent and if we went over or 19 under there was a surcharge assessed to everyone's 20 annual fees.
21 Under NEIMA, that is no longer happening 22 so whatever fee relief is, all of it, the entire 23 amount of fee relief is excluded from the fee-based 24 budget.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 MR. DOLLEY: Okay, so for the FY 2021 --
1 (Telephonic interference) 2
-- percent recovery, except for the $123 3
million that's off fee base?
4 MS. GALSTER: Correct, and there's a 5
detail in the work papers as well as our fee rule, I 6
think it's Table 1, that will go through all the 7
activities that are part of the fee relief and part of 8
the statutory excluded items as well.
9 MR. DOLLEY: Okay, great, thank you all 10 very much. I'm sorry, go ahead.
11 MR. SHAY: And Steven, just for clarity, 12 NEIMA states approximately 100 percent so just for 13 accuracy, if you're going to state the quote out of 14 NEIMA, it's approximately 100 percent minus excluded 15 activities.
16 MR. DOLLEY: Okay, but that doesn't change 17 what you just told me about the 123, right?
18 MR. SHAY: That's correct.
19 MR. DOLLEY: Okay, great, thank you very 20 much, I appreciate it.
21 MR. SHAY: You're welcome.
22 MR. BLANEY: Jo, we have a Jason Zorn in 23 the chat box with his hand raised.
24 MS. JACOBS: Hi, Jason, who is your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 question directed towards?
1 MR. ZORN: I'm not sure on who would 2
answer this, it's more of a general policy question.
3 My name is Jason Zorn, I'm an Assistant General 4
Counsel at Exelon.
5 When the Proposed Fee Rule went out, we 6
took the opportunity to go back and look at NEIMA of 7
course and look at some of the legislative history on 8
that.
9 And I guess it's sort of a general 10 question because when you look back at the leg history 11 for NEIMA, there's a clearly articulated problem 12 statement at the beginning of the conference report 13 for the statute.
14 And it very specifically highlights the 15 discrepancy between estimated Part 170 fees versus 16 what's actually collected in the fee rule.
17 And for instance, when they talk about 18 OBRA 90 they said if the NRC overestimates the amount 19 of revenue it expects to collect, it must recover the 20 resulting revenue, shortfall through Part 170 fees, in 21 order to meet the OBRA 90 mandate for 90 percent fee 22 recovery.
23 And then it goes on to state that NEIMA's 24 intended to help provide assistance in reducing this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 discrepancy. So, in looking at the budget here and, 1
for instance, what was in the CBJ, the 2021 CBJ and 2
the estimated Part 170 recovery for operating 3
reactors, for instance, it was about $188 million.
4 But then in the proposed feel rule it's 5
about $157 million and maybe I'm misunderstanding the 6
equivalency between those two numbers.
7 But I guess it's just a general question 8
of does the Staff feel its met the general intent of 9
NEIMA or that it's still working towards meeting it to 10 have those estimated Part 170 fees be closer to what's 11 actually collected?
12 Because as it's proposed right now, it 13 seems to be perpetuate the old problem that was 14 created by OBRA 90. And you have this overestimate of 15 the budget, which you ultimately have to shift over to 16 the annual fees.
17 So, I'm sorry for the long-winded 18 question. Hopefully I got my point through.
19 MS. JACOBS: Sure. Christie, did you want 20 to answer that?
21 MS. GALSTER: So, first, to start off I 22 think the big disconnect is, and correct me if I'm 23 wrong, what you're seeing in the CBJ for estimated 24 Part 170 is different from what you're seeing in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 Proposed Fee Rule for the estimated Part 170, is that 1
correct?
2 MR. ZORN: If I understand it correctly, 3
and I understand earlier in the presentation you 4
discussed differences between the business lines and 5
the fee classes.
6 But in Appendix C to the CBJ there's this 7
discussion of anticipated operating reactor fees and 8
it says that Part 170 for operating reactors is going 9
to be approximately 188 I think.
10 In the proposed rule it states that the 11 actual was 157.
12 MS. GALSTER: Right, and it is also 13 estimated that the 157 is also estimated, obviously 14 because we only had a couple of months in 2021 to 15 estimate that.
16 So, the big variance between what you're 17 saying in the CBJ and that appendix is those numbers 18 were formulated two years ago.
19 So, at that time two years ago, we're 20 looking at 2018, 2019 is when they're formulating the 21 2021 budget, and Jason can correct me if I'm wrong, 22 but while they're doing that formulation, that's when 23 they're estimating all the work.
24 They're talking to all their stakeholders 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 to see what work they want to get done. And so that 1
is why you're seeing 188, but we get more current 2
information as we're doing the Proposed Fee Rule 3
because obviously, we're just maybe ten months out, 4
six months out.
5 And so we're getting more accurate data of 6
what work is actually going to be done in the Part 7
170.
8 And going back to the CBJ, obviously the 9
CBJ that's formulated two years prior, that's not what 10 our appropriation is. So, what we wanted in the CBJ 11 for the budget actually declined.
12 I don't have the number in front of me but 13 it was quite substantial. So, yes, you may see the 14 Part 170 going down from the CBJ to the proposed but 15 you also need to look at the budget as well.
16 Because the budget in the CBJ does also 17 not consider having carryover funding as well. Does 18 that help?
19 MR. ZORN: Thanks for the answer, I 20 appreciate that.
21 I guess still my core question is NEIMA 22 recognized this, Congress was aware when it drafted 23 NEIMA that the budget was formulated two years out in 24 advance but still intended, it appears, to address to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 close that gap.
1 And arguably I suppose it does this by 2
providing more flexibility than OBRA 90 had recovery.
3 Because in the past, it used to be the NRC would say, 4
oh, shucks, OBRA 90 requires us to get 90 percent back 5
so our hands are tied. We can't make any adjustments.
6 Whereas, now that OBRA 90 is gone and 7
you've got NEIMA in its place, one could surmise that 8
the intent of NEIMA was to provide flexibility in 9
these situations in which -- accounting for the fact 10 the budget was formulated two years ago.
11 And now it's two years later, how did the 12 NRC use NEIMA to address that discrepancy to make it 13 closer so that that overbudgeting has not shifted over 14 to annual fees?
15 MR. SHAY: Jason, this is Jason actually.
16 We can take that offline and we can provide you a 17 better response in the summary that we have.
18 But your point is well taken, I think we 19 just need to provide a better response and get back to 20 you in the summary of the meeting itself.
21 MR. ZORN: Thank you, Jason, I appreciate 22 that.
23 One other data-point on that I would just 24 highlight is for instance, in the explanation in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 Proposed Fee Rule as to why the Part 170 fees were 1
less than anticipated, it cites the closure of Indian 2
Point 3 and Duane Arnold even though there's probably 3
something here I'm missing.
4 But Indian Point 3 shutdown was announced 5
in January 2017 and Duane Arnold was known quite a bit 6
of time ago as well I believe.
7 But it's hard for me to understand why 8
that would be counted as it seems like always an 9
unanticipated thing that happened, therefore, we're 10 not doing as much work as we thought.
11 Whereas, in fact, it's been known for four 12 years now about Indian Point 3. So, I would just ask 13 to take a closer look at that.
14 MR. SHAY: I appreciate your insights, 15 thank you very much. Before we go onto the next 16 question, I do want to just clarify something about 17 the 2021 budget.
18 So, a clarification, we are expecting our 19 pass back at the end of March and then subsequently 20 our CBJ later on. Don't know the exact dates of the 21 CBJ but I just wanted to clarify that we're supposed 22 to get our pass back by the end of March.
23 So, I just wanted to highlight that.
24 MS.
JACOBS:
Are there any other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 questions?
1 MR. BLANEY: Yes, we have Tony Zimmerman 2
with his hand raised.
3 MS. JACOBS: Thank you, Tony. What is 4
your specific question or is it towards a specific 5
person?
6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, thank you for the 7
time to ask the question. I appreciate the 8
presentation today too, it was very insightful.
9 My question, I believe, I for Meghan Blair 10 and relates to e-billing around Slide 35 in your 11 presentation.
12 First of all, I just want to commend the 13 Staff for the e-billing effort you've done. It's a 14 tremendous improvement over the paper hard copy PDFs 15 we usually get and it gives us a lot more ability as 16 a licensee to analyze the data and to make sure the 17 billing accuracy reflects the work performed.
18 And by the way, my organization is Duke 19 Energy. I have responsibility for NRC fees regarding 20 the company.
21 My question or comment relates back to the 22 functionality of e-billing and your video demonstrated 23 the capability to drill into EPID and look at 24 individual line items, which is very useful.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 My question is me as a licensee, if I want 1
to find out how much a certain inspection activity 2
costs or a licensing reactivity cost, I have to go 3
back through each individual e-billing invoice and 4
then total them up or import them into Excel the way 5
you demonstrated in your video.
6 Some added functionality that we requested 7
during the original scoping of your e-billing effort 8
and during the initial public meetings was the ability 9
to look at discreet line items across billing cycles.
10 So, for example, on e-billing website, if 11 I could pull a specific inspection activity or an EPID 12 from licensing with you and see what the current 13 invoice total was for that particular quarter, but 14 also have my search return results across the entire 15 lifecycle of that activity, that provides a lot more 16 functionality as an interactive tool than having to 17 manually import every quarter's invoice into a 18 separate Excel spreadsheet and then try to tally 19 across that way.
20 So, as you're looking at e-billing and 21 future potential enhancements, I would encourage you 22 to look at some functionality that allows licensees or 23 even the NRC to look at EPID activities across 24 multiple billing cycles and totaling up the entire 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 cost of a given activity, as opposed to limiting that 1
review on the current quarter in question.
2 Thank you.
3 MS. BLAIR: Thanks for that. So, if I'm 4
not mistaken, I do believe we have the functionality 5
to be able to select multiple invoices and export the 6
data for all of those invoices into Excel.
7 I don't know, we have two of our e-billing 8
Project Managers, IT specialists, on the line.
9 Nandini Sharma or Victor Kochuba, are you available to 10 chime in on the current functionality with regards to 11 being able to export data across multiple bills?
12 MS. SHARMA: Meghan, do you mind repeating 13 the question, please?
14 MS. BLAIR: Sure, so the question is does 15 e-billing currently offer the ability to export 16 billing data across multiple invoices, multiple 17 quarters of invoices, for a particular docket?
18 MS. SHARMA: I believe it does. I would 19 expect if the inquiring party doesn't mind to just 20 check in with our support. We should be able to 21 support such requests.
22 MS. BLAIR: I do think we've implemented 23 that functionality and we'll follow up to make sure 24 but I do believe it exists. If it doesn't, we'll 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 definitely put it on the list but I believe it's 1
there.
2 MS. SHARMA: Yes, I would support that 3
Meghan, and in fact, we can export it in a couple of 4
formats as well. If Excel is suitable we can do that 5
as well as PDF.
6 MS. BLAIR: Right, so if you do want to go 7
ahead and submit a help request or we can try to reach 8
out to you if we have your contact information through 9
this Teams call.
10 We can walk you through the process as 11 well.
12 MS. SHARMA: Absolutely.
13 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you, I appreciate 14 that. I'll take a look at that functionality.
15 MS. JACOBS: Sure. Billy, are there any 16 other questions?
17 MR. BLANEY: John Butler, do you have your 18 hand raised again to ask another question?
19 MR. BUTLER: Yes, I had a follow-up to the 20 discussion with Jason Zorn.
21 I'm curious as to whether or not the FY 22 2022 budget will take into account the closures that 23 are now known to be expected in FY 2022, operating 24 plant closures?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 MS. JACOBS: Jason?
1 MR. SHAY: Hey, John, sorry about that, 2
let me get my camera on. Yes, unfortunately, I can't 3
comment on the 2022 budget right now, I apologize for 4
that obviously.
5 I don't want to give out information that 6
I'm not authorized to do given that OMB has not 7
released the budget itself.
8 So, I'm reluctant to really go into that 9
level of detail but as soon as we get more 10 information, I promise you we'll get that out there as 11 soon as possible.
12 MR. BUTLER: Understood, thank you.
13 MR. SHAY: Thank you, John.
14 MS. JACOBS: Does anyone on the phone have 15 any questions, who hasn't already asked a question?
16 Hearing none, are there any other questions from the 17 chat box?
18 MR. BLANEY: I do not see any additional 19 hands raised. Are there any other questions out there 20 that may want to be asked at this point? I'm not 21 seeing any, Jo.
22 MS. JACOBS: Okay, hearing that there are 23 no more questions, we will move on to public comment 24 submission.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 As you will see on the next two slides, 1
there are various ways that members of the public can 2
comment on our fee rule by the end of the comment 3
period on March 24th.
4 You can go to regulations.gov and 5
reference the docket ID and address questions to Dawn 6
Forder. You can email your comments to the 7
rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov.
8 You can mail in the comments to the 9
Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or 10 for further information, you can contact the license 11 fee policy team lead, Anthony Rossi. And his phone 12 number is listed here in the Proposed Fee Rule.
13 And with that, that concludes this portion 14 of the meeting and I will turn the meeting back over 15 to our Chief Financial Officer, Cherish Johnson, for 16 her closing comments.
17 MR. BLANEY: Jason, you're muted.
18 MR. SHAY: Sorry about that. I'm going to 19 close for Cherish, she had to depart early.
20 So, I just want to say to all of our Staff 21 and stakeholders, I
hope you have a
better 22 understanding of our fee-setting program and its 23 relationship to our budget formulation activities.
24 We look forward to any comments you may 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 submit on our proposed rule. And lastly, I'd like to 1
thank the presenters this morning and recognize the 2
wonderful job that our License Fee Policy Team did in 3
putting the meeting together for us today.
4 With that, I think we've concluded the 5
meeting and I wish everyone a great day and to be 6
safe. Thank you very much, take care.
7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 8
went off the record at 11:47 a.m.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433