ML25083A232
| ML25083A232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 03/21/2025 |
| From: | Uhle J Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | Carrie Safford NRC/SECY |
| References | |
| NRC-2023-0069, 90FR9848 00007, PR-170, PR-171 | |
| Download: ML25083A232 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 3/24/25, 12:25 PM Received: March 21, 2025 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. m8j-9u81-111x Comments Due: March 21, 2025 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2023-0069 Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2025 Comment On: NRC-2023-0069-0002 Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2025 Document: NRC-2023-0069-DRAFT-0013 Comment on FR Doc # 2025-02779 Submitter Information Email:atb@nei.org Organization:Nuclear Energy Institute General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments 03-21-25_NRC_FY2025 Proposed Fee Rule Comments
Dr. Jennifer Uhle Vice President Phone: 202.247.5717 Email: jlu@nei.org March 21, 2025 Carrie M. Safford Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Submitted via Regulations.Gov
Subject:
Industry Comments on Fiscal Year 2025 Proposed Fee Rule (NRC Docket ID NRC-2023-0069)
Project Number: 689
Dear Ms. Safford:
On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEI)1 members, we provide the following comments for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs consideration as it finalizes the fiscal year 2025 fee rule.
We appreciated the public webinar meeting held by the NRC staff on March 6 to discuss the FY2025 proposed fee rule and its underlying basis and assumptions. These meetings are always informative, and we request that they be continued.
Because a full-year appropriation had not yet been enacted at the time of proposed rule issuance, the proposed budget is based on the NRCs FY2025 budget request. The proposed rule reflects a total budget authority of $994.9 million, an increase of $30.8 million from FY2024. The FY2025 budget request proposes the use of $20.0 million in carryover to offset the Nuclear Reactor Safety budget, resulting in a gross budget authority of $974.9 million, an increase of $30.8 million from FY2024. After accounting for excluded activities and net billing adjustments, the NRC must recover approximately $826.1 million through fees in FY2025. Of this amount, the NRC estimates that $216.0 million will be recovered through 1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the organization responsible for establishing unified industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations and entities involved in the nuclear energy industry.
Ms. Carrie Safford March 21, 2025 Page 2 Nuclear Energy Institute 10 CFR Part 170 service fees, and approximately $610.1 million will be recovered through Part 171 annual fees in FY2025, representing an increase of $4.0 million compared to FY2024.
On March 15, 2025, the President signed into law H.R.1968, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, which provides FY2025 funding for the NRC. This bill directs changes to the NRC FY2025 proposed budget that are not reflected in the proposed fee rule. As such, we acknowledge that the fees in the NRC's FY 2025 final fee rule may need to be adjusted to reflect the enacted budget.
Budget Transparency As shown in the Figure below, the percentage of the NRC budget supported by annual fees (currently at 62.6%) has risen substantially over the past 10 years. Despite being over 60% of the NRC budget, the proposed fee rule and associated work papers provide scarce information on how annual fees are utilized.
We encourage the NRC to expand the information provided in the FY2025 final fee rule, and in future rules, to include a detailed breakdown on annual fee usage.
Research and Test Reactors For Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities (NPUFs), the FY2025 proposed fee rule represents a notable 28% increase in the annual fees. This sharp fee increase results from the reduction of fee-paying facilities from three to two in FY2025, a 33% decrease in the licensee base. Despite prior discussions on the expected reduction in fee-paying licensees, the FY2025 Fee Rule does not incorporate any mitigating
Ms. Carrie Safford March 21, 2025 Page 3 Nuclear Energy Institute solutions. NRC had options to adjust resource allocation, reconsider fee distribution methodologies, or introduce alternative relief measures such as application of carryover funds, yet these were not reflected in the proposal. The financial burden placed on the remaining fee-paying licensees is not sustainable and could undermine the long-term viability of these facilities, which serve national interests in education and research.
We urge the NRC to reconsider its fee allocation methodology for the NPUF category to ensure fairness and sustainability. Specifically, the NRC could explore potential alternative approaches such as:
resource reallocation by reducing NRCs allocated resources for this category to match the reduction in fee-paying licensees proportional scaling of fees by adjusting fees to reflect the actual costs incurred rather than distributing overhead costs uniformly across a shrinking fee-paying licensee base explore alternative non-fee-based funding sources for research-focused facilities The NRC staff should also examine policy considerations and compliance with the Atomic Energy Act. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA), Section 104(c) underscores the national mission of education, research, training, and outreach. The current fee structure disproportionately burdens the remaining fee-paying licensees, potentially undermining these objectives by discouraging continued operations across the NPUF fleet, in contravention of considerations given in 10 CFR 50.41(b). To align NRCs fee policy with the AEAs intent, we strongly recommend reevaluating the current approach to fee allocation.
We request follow-up discussions with NRC staff to explore potential solutions that would alleviate the financial burden on the remaining fee-paying licensees. We are open to participating in stakeholder meetings or engaging in further dialogue to support a revised approach that ensures financial sustainability while maintaining compliance with NRCs regulatory requirements.
Given the anticipated long-term impact of the FY2025 proposed fees, we strongly urge NRC to adopt a more balanced and sustainable fee structure for NPUFs. Implementing mitigating solutions is critical to ensuring these facilities can continue fulfilling their national mission. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and look forward to working collaboratively with NRC staff to address these concerns effectively.
Licensee Fees Should Not Subsidize Other Federal Agencies The FY2025 budget includes approximately $6 million to subsidize rent for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In its October 12, 2021, letter to Congress on the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), NRC identified that over the course of this lease the nuclear industry will pay approximately $48 million to subsidize rent for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the 3WFN building. These payments do nothing to support the agencys mission and should not be funded through fees collected
Ms. Carrie Safford March 21, 2025 Page 4 Nuclear Energy Institute from NRC licensees and, ultimately, electricity rate payers. We encourage the NRC to continue its discussions with Congress to remove these payments from the fee base.
Corporate Support Budget We appreciate the NRC efforts to manage and reduce corporate support costs. However, these efforts do not appear to be effective. Under NEIMA, as modified by the ADVANCE Act, corporate support costs, to the maximum extent practicable, shall not exceed 30% of the total budget authority of the Commission.
The corporate support budget for FY2025 is 31.9% of total budget authority. This is a 1.7% increase over the FY2024 value of 30.2%. We encourage NRC to double its efforts to reduce corporate support costs.
Fuel Cycle Facilities While it is promising to see stable fees for fuel cycle facilities after two years of double-digit percentage point increases, fees for all facility categories remain above their 20-year averages. Furthermore, the FY2025 annual fee for Category I fuel fabrication facilities surpasses that of a power reactor. This is inappropriate given the difference in hazard profiles and complexities between the two licensees.
Policy Adjustments for Advanced Reactor Applicants Statutory and Regulatory Background The ADVANCE Act Amendments to NEIMA The President signed into law the ADVANCE Act on July 9, 2024. Among other things, the ADVANCE Act amended certain definitions and fee-related provisions in Sections 3 (Definitions) and 102 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission user fees and annual charges for fiscal year 2021 and each fiscal year thereafter) of NEIMA, as codified at 42 USC 2215. As relevant here, Section 201 (Fees for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Application Review) of the ADVANCE Act amended NEIMA to require a reduced hourly rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicants for certain activities (Reduced Hourly Rate) and to create new excluded activities associated with the Reduced Hourly Rate. Section 201 added the following definitions of advanced nuclear reactor applicant and advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant to NEIMA:
The term advanced nuclear reactor applicant means an entity that has submitted to the Commission an application for a license for an advanced nuclear reactor under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
The term advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant means an entity that has submitted to the Commission a licensing project plan for the purposes of submitting a future application for a license for an advanced nuclear reactor under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
Ms. Carrie Safford March 21, 2025 Page 5 Nuclear Energy Institute The ADVANCE Act did not modify the definitions of licensing project plan or regulatory framework, which also are germane to NEIs comments below. Licensing project plan is defined as a plan that describes - (A) the interactions between an applicant and the Commission; and (B) project schedules and deliverables in specific detail to support long-range resource planning undertaken by the Commission and an applicant. Regulatory framework refers to the framework for reviewing requests for certifications, permits, approvals, and licenses for nuclear reactors.
NRCs Proposed Approach to Implementing the ADVANCE Act Amendments The FY2025 proposed fee rule includes revisions to 10 CFR Part 170 to implement Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act in preparation for the October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), statutory effective date for the Reduced Hourly Rate. The NRC proposes to amend 10 CFR 170.3, Definitions, to include definitions for the terms advanced nuclear reactor applicant and advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant as follows:
Advanced nuclear reactor applicant means an entity that has submitted to the Commission an application that (1) is for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in section 3 of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (42 U.S.C. 2215 note); (2) is for an operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); and (3) is not for an amendment to or renewal of an existing license.
Advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant means an entity that has submitted to the Commission a licensing project plan for the purposes of submitting a future application that (1) is for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in section 3 of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (42 U.S.C. 2215 note); (2) is for an operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); and (3) is not for an amendment to or renewal of an existing license.
90 Fed. Reg. at 9864.
The FY25 proposed fee rule provides the following rationale for these definitions:
The definitions added to NEIMA for both an advanced nuclear reactor applicant and an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant are not limited to commercial licenses under AEA section 103. These definitions apply to any advanced nuclear reactor, as defined by NEIMA section 3(1), for which an application for a license is pursued. Although neither NEIMA nor the ADVANCE Act includes a definition for the term license, the text of NEIMA demonstrates that for purposes of NEIMAs provisions, the term license refers to an initial license that is not a permit (i.e., an operating license, combined license, and manufacturing license). NEIMA draws a clear distinction between the term license and the terms permit, license amendment, license renewal, and design certification and
Ms. Carrie Safford March 21, 2025 Page 6 Nuclear Energy Institute approval, as multiple provisions in NEIMA refer to licenses and separately to permits, license amendments, license renewals, and design certifications and approvals.
Accordingly, to qualify as an advanced nuclear reactor applicant under NEIMA, an entity must have submitted a Qualifying License Application - that is, an application that is both for (1) an advanced nuclear reactor and (2) a license as that term is used in NEIMA (i.e.,
an operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license). To qualify as an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant under NEIMA, an entity must have submitted a Qualifying Licensing Project Plan - that is, a licensing project plan for the purposes of submitting a future application that is both for (1) an advanced nuclear reactor, and (2) a license as that term is used in NEIMA (i.e., an operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license). To be clear, the definition of an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant includes an entity that plans to submit or has submitted other types of applications, such as an application for a permit or design certification or approval, if the entity has submitted a Qualifying Licensing Project Plan.
90 Fed. Reg. at 9861.
In short, to qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate, the activity must relate to the review of a Qualifying License Application or submitted materials as described in a Qualifying Licensing Project Plan. 90 Fed. Reg. at 9862.
NEIs Comments on NRCs Proposed Fee Rule Approach From NEIs perspective, the Reduced Hourly Rate eligibility requirements embedded in the NRCs proposed definitions of advanced nuclear reactor applicant and pre-applicant raise two important concerns that should be addressed in the final rule.
Scope of Licensing Activities Eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate First, the NRCs definition of advanced nuclear reactor applicant is unduly narrow and unjustifiably limits the scope of licensing activities that are eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate. NEI respectfully disagrees with the NRCs assertion that NEIMAs text draws a clear distinction between the term license and the terms permit, such that the term license must refer only to an initial license that is not a permit (i.e., an operating license, combined license, and manufacturing license). NEIMA contains only two references to the term permit. One reference is in the definition of regulatory framework, which is broadly defined as the framework for reviewing requests for certifications, permits, approvals, and licenses for nuclear reactors. The other reference to permit is in the definition of requested activity of the Commission. That term is used only in NEIMA Section 102(c) (Performance and Reporting), which directed the NRC to establish performance metrics and milestone schedules for requested activities of the Commission, including the processing of applications for design certifications or approvals, licenses, permits, license amendments, license renewals, certificates of compliance, power uprates, and any other activity
Ms. Carrie Safford March 21, 2025 Page 7 Nuclear Energy Institute requested by a licensee or applicant. Moreover, the term is used specifically in connection with the need for the NRC staff to inform the Commission of specified delays in the issuance of final safety evaluations for such requested activities. Thus, it has no bearing on the fee-related provisions of Section 102(b).
Therefore, for purposes of NEIMA Section 102(b) and 10 CFR Part 170, NEI contends that the application submitted by an advanced nuclear reactor applicant (or to be submitted by an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant) should not be limited to an operating license, combined license, and manufacturing license. It should also include topical reports, early site permits, construction permits, design certifications, and standard design approvals. That is, these other forms of NRC approvals or authorizations should be eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate. NEI believes this approach is consistent with both NEIMAs text and avowed goal of providing a program to develop the expertise and regulatory processes necessary to allow innovation and the commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors.
Further, it is consistent with the ADVANCE Acts goal of reducing licensing and deployment costs for new reactors.
As noted above, the proposed fee rule states that the definition of advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant includes an entity that plans to submit, or has submitted, other types of applications, such as an application for a permit or design certification or approval, if the entity has submitted a Qualifying Licensing Project Plan. 90 Fed. Reg. at 9861 (emphasis added). By way of example, the proposed fee rule explains that an entity that has submitted a construction permit application would qualify as an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant under NEIMA if it has submitted a licensing project plan for the purposes of submitting a future application for an operating license under the AEA for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in NEIMA. 90 Fed. Reg. at 9862. However, the proposed fee rule further states that whether the review of submitted materials related to such a construction permit application would qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate would depend on whether those materials are encompassed by the Qualifying Licensing Project Plan. 90 Fed. Reg. at 9862. If the NRC declines NEIs recommendation to expand the definition on application to include the other forms of NRC approvals identified above, then it should, at a minimum, provide more clarity and guidance on how pre-applicants can ensure that other types of applications (e.g., ESP, CP) are encompassed by the Qualifying Licensing Project Plan.
Types of Advanced Reactors Eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate NEIs second concern relates to the NRCs interpretation and application of NEIMAs definition of advanced nuclear reactor, which we believe could unnecessarily limit the types of advanced reactor designs and projects that are eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate. In short, NEI urges the NRC not to limit the eligibility of advanced nuclear reactor designs for the Reduced Hourly Rate based on prior NRC interpretations of NEIMAs definition of an advanced nuclear reactor, including in SECY-20-0032. The industry expects that Generation III+ (Gen III+) small modular reactors (SMRs) as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, non-light water reactors (non-LWRs), micro-reactors, and even some Gen III+ large LWRs with improvements could meet the NEIMA definition of an advanced nuclear reactor. The NRC should apply
Ms. Carrie Safford March 21, 2025 Page 8 Nuclear Energy Institute that definition in a flexible manner that facilitates licensing an optimal array of new reactor technologies and designs, consistent with the goals of NEIMA and the ADVANCE Act.
For the reasons set forth above, NEI urges the NRC to avoid imposing unnecessary limits on the scope of licensing activities and types of reactor technologies and designs that are eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate in the FY2025 proposed fee rule.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely, Jennifer Uhle Vice President c:
Mr. Owen F. Barwell, NRC/CFO Mr. Anthony Rossi, NRC/OCFO Mr. William Blaney, NRC/OCFO