ML20210F658

Responds to Providing Comments on Proposed FY99 Annual Fee Rule & Requesting That NRC Reject Proposed Annual Fee Increases for non-power Reactors.Request for Exemption from 10CFR171 Annual Fee Requirements Denied

ML20210F658
Person / Time
Site:	National Bureau of Standards Reactor
Issue date:	07/29/1999
From:	Funches J NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
To:	Rowe J COMMERCE, DEPT. OF, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERL
Shared Package
ML20210F661	List: ML20210F658 ML20210F673
References
NUDOCS 9908020086
Download: ML20210F658 (3)

Text

p fee p t UNITED STATES i

l h'

g j 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 3066Ho01

\*****/ Duly 29,1999 United States Department of Commerce NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology ATTN: J. Michael Rowe, Director NIST Center for Neutron Research j Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 .

Dear Dr. Rowe:

I am responding to your April 30,1999, letter providing comments on the proposed FY 1999 annual fee rule. You requested that the NRC reject the proposed annual fee increases for non-power reactors and in the interest of national policy, waive the annual fee for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NiST) research reactor. The NRC received several public comments opposing the proposed fee increases, and responded to those comments in the final fee rule published in the Federal Reoister on June 10,1999 (64 FR 31448). This letter responds to your request for a waiver of the annual fee, which we are considering as a "public good" exemption request. As explained below, your request is denied. l On March 17,1994, the NRC published in the Federal Reaister a final rule reinstating the fee exemption for non-profit educational institutions based on the "public good" concept (59 FR 12539). In the final rule the Commission stated that, "those non-profit research instttutions and Federally-owned research reactors who believe that they qualify for an .

exemption from the annual fee based on the public good concept are of course, free to I request one from the Commission." 59 FR 12541. l l

The bases for'your request are: (1) you consider the annual fee increase excessive without a basis for justification, and you object to such large changes imposed at this stage in the fiscal year; (2) NIST is the only Federal Government reactor assessed any fee; (3) NIST serves many customers whose measurements are critical to meeting national goals; and (4) each year more than 1,500 researchers from industry, university, and government rely on the capabilities of the NIST Center for Neutron Research for critical research in physics, chemistry, materials science, biology and engineering.

The criteria that must be satisfied for an exemption from fees to be granted based on the "public good" concept are described in the March 17,1994, final rule (59 FR 12539). The Commission stated in the March 17,1994, final rule that:

The Commission agrees with commenters' arguments that educational institutions' commitment to basic research is largely unique, as it is not driven by the need to develop commercial uses. While there is undoubtedly much basic research performed outside educational institutions, the Commission does not believe that it is an adequate substitute for academic research. In the Commission's view, a major benefit resulting from educational institutions' use of nuclear reactors and materials is the production of new knowledge through research, which the Commission would term a "public good," as defined in economic theory. Two characteristics of a public good like 9908020006 990729 4 DR ADOCK 0500

1 J. Micha:l Rowe '

July 29, 1999 pure knowledg3 cre its nondepir.t:bility cnd non:xcludability. That is, ons person's

, acquisition of knowledge does not reduce the amount available to others; further, it is not efficient-and often is impossible, as a practical matter--to prevent others from acquiring it. These characteristics make it difficult to recoup the costs of producing pure knowledge. Because the value of a public good may be very great, but the costs )

of producing it impossible to recapture, it may be necessary to subsidize that good's production for production to occur at all. (59 FR 12540).

The Commission further stated:

. 1 in the Commission'a view . . . . . many educational licensees would be forced to halt their research and educational activities due to lack of funds if NRC fee subsidies were withdrawn; that those activities would often not be continued in the private sector, resulting in a serious loss of basic research in numerous areas of study; and that the public good inherent in the production of knowledge made available to all is worthy of Government support (59 FR 12540-12541).

The information you provided does not demonstrate that NIST satisfies the "public good" criteria for a fee exemption. We have no evidence that NIST's licensed activities produco new knowledge through research that is available to all, or that NIST would be forced to hatt its research activities by a lack of an NRC fee subsidy. The fact that the research reactor is used by industry, universities, and government for research does not provide adequate reason to waive the annual fee. We agree that NIST is the only Government agency assessed the non-power reactor annual fee. However, the NIST research reactor does not meet the exemption criteria of 10 CFR 171.11(a)(2)(i), which implements Section 2903(a)(4) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, since it is licensed at 20 megawatts thermal power. Other Government agencies holding non-power reactor licenses have been exempted from the -

annual fee because they meet the criteria provided in the statute. For the foregoing reasons, 1 your request for an exemption from the Part 171 annual fee requirements is denied.

The FY 1999 flnal fee rule will become effective August 9,1999, and the FY 1999 annual fee I will be due on tnat date. An FY 1999 annual fee invoice will be mailed a few days before the payment due date. If payment in one lump sum will not be possible given the increase and i lack of lead time to budget for the increase, please contact this office for an installment I payment plan or an extension of the payment due date.

Sincerely.

Origineln!gntKtbyJetitieNNuitse

, Jesse L. Funches Chief FinancialOfficer

Enclosure:

March 17,1994, Federal Reaister Notice Distribution: (See attached list)  :

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DAF9-121.wpd m ~. e ouom u e.co ooi n.- c.c . n v . m ,,.

. OFFICE OCF0/DAF/LFARB L NRR/DRPM L OGC NAME[m) DB GCJact M TMichael e a# TRothsch pgr DATE W /99 a /99 7/& /99 ummmmmmmmammumimummummme ammu nau 0FFICE OCF0/D/DAF C- DCF0 O k CFO NAE JTurdici PJhh JLFunches DATE 7 / U /99 d 99 '7 /2ff /99 v Of71CIAL RECORD COPY h

A 1

1 .

• - Distribution: Letter to J. Michael Rowe. Dated July 29.1999 OCFO/DAF/LFARB RF OCFO/DAF RF (DAF 9-121)

OCFO/DAF SF (LF 3.1.3)

NUDOCS (ML-61)

PDR Docket File 50-184 OCFO RF DCFO RF O

e

=

020015 ,

\

i