|
---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML24264A1122024-09-20020 September 2024 Comment (008) from Martin J. Oneill on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-51 - Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review ML24082A0972024-03-21021 March 2024 Comment (005) of Jennifer Uhle on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-2, 15, 37, 73, 110, 140, 170 and 171 - Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2024 ML24023A6042024-01-22022 January 2024 Comment (011) from Jennifer Uhle on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50, 51, and 71 - Increased Enrichment of Conventional and Accident Tolerant Fuel Designs for Light-Water Reactors ML23296A0792023-10-18018 October 2023 Comment Period Extension Request from the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50, 51, and 71 - Increased Enrichment of Conventional and Accident Tolerant Fuel Designs for Light-Water Reactors ML23177A2492023-06-23023 June 2023 Comment (012) from Thomas Basso on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50 - American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases and Update Frequency ML23171B0032023-06-15015 June 2023 Comment (011) from Thomas Basso on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50 - American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases and Update Frequency ML23123A4072023-05-0202 May 2023 Comment (0018) from Jennifer Uhle on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-51 - Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review ML23095A0372023-04-0404 April 2023 Comment (001) from Mark A. Richter on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50 - American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases and Update Frequency ML23093A1882023-03-31031 March 2023 Comment (003) from Dr. Jennifer L. Uhle on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-170 and 171 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2023 ML23080A1862023-03-17017 March 2023 Comment (001) from Douglas E. True on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-30, 40, 50, 70 & 72 - Alternatives to the Use of Credit Ratings ML23062A7162023-03-0303 March 2023 Comment (006) from Frances Pimentel on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PRM-50-124 - Licensing Safety Analysis for Loss-of-Coolant Accidents ML23031A3022023-01-30030 January 2023 Comment (006) from Tony Brown on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50 - Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants ML22333B0322022-11-28028 November 2022 Comment (014) from the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-71 - Harmonization of Transportation Safety Requirements with IAEA Standards ML22243A2572022-08-31031 August 2022 Comment (115) of Doug True on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML22243A1972022-08-30030 August 2022 Comment (092) from Bruce Montgomery of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning ML22087A0522022-03-24024 March 2022 Comment (003) of Jennifer Uhle on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-170, 171 - Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2022 ML22025A2332022-01-21021 January 2022 Comment (01) of Janet Schlueter on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-11, 25 and 95 - Access Authorization Fees ML21309A5782021-11-0505 November 2021 Comment (080) of the Nuclear Energy Institute and the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML21288A1302021-10-14014 October 2021 Comment (004) of Dr. Jennifer L. Uhle on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-52 - NuScale Small Modular Reactor Design Certification ML21287A1462021-09-30030 September 2021 Comment (008) of Nuclear Energy Institute on PRM-50-119 - Access to the Decommissioning Trust Fund for the Disposal of Large Components ML21274A0702021-09-28028 September 2021 Comment (062) of Douglas True on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML21265A4442021-09-15015 September 2021 Comment (007) of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-2,21,26,50,51,52,55,73 - Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing ML21244A3312021-08-31031 August 2021 Comment (061) of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML22133A2292021-08-30030 August 2021 EPFAQ 2021-001 Clarification of Section 4.3 of NUREG-7002, Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, Regarding Acceptable Error And/Or Confidence Interval ML21203A2252021-07-21021 July 2021 Comment (006) of Martin O'Neill on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on ANPR-51 - Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review ML21197A1032021-07-16016 July 2021 Comment (056) of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML21196A4982021-07-14014 July 2021 Comment (054) Submitted by Nuclear Energy Institute on Behalf of Multiple Stakeholders as Unified Industry Position on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML21168A0952021-06-15015 June 2021 Comment (002) from the Nuclear Energy Institute on PRM-37-2 - Advance Tribal Notification of Certain Radioactive Material Shipments ML21166A1192021-06-14014 June 2021 Comment (045) of David Young on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML21145A1722021-05-25025 May 2021 Comment (004) of Thomas Basso on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50 - American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions ML21144A2892021-05-20020 May 2021 Comment (024) of William Gross on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding PR-26 - Fitness for Duty Drug Testing Requirements ML21144A1642021-05-14014 May 2021 Comment (005) of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-2,21,26,50,51,52,55,73 - Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing ML21095A1002021-04-0101 April 2021 Comment (006) from the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50 - Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Code Cases ML21083A2882021-03-24024 March 2021 Comment (005) of Jennifer Uhle on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-15, 170 & 171 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fy 2021 ML21068A3572021-03-0909 March 2021 Comment Period Extension Request of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-2,21,26,50,51,52,55,73 - Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from Nr Licensing ML21068A0972021-03-0808 March 2021 Comment (004) of Douglas True on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on PR-30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 - Alternatives to the Use of Credit Ratings ML21042B8892021-02-11011 February 2021 Comment (016) of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML21048A3602021-02-0101 February 2021 Comment (004) of Ellen C. Ginsberg on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-1 - NRC Enforcement Policy ML21061A0442021-01-0707 January 2021 Comment (03) of Douglas True on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on Proposed Evaluation Policy Statement ML20363A2272020-12-23023 December 2020 Comment (004) of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on PR-53 - Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors ML20289A6322020-10-15015 October 2020 Comment (001) of David Young on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PRM-50-123- Public Protective Actions During a General Emergency ML20267A3262020-09-22022 September 2020 Comment (194) of Marcus Nichol on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PR- 50, 52- Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies ML20233A5892020-08-10010 August 2020 Comment (03) of Hilary Lane on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on PRM-50-121 - Voluntary Adoption of Revised Design Basis Accident Dose Criteria ML20128J3402020-05-0606 May 2020 Comment (01) of James E. Slider on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-Chap 1- Retrospective Review of Administrative Requirements ML20077K3382020-03-16016 March 2020 Comment (003) from Jennifer Uhle on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-170 and 171 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2020 ML19338D2552019-12-0202 December 2019 Comment (017) of William Gross on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding PR-026 - Fitness for Duty Drug Testing Requirements ML19325C8352019-11-19019 November 2019 Comment (043) of Janet Schlueter from the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-061 - Greater-Than-Class-C and Transuranic Waste ML19228A1842019-08-15015 August 2019 Comment (07) of Michael Tschiltz on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-50, 52, 73 - Physical Security for Advanced Reactors ML16068A2522019-07-30030 July 2019 Mitigation Beyond-Design-Basis Events Proposed Rule Comment (9) - NEI (Annotated) Original Submission Dated February 9, 2016 (ML16041A445) ML19178A3312019-06-27027 June 2019 Comment (01) of Michael D. Tschiltz on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on PRM-171-1 - Petition of Southern Nuclear to Revise Part 171 - Nuclear Power Plant Licensee Fees Upon Commencing Commercial Operation 2024-09-20
[Table view] |
Text
As of: 1/25/22 10:02 AM Received: January 21, 2022 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kyo-rwhv-vhp3 Comments Due: January 27, 2022 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2020-0133 Amendment of Access Authorization Fees Comment On: NRC-2020-0133-0001 Access Authorization Fees Document: NRC-2020-0133-DRAFT-0001 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-28117 Submitter Information Email: kme@nei.org Organization: Nuclear Energy Institute General Comment Comments on Direct Final Rule Access Authorization Fees (86 Fed. Reg. 73,631; Dec. 28, 2021)
[Docket ID NRC-2020-0133 Attachments 01-21-22_ NRC_Comments on Proposed Rule on Access Authorization Fees
JANET SCHLUETER Sr. Advisor Fuel Cycle and Low-Level Waste 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8098 jrs@nei.org nei.org January 21, 2022 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Washington, DC 20555-0001 Submitted via Regulations.gov
Subject:
Comments on Direct Final Rule Access Authorization Fees (86 Fed. Reg. 73,631; Dec. 28, 2021)
[Docket ID NRC-2020-0133]
Project Number: 689
Dear Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff:
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1 is pleased to provide comments on the above-referenced direct final rule on behalf of its members. The direct final rule describes a significant change to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) fee for processing licensee materials and information access authorization requests.
Specifically, the NRC proposes to increase its processing fee from 55.8% to 90.2% of the fee charged by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) to conduct the background investigations supporting the NRCs access authorization decisions. This represents a nearly 62% increase in the NRCs application processing fee (assuming no change in the DCSA cost) and a 22% increase in the overall access authorization fee charged to licensees.
NEI believes that the direct final rule lacks transparency and that our comments raise issues that require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process and raise issues serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record. 2 Thus, we request that these comments be considered significant adverse comments, that this direct final rule be withdrawn, and that the NRC use a standard notice-and-comment rulemaking to address this issue. Further, we request that the NRC republish a proposed rule that contains additional information that will allow stakeholders to provide meaningful, informed comments, and extend the public comment period accordingly.
1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.
2 In the preamble to the direct final rule, the NRC provides criteria for determining whether a comment on a direct final rule is significant and adverse. 86 Fed. Reg. 73,632 (Dec. 28, 2021).
Secretary January 21, 2022 Page 2 The Direct Final Rule Lacks Transparency and Fails to Provide a Meaningful Opportunity for Public Comment The direct final rule states that the agency is revising its fees based upon a September 2019 audit that evaluated NRCs actual in-house costs for processing licensee access authorization applications. That audit showed an increase in the NRCs review time for each application. . . [and] that the NRC was not recovering its full-cost fees for the time spent processing the increased number of complex applications. . .
. 3 The direct final rule goes on to briefly explain how the access authorization fee is calculated - i.e., DCSA investigation billing rate + NRC application processing fee. The NRC application processing fee is, in turn, calculated as a percentage of the DCSA investigation billing rate - currently 55.8%, and increasing to 90.2%
if the direct final rule goes into effect.
But the direct final rule does not provide any additional information on the 2019 audit, its findings, or why the NRC believes that changing its fee from 55.8% of the DCSA billing rate to 90.2%, as opposed to some other adjustment amount or method of assessing fees in this area, will address the audit findings. 4 Other than a reference to an increased number of complex applications, there is no explanation of why the cost of NRCs application processing activities are approaching the cost of the actual background investigations used to support NRCs access decisions. Some description of how applications are becoming more complex, what proportion of applications are now considered complex, and why that complexity warrants the proposed fee increase is necessary to solicit meaningful public comment. In its current form, the rule provides industry (and other stakeholders) no information upon which to evaluate and comment upon the appropriateness of the nearly 62% increase in NRCs application processing fee that is being proposed.
To remedy this situation, the NRC should consider making the September 2019 audit report referenced in the direct final rule publicly available. If that is not possible, the NRC should provide an explanation of why the audit cannot be publicly disclosed and provide an explanation of the audit methodology and results, as well as an explanation of how those results led to the NRCs conclusion that the proposed increase was necessary. That information should be provided in a republished proposed rule, with an appropriate period allotted for public comment.
The Proposed Implementation Schedule is Unreasonable In addition to the lack of transparency discussed above, the NRC is proposing that this relatively large increase in access authorization fees take effect on March 14, 2022. Based on the supplementary information published with the rule, it appears that the NRC became aware of the need to increase the fee at least two (and possibly five) years prior to publishing the direct final rule. 5 But NRC only noticed this potential fee increase in the Federal Register just days before the end of calendar year 2021 (i.e., on December 28, 2021). Given this lack of notice, licensees have already finalized and are executing their 3
86 Fed. Reg. 73,633.
4 For example, given that the NRCs application processing fee is now approaching the DCSA investigation billing rate, it is unclear why the NRC fee is tied to the DCSA rate at all. A flat NRC rate for recovering its processing costs should be considered.
5 The direct final rule indicates that the September 19, 2019, audit was the impetus for the fee change. 86 Fed. Reg. 73,633. It also indicates that the NRC became aware that costs were increasing in this area during a 2016 biennial review. Id.
Secretary January 21, 2022 Page 3 calendar year 2022 operating budgets and those budgets do not account for this fee increase. Thus, we respectfully request that the NRC implement this fee increase in a manner that allows licensees to account for the additional costs as part of their normal budgeting processes (i.e., phasing any fee increase in beginning in calendar year 2023).
Additional Comments The direct final rule incorrectly states that despite a 2016 biennial review indicating increasing costs, the NRC had not adjusted its fees since 2012. 6 For example, as demonstrated in the Q clearance data table below, while the NRCs mark-up rate remained at 55.8%, the NRC access authorization fee has been steadily adjusted upward since 2012 due to increases in the DCSA investigation billing rates.
Date Q clearance $ NRC Fee Markup Rate 1/2008 $4,898 31.7%
4/2012 $6,240 Increased to 55.8%
11/2013 $6,168 55.8 11/2014 $7,117 55.8 10/2015 $8,083 55.8 10/2018 $8,890 55.8 10/2020 $8,514 55.8 10/2021 $8,429 55.8 3/2022 $10,290 Proposed to increase to 90.2%
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely, Janet R. Schlueter c: Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, NRC Emily Robbins, Office of Administration, NRC 6
86 Fed. Reg. on page 73,686.