Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1999
FederalRegulations
Ask Donna
How this section applies to your facts.
Federal Register › Vol. 64 › 64 FR 15876
Text
Part II
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171
Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1999; Proposed Rule
Proposed Rules
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171
RIN 3150-AG08
Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1999
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants
and licensees. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, which
mandates that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget
authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, less amounts appropriated from the
Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) and the General Fund. The amount to be
recovered for FY 1999 is approximately $449.6 million.
DATES: The comment period expires May 3, 1999. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC
is able to ensure only that comments received on or before this date
will be considered. Because OBRA-90 requires that NRC collect the FY
1999 fees by September 30, 1999, requests for extensions of the comment
period will not be granted.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal
workdays. (Telephone 301-415-1678). Comments may also be submitted via
the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page
(http://www.nrc.gov). From the NRC homepage, select ``Rulemaking'' from
the tool bar. The interactive rulemaking website can then be accessed
by selecting ``Rulemaking Forum''
5 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal
workdays. (Telephone 301-415-1678). Comments may also be submitted via
the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page
(http://www.nrc.gov). From the NRC homepage, select ``Rulemaking'' from
the tool bar. The interactive rulemaking website can then be accessed
by selecting ``Rulemaking Forum''. This site provides the ability to
upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports
that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site,
contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, 301-415-5905; e-mail [email protected].
Copies of comments received and the agency workpapers that support
these proposed changes to 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 may be examined at
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level),
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments received may also be viewed and
downloaded electronically via the interactive rulemaking website
established by the NRC for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenda Jackson, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Telephone 301-415-6057.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
II. Proposed Action.
III. Plain Language.
IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
VI. Regulatory Analysis.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
VIII. Backfit Analysis.
I. Background
ffice of the Chief
Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Telephone 301-415-6057.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
II. Proposed Action.
III. Plain Language.
IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
VI. Regulatory Analysis.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
VIII. Backfit Analysis.
I. Background
Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
(OBRA-90), enacted November 5, 1990, requires that the NRC recover
approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount
appropriated from the Department of Energy (DOE) administered Nuclear
Waste Fund (NWF), for FYs 1991 through 1995 by assessing fees. OBRA-90
was amended in 1993 to extend the NRC's 100 percent fee recovery
requirement through 1998. In 1998 OBRA-90 was amended to extend the
NRC's 100 percent fee recovery requirement through FY 1999.
The NRC assesses two types of fees to recover its budget authority.
First, license and inspection fees, established at 10 CFR part 170
under the authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of
1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, recover the NRC's costs of providing
individually identifiable services to specific applicants and
licensees. Examples of the services provided by the NRC for which these
fees are assessed are the review of applications for the issuance of
new licenses, approvals or renewals, and amendments to licenses or
approvals. Second, annual fees, established in 10 CFR part 171 under
the authority of OBRA-90, recover generic and other regulatory costs
not recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees.
II. Proposed Action
ples of the services provided by the NRC for which these
fees are assessed are the review of applications for the issuance of
new licenses, approvals or renewals, and amendments to licenses or
approvals. Second, annual fees, established in 10 CFR part 171 under
the authority of OBRA-90, recover generic and other regulatory costs
not recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees.
II. Proposed Action
The NRC is proposing to amend its licensing, inspection, and annual
fees to recover approximately 100 percent of its FY 1999 budget
authority, including the budget authority for its Office of the
Inspector General, less the appropriations received from the NWF and
the General Fund. For FY 1999, the NRC's budget authority is $469.8
million, of which $17.0 million has been appropriated from the NWF. In
addition, $3.2 million has been appropriated from the General Fund for
activities related to regulatory reviews and other assistance provided
to the DOE and other Federal agencies. The NRC's FY 1999 Appropriations
Act states that this $3.2 appropriation shall be excluded from license
fee revenues. Therefore, the NRC is required to collect approximately
$449.6 million in FY 1999 through 10 CFR part 170 licensing and
inspection fees and 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. The total amount to be
recovered in fees for FY 1999 is $5.2 million less than the amount
estimated for recovery in the NRC's FY 1998 fee rule.
The reduced budgeted costs to be recovered through fees for FY 1999
reflect several actions taken by the NRC. These actions include
strategic planning, downsizing, and a more aggressive policy on seeking
reimbursement for performing services that are not a required part of
the agency's statutory mission. For example, for FY 1999, the NRC
entered into an agreement with the U. S. Agency for International
Development to fund NRC's staff costs associated with providing nuclear
safety assistance to the countries of the former Soviet Union
anning, downsizing, and a more aggressive policy on seeking
reimbursement for performing services that are not a required part of
the agency's statutory mission. For example, for FY 1999, the NRC
entered into an agreement with the U. S. Agency for International
Development to fund NRC's staff costs associated with providing nuclear
safety assistance to the countries of the former Soviet Union. As a
result, NRC licensees are not required to pay for the costs of this
activity in FY 1999. These costs were previously included in NRC's
budget authority and the costs were recovered through annual fees
assessed to NRC licensees.
The NRC estimates that approximately $107.7 million will be
recovered in FY 1999 from fees assessed under Part 170 and other
receipts, compared to $94.6 million in FY 1998. The increase from FY
1998 is primarily due to increased Part 170 collections largely
attributable to changes in Commission policy included in the FY 1998
final fee rule, such as billing full cost under Part 170 for resident
inspectors, and a $4.1 million carryover from additional collections in
FY 1998 that were unanticipated at the time the final FY 1998 fee rule
was published. In addition to the estimated Part 170 collections and
other receipts, the NRC estimates a net adjustment of approximately
$2.1 million for payments received in FY 1999 for FY 1998 invoices. The
remaining $339.8 million would be recovered in FY 1999 through the 10
CFR part 171 annual fees, which is approximately $20.4 million less
than in FY 1998.
Table I summarizes the budget and fee recovery amounts for FY 1999:
mated Part 170 collections and
other receipts, the NRC estimates a net adjustment of approximately
$2.1 million for payments received in FY 1999 for FY 1998 invoices. The
remaining $339.8 million would be recovered in FY 1999 through the 10
CFR part 171 annual fees, which is approximately $20.4 million less
than in FY 1998.
Table I summarizes the budget and fee recovery amounts for FY 1999:
Table 1.--Budget and Fee Recovery Amounts for FY 1999
[Dollars in Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Budget............................................ $469.8
Less NWF............................................ -17.0
Less General Fund (Reviews for DOE and other Federal -3.2
agencies)..........................................
---------------
Total Fee Base.......................................... 449.6
Less Part 170 Fees.................................. -103.5
Less other receipts................................. -4.2
---------------
Part 171 Fee Collections Required....................... 341.9
Part 171 Billing Adjustment \1\
Unpaid FY 1999 invoices............................. 3.4
Less Payments received in FY 1999 for prior year -5.5
invoices...........................................
---------------
Subtotal........................................ -2.1
Adjusted Part 171 Collections Required.............. 339.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These adjustments are necessary to ensure that the ``billed'' amount
results in the required collections. Positive amounts indicate amounts
billed that will not be collected in FY 1999.
...
---------------
Subtotal........................................ -2.1
Adjusted Part 171 Collections Required.............. 339.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These adjustments are necessary to ensure that the ``billed'' amount
results in the required collections. Positive amounts indicate amounts
billed that will not be collected in FY 1999.
Because the final FY 1999 fee rule will be a ``major'' final action
as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, the NRC's fees for FY 1999 would become effective 60 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
The NRC announced in the FY 1998 proposed rule that the final rule
would no longer be mailed to all licensees. However, because the NRC is
soliciting public comments on two potential annual fee schedules for FY
1999, the FY 1999 final rule will be mailed to all licensees. As a
cost-saving measure, the NRC does not plan to routinely mail future
final fee rules to all licensees, but will send the final rules to any
licensee or other person upon request. As a matter of courtesy, the NRC
will continue to send the proposed fee rules to all licensees.
In addition to publication in the Federal Register, the final rule
will be available on the internet at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/. Copies
of the final rule will also be mailed upon request. To request a copy,
contact the License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch, Division of
Accounting and Finance, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, at 301-
415-7554, or e-mail us at [email protected]. It is our intent to publish the
final rule in June of 1999.
The NRC is proposing to make changes to 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 as
discussed in Sections A. and B. below:
A. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 170: Fees for Facilities, Materials,
Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended
r, at 301-
415-7554, or e-mail us at [email protected]. It is our intent to publish the
final rule in June of 1999.
The NRC is proposing to make changes to 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 as
discussed in Sections A. and B. below:
A. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 170: Fees for Facilities, Materials,
Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended
The NRC is proposing four major amendments to 10 CFR part 170, and
several administrative amendments to update information in certain
sections and to accommodate the major proposed changes. These
amendments further the underlying basis for the regulation--that fees
be assessed to applicants, persons, and licensees for specific
identifiable services rendered. The amendments also comply with the
guidance in the Conference Committee Report on OBRA-90 that fees
assessed under the IOAA recover the full cost to the NRC of
identifiable regulatory services that each applicant or licensee
receives.
The major changes to 10 CFR part 170 proposed by the NRC are:
1. Expanded Part 170 Cost Recovery
The NRC is proposing to expand the scope of part 170 to include
incident investigations, performance assessments and evaluations
(except those for which the licensee volunteers at NRC's request and
which NRC accepts), reviews of reports and other submittals such as
responses to Confirmatory Action Letters, and full cost recovery for
time expended by Project Managers.
Part 170 fees are based on Title V of the IOAA, interpretations of
that legislation by the Federal courts, and Commission guidance. These
guidelines provide that part 170 fees may be assessed to persons who
are identifiable recipients of ``special benefits'' conferred by
specifically identified activities of the NRC
ction Letters, and full cost recovery for
time expended by Project Managers.
Part 170 fees are based on Title V of the IOAA, interpretations of
that legislation by the Federal courts, and Commission guidance. These
guidelines provide that part 170 fees may be assessed to persons who
are identifiable recipients of ``special benefits'' conferred by
specifically identified activities of the NRC. The term ``special
benefits'' includes services rendered at the request of a recipient and
all services necessary to the issuance of a required permit, license,
certificate, approval, or amendment, or other services necessary to
assist a recipient in complying with statutory obligations under the
Commission's regulations.
Part 170 fees are currently assessed for:
(a) The review of applications for and the issuance of licensing
actions or other approvals;
(b) The review and approval of topical reports;
(c) Preapplication consultations and reviews;
(d) Inspections; and
(e) The costs of maintaining resident inspectors.
The remainder of NRC's budget authority is recovered through annual
fees assessed under part 171.
In the NRC's FY 1998 fee rulemaking, steps were taken to more
appropriately recover costs for certain activities through part 170
fees rather than through part 171 fees. The NRC's proposals to further
expand the scope of part 170 for FY 1999 would result in cost recovery
for additional activities through part 170 fees rather than through
part 171 fees.
a. Inspections
Under this proposed change, part 170 fees would be assessed for all
inspections, including licensee-specific performance reviews,
assessments, evaluations and incident investigations. Examples of
activities that would be billable under part 170 are performance
assessments of fuel facilities, Diagnostic
ional activities through part 170 fees rather than through
part 171 fees.
a. Inspections
Under this proposed change, part 170 fees would be assessed for all
inspections, including licensee-specific performance reviews,
assessments, evaluations and incident investigations. Examples of
activities that would be billable under part 170 are performance
assessments of fuel facilities, Diagnostic
Evaluation Team assessments, and Incident Investigation Team
investigations. Licensees who volunteer to participate in a performance
review or assessment at NRC's request and which the NRC accepts would
be exempted from these part 170 fees. The inspections that are proposed
to be included in part 170 are ``special benefits'' provided to
identifiable recipients, whether or not an inspection report is issued.
For example, incident investigations are investigations of significant
operational events involving power reactors and other facilities.
Causes of the events are determined and corrective actions taken.
Incident Investigation Teams investigate events of potentially major
significance. Although the investigations may result in some generic
lessons, the investigations are primarily a direct service provided to
the specific licensee and assist the licensee in complying with NRC
regulations. The costs of any generic efforts that may result from the
investigations, such as the development of new regulatory requirements
and guidance, would continue to be recovered through part 171 annual
fees, not through part 170 fees assessed to the licensee. In addition,
any time expended by our Office of Investigations on these activities
will be recovered through part 171 fees. These proposed part 170 fees
would not apply to materials licenses for which no inspection fee is
specified in part 170 because the inspection costs are included in the
part 171 annual fee for those fee categories.
b. Additional Document Reviews
ssessed to the licensee. In addition,
any time expended by our Office of Investigations on these activities
will be recovered through part 171 fees. These proposed part 170 fees
would not apply to materials licenses for which no inspection fee is
specified in part 170 because the inspection costs are included in the
part 171 annual fee for those fee categories.
b. Additional Document Reviews
The NRC is also proposing to expand the scope of part 170 to
include reviews of documents submitted to the NRC that do not require
formal or legal approvals or amendments to the technical specifications
or license. Examples are certain financial assurance reviews, reviews
of responses to Confirmatory Action Letters, reviews of uranium
recovery licensees' land-use survey reports, and reviews of 10 CFR
50.71(e) final safety analysis reports (FSARs). part 170 fees are
currently not assessed for these reviews because they do not result in
an approval or amendment, and the costs are recovered through part 171
annual fees. Although no specific approval is issued, reviews of these
submittals are services provided by the NRC to identifiable recipients
that assist them in complying with NRC regulations.
c. Project Manager Time
Additionally, the NRC is proposing that all project managers time,
excluding leave and time spent on generic activities such as
rulemaking, be recovered through Part 170 fees assessed to the specific
applicant or licensee to which the project manager is assigned. This
change would be applicable to all licensees subject to full cost fees
under Part 170 and to which project managers are assigned. Currently,
only project manager time spent on a specific licensing action or
inspection is billed under Part 170 and costs for the remaining project
manager activities are recovered in the Part 171 annual fees. However,
there are other project manager activities that also support and
provide a direct benefit to the assigned licensee or site
Part 170 and to which project managers are assigned. Currently,
only project manager time spent on a specific licensing action or
inspection is billed under Part 170 and costs for the remaining project
manager activities are recovered in the Part 171 annual fees. However,
there are other project manager activities that also support and
provide a direct benefit to the assigned licensee or site.
Examples of project manager activities which would be included in
the Part 170 fee assessment are those associated with oversight of the
assigned license or plant (e.g., setting work priorities, planning and
scheduling review efforts, preparation and presentations of briefings
for visits to NRC by utility officials, interfacing with other NRC
offices, the public, and other Federal and state and local government
agencies, and visits to the assigned site for purposes other than a
specific inspection), and training. Examples of project manager generic
activities that would not be subject to fee recovery under Part 170 are
rulemaking and the development of regulatory guides, generic licensing
guides, standard review plans, and generic letters and bulletins. If a
project manager is assigned to more than one license or site, costs for
activities other than licensee-specific licensing or inspection
activities would be prorated to each of the licenses or sites to which
the project manager is assigned. The concept of full cost recovery for
project managers is similar to the concept of full cost recovery for
resident inspectors, which was added to Part 170 in the FY 1998 final
fee rule (June 10, 1998; 63 FR 31840).
d. Other
activities other than licensee-specific licensing or inspection
activities would be prorated to each of the licenses or sites to which
the project manager is assigned. The concept of full cost recovery for
project managers is similar to the concept of full cost recovery for
resident inspectors, which was added to Part 170 in the FY 1998 final
fee rule (June 10, 1998; 63 FR 31840).
d. Other
The NRC is also soliciting public comment in this proposed rule on
whether to include the development of orders, evaluation of responses
to orders, development of Notices of Violation (NOVs) accompanying
escalated enforcement actions, and evaluation of responses to NOVs in
next year's proposed fee rule. The costs of these activities are
currently recovered through Part 171 annual fees.
Orders and Related Activities
Currently, Part 170 fees are not assessed for the development of
orders issued under 10 CFR 2.202, or for the issuance of amendments
specifically resulting from these orders. The primary basis for the
current policy is that fees could be perceived as additional fines to
the licensee, or in some cases, such as when a licensee requests a
hearing on an enforcement order, fees could be viewed as a penalty for
the licensee exercising its rights to challenge the NRC action. In
addition, depending on the licensees' responses, orders may also be
withdrawn or modified. Moreover, in cases of misconduct, an order may
be issued to the individual rather than the licensee. On the other
hand, the development of orders and the review of responses to orders
are activities performed for specifically identifiable recipients.
Escalated Enforcement Actions
nge the NRC action. In
addition, depending on the licensees' responses, orders may also be
withdrawn or modified. Moreover, in cases of misconduct, an order may
be issued to the individual rather than the licensee. On the other
hand, the development of orders and the review of responses to orders
are activities performed for specifically identifiable recipients.
Escalated Enforcement Actions
Although costs of inspections forming the basis for enforcement
actions, except those arising from an allegation, are currently
recovered through Part 170 fees assessed to the affected licensee, the
costs for escalated enforcement actions (i.e., the development and
issuance of Notices of Violations and orders imposing civil penalties)
are not. Part 170 fees are not currently assessed for the escalated
enforcement actions because they serve the generic purpose of industry-
wide deterrence. In addition, some escalated enforcement actions are
withdrawn. There also is concern that in some cases the fee could be
much greater than the civil penalty, which is intended to encourage a
licensee to comply with the NRC requirements. As with orders issued
under 10 CFR 2.202, fees could be viewed as a penalty for the licensee
exercising its rights to challenge the NRC action. However, escalated
enforcement actions are activities performed by the NRC which pertain
to identifiable licensees.
2. Amendment Fees Based on Average Costs
The NRC is proposing to revise 10 CFR 170.31 to eliminate the
amendment fees for small materials licensees that are based on the
average time to complete the reviews (``flat'' fees) and include the
amendment processing costs in the Part 171 annual fees assessed to the
small materials licensees. This proposal would continue the NRC's
initiatives to streamline its fee program
on Average Costs
The NRC is proposing to revise 10 CFR 170.31 to eliminate the
amendment fees for small materials licensees that are based on the
average time to complete the reviews (``flat'' fees) and include the
amendment processing costs in the Part 171 annual fees assessed to the
small materials licensees. This proposal would continue the NRC's
initiatives to streamline its fee program. In a similar action, the
inspection and renewal fees for these licensees were eliminated in the
FY 1995 and FY 1996 fee rulemakings, respectively, and the costs
included in the annual fees for these categories of licensees.
Although approximately 2500 requests for amendments to small
materials licenses are received and processed each year for fee
recovery purposes, less than $900,000 in Part 170 fees is collected
annually for these amendments. The number of amendments, as well as the
Part 170 fee collections, will decrease as more states become Agreement
States.
The current approach for assessing materials license amendment fees
is complex and labor intensive. Approximately 25 percent of the
amendment requests are submitted with incorrect fee payments. In the
case of underpayment, the licensee must be notified and the license
amendment held in abeyance until the correct fee is received. In the
case of overpayments, refunds must be authorized and processed through
the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Because of Treasury
requirements that all Federal payments (other than payments made under
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made after January 1, 1999, must be
made by electronic funds transfer, information on the payee's financial
institution and bank accounts must be collected.
These administrative burdens for flat amendment fees would be
eliminated by including the amendment costs in the Part 171 annual fee
assessed to these licensees. This would result in an estimated $900,000
being added to the annual fees assessed to approximately 5700 materials
licensees
ronic funds transfer, information on the payee's financial
institution and bank accounts must be collected.
These administrative burdens for flat amendment fees would be
eliminated by including the amendment costs in the Part 171 annual fee
assessed to these licensees. This would result in an estimated $900,000
being added to the annual fees assessed to approximately 5700 materials
licensees.
Amendment fees for these licensees currently range from $160 for an
amendment to a custom sealed source evaluation (fee category 9D) to
$1,100 for an amendment to a custom device evaluation (fee category
9B). The majority of the amendments are filed by licensees in fee
category 3P, which includes licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material in industrial measuring systems and gas
chromatographs, and licenses for in-vitro studies, and by licensees in
fee category 7C, which covers most licenses for human use of byproduct,
source, and special nuclear material. The current amendment fee for fee
category 3P is $340; the current amendment fee for fee category 7C is
$450. Although not all materials licensees request amendments during a
given fiscal year, approximately 80 percent request at least one
amendment over a five-year period, and approximately 40 percent of
these licensees request multiple amendments during a five-year period.
In addition to streamlining the NRC process, this proposed change
would eliminate the steps licensees currently take to submit the
payments for their amendment requests. It would also eliminate any
delays in approving proposed amendments due to incorrect payments and
would provide an efficient means of recovering these costs. The NRC
believes that the efficiencies to be gained outweigh any inequities
that may result because not all materials licenses are amended each
fiscal year
ps licensees currently take to submit the
payments for their amendment requests. It would also eliminate any
delays in approving proposed amendments due to incorrect payments and
would provide an efficient means of recovering these costs. The NRC
believes that the efficiencies to be gained outweigh any inequities
that may result because not all materials licenses are amended each
fiscal year.
If we do not adopt this approach, amendment fees set forth in the
final fee rule would likely approximate those set forth in the FY 1998
fee schedule, although there may be some variance as a result of the
biennial fee review required by the Chief Financial Officers Act and
the increase in the hourly rate for the materials program described
below.
3. Hourly Rates
The NRC is proposing to revise the two professional hourly rates
for NRC staff time established in Sec. 170.20. These proposed rates
would be based on the number of FY 1999 direct FTEs and the FY 1999 NRC
budget, excluding direct program support costs and NRC's appropriations
from the NWF and the General Fund. These rates are used to determine
the Part 170 fees. The proposed hourly rate for the reactor program is
$141 per hour ($250,403 per direct FTE). This rate would be applicable
to all activities for which fees are based on full cost under
Sec. 170.21 of the fee regulations. The proposed hourly rate for the
nuclear materials and nuclear waste program is $140 per hour ($248,728
per direct FTE). This rate would be applicable to all activities for
which fees are based on full cost under Sec. 170.31 of the fee
regulations. In the FY 1998 final fee rule, these rates were $124 and
$121, respectively. The FY 1998 rates represented a decrease from FY
1997 of $7 per hour for the reactor program from FY 1997, and $4 per
hour for the materials program.
This proposed increase can be readily explained
e would be applicable to all activities for
which fees are based on full cost under Sec. 170.31 of the fee
regulations. In the FY 1998 final fee rule, these rates were $124 and
$121, respectively. The FY 1998 rates represented a decrease from FY
1997 of $7 per hour for the reactor program from FY 1997, and $4 per
hour for the materials program.
This proposed increase can be readily explained. In calculating the
proposed FY 1999 hourly rates, the NRC staff discovered that a coding
error in NRC's budget, which is used in the development of fees,
occurred for FY 1998. This coding error contributed to the hourly rate
decreases for that year. In addition, costs for direct FTEs and
overhead are calculated for the reactor and materials programs and for
the surcharge. Although the proposed FY 1999 hourly rates reflect an
increase of $17--$19 per hour compared to FY 1998, the error was in the
reduced FY 1998 hourly rate, not in the increased FY 1999 hourly rate.
Specifically, 134 FTE and approximately $10 million in contract support
for regional management and support were erroneously coded as direct
resources for FY 1998 rather than as overhead. The correction of that
error in FY 1999 results in substantial increases in the hourly rates
compared to FY 1998, from $124 to $141 for the reactor program, and
from $121 to $140 for the materials program. This is the result of the
increased overhead costs to be allocated to the two programs, with
fewer direct FTE to divide the costs among. In addition, the proportion
of direct resources has shifted. The materials program now has a larger
share. Therefore, the materials program must absorb more of the
overhead and management and support costs.
Because of the error in FY 1998, the FY 1999 hourly rates are more
appropriately compared to the FY 1997 hourly rates of $131 and $125 for
the reactors and materials programs, respectively
n addition, the proportion
of direct resources has shifted. The materials program now has a larger
share. Therefore, the materials program must absorb more of the
overhead and management and support costs.
Because of the error in FY 1998, the FY 1999 hourly rates are more
appropriately compared to the FY 1997 hourly rates of $131 and $125 for
the reactors and materials programs, respectively. Applying only the
salary and benefit increases of 4.4 percent from FY 1997 to FY 1998,
and 3.68 percent from FY 1998 to FY 1999, would result in FY 1998
hourly rates of $137 for the reactor program and $131 for the materials
program, and 1999 hourly rates of $142 for the reactor program and $136
for the materials program. This does not consider the shift that has
occurred in the proportion of direct resources from the reactor program
to the materials program that results in the materials program having a
larger share and therefore absorbing more of the overhead and
management and support costs.
The method used to determine the two professional hourly rates is
as follows:
a. Direct program FTE levels are identified for both the reactor
program and the nuclear material and waste program.
b. Direct contract support, which is the use of contract or other
services in support of the line organization's direct program, is
excluded from the calculation of the hourly rate because the costs for
direct contract support are charged directly through the various
categories of fees.
c. All other direct program costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits,
Travel) represent ``in-house'' costs and are to be allocated by
dividing them uniformly by the total number of direct FTEs for the
program. In addition, salaries and benefits plus contracts for non-
program direct management and support, and the Office of the Inspector
General are allocated to each program based on that program's direct
costs. This method results in the following costs which are included in
the hourly rates.
sts and are to be allocated by
dividing them uniformly by the total number of direct FTEs for the
program. In addition, salaries and benefits plus contracts for non-
program direct management and support, and the Office of the Inspector
General are allocated to each program based on that program's direct
costs. This method results in the following costs which are included in
the hourly rates.
Table II.--FY 1999 Budget Authority to be Included in Hourly Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactor program Materials program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Program Salaries and Benefits................. $99.2m....................... $26.4m
Overhead Salaries and Benefits, Program Travel and $54.1m....................... $15.0m
Other Support.
Allocated Agency Management and Support.............. $104.2m...................... $28.1m
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................................... $257.5m...................... $69.5m
Less offsetting receipts............................. -.1m.........................
==========================================================
Total Budget Included in Hourly Rate............. $257.4m...................... $69.5m
Program Direct FTEs.................................. 1,028.0...................... 279.7
Rate per Direct FTE.................................. $250,403..................... $248,728
Professional Hourly Rate (Rate per direct FTE divided $141......................... $140
by 1,776 hours).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ogram Direct FTEs.................................. 1,028.0...................... 279.7
Rate per Direct FTE.................................. $250,403..................... $248,728
Professional Hourly Rate (Rate per direct FTE divided $141......................... $140
by 1,776 hours).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table II above, dividing the $257.4 million (rounded)
budget for the reactor program by the reactor program direct FTEs
(1,028) results in a rate for the reactor program of $250,403 per FTE
for FY 1999. The Direct FTE Hourly Rate for the reactor program would
be $141 per hour (rounded to the nearest whole dollar). This rate is
calculated by dividing the cost per direct FTE ($250,403) by the number
of productive hours in one year (1,776 hours) as set forth in the
revised OMB Circular A-76, ``Performance of Commercial Activities.''
Dividing the $69.5 million (rounded) budget for the nuclear materials
and nuclear waste program by the program direct FTEs (279.7) results in
a rate of $248,728 per FTE for FY 1999. The Direct FTE Hourly Rate for
the materials program would be $140 per hour (rounded to the nearest
whole dollar). This rate is calculated by dividing the cost per direct
FTE ($248,728) by the number of productive hours in one year (1,776
hours).
Any professional hours expended on or after the effective date of
the final rule would be assessed at the FY 1999 hourly rates.
4. Fee Adjustments
The NRC is proposing to adjust the current Part 170 fees in
Secs. 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect both the changes in the revised
hourly rates and the results of the biennial review of Part 170 fees
required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. To comply with the
requirements of the CFO Act, the NRC has evaluated historical
professional staff hours used to process a new license application for
those materials licensees whose fees are based on the average cost
method (flat fees)
ect both the changes in the revised
hourly rates and the results of the biennial review of Part 170 fees
required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. To comply with the
requirements of the CFO Act, the NRC has evaluated historical
professional staff hours used to process a new license application for
those materials licensees whose fees are based on the average cost
method (flat fees). This review also included new license and amendment
applications for import and export licenses.
Evaluation of the historical data shows that the fees based on the
average number of professional staff hours needed to complete materials
licensing actions should be increased in some categories and decreased
in others to reflect the costs incurred in completing the licensing
actions. The data for the average number of professional staff hours
needed to complete licensing action were last updated in FY 1997 (62 FR
29194; May 29, 1997). Thus, the revised average professional staff
hours reflect the changes in the NRC licensing review program that have
occurred since FY 1997. The proposed licensing fees are based on the
revised average professional staff hours needed to process the
licensing actions multiplied by the proposed professional hourly rate
for FY 1999.
The proposed licensing fees reflect an increase in average time for
new license applications for 20 of the 33 materials fee categories
included in the biennial review, a decrease in average time for 8 fee
categories, and the same average time for the remaining 5 fee
categories. The average time for export and import new license
applications and amendments remained the same for 6 fee categories in
Secs. 170.21 and 170.31, and decreased for 4 fee categories.
The amounts of the materials licensing ``flat'' fees were rounded
so that the amounts would be de minimis and the resulting flat fee
would be convenient to the user. Fees under $1,000 are rounded to the
nearest $10
e average time for export and import new license
applications and amendments remained the same for 6 fee categories in
Secs. 170.21 and 170.31, and decreased for 4 fee categories.
The amounts of the materials licensing ``flat'' fees were rounded
so that the amounts would be de minimis and the resulting flat fee
would be convenient to the user. Fees under $1,000 are rounded to the
nearest $10. Fees that are greater than $1,000 but less than $100,000
are rounded to the nearest $100. Fees that are greater than $100,000
are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
The proposed licensing ``flat'' fees are applicable to fee
categories K.1 through K.5 of Sec. 171.21, and fee categories 1.C, 1.D,
2.B, 2.C, 3.A through 3.P, 4.B through 9.D, 10.B, 15.A through 15.E,
and 16 of Sec. 171.16. Applications filed on or after the effective
date of the final rule would be subject to the revised fees in this
proposed rule.
5. Administrative Amendments
a. The NRC is proposing to amend Sec. 170.2, Scope, and Sec. 170.3,
Definitions, to specifically include Certificates of Compliance
(Certificates) issued pursuant to Part 76. The NRC issued two
Certificates pursuant to Part 76 to the United States Enrichment
Corporation for operation of the two gaseous diffusion uranium
enrichment plants located at Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio. This
proposal would add Part 76 certificates to the definition of Materials
License in Sec. 170.3 (Uranium enrichment facilities are already
defined in Sec. 170.3). These proposed changes are administrative
changes to clarify the applicability of Part 170 fees to these
Certificates.
b. The NRC is proposing to revise the definition of Inspection, to
specifically include performance assessments, evaluations, and incident
investigations. This change is needed to incorporate NRC's proposal to
include these activities in Part 170.
c
defined in Sec. 170.3). These proposed changes are administrative
changes to clarify the applicability of Part 170 fees to these
Certificates.
b. The NRC is proposing to revise the definition of Inspection, to
specifically include performance assessments, evaluations, and incident
investigations. This change is needed to incorporate NRC's proposal to
include these activities in Part 170.
c. The NRC is proposing to revise the definition of Special
projects to include financial assurance submittals, responses to
Confirmatory Action Letters, uranium recovery licensees' land-use
survey reports, and 10 CFR 50.71 final safety analysis reports in the
list of examples of documents submitted for review that would be
subject to special project fees. This change is needed to incorporate
NRC's proposal to include the review of these documents in Part 170.
d. The NRC is proposing to revise Sec. 170.5, Communications, to
indicate that all communications concerning Part 170 should be
addressed to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer rather than the
Executive Director for Operations. Effective with the January 5, 1997,
NRC reorganization, the Executive Director for Operations no longer
serves as the Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer has
been delegated authority to exercise all authority vested
in the Commission under 10 CFR parts 170 and 171.
e. The NRC is proposing to delete the current exemption in
Sec. 170.11(a)(11) which eliminates amendment fees for amendments to
change the name of the Radiation Safety Officer for portable gauge
licenses issued in accordance with NUREG-1556, 1 Volume 1.
This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for amendment fees
for these licenses and thus the exemption would no longer be needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
)(11) which eliminates amendment fees for amendments to
change the name of the Radiation Safety Officer for portable gauge
licenses issued in accordance with NUREG-1556, 1 Volume 1.
This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for amendment fees
for these licenses and thus the exemption would no longer be needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Copies of NUREGS may be purchased from the Reproduction and
Distribution Section, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies are
also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for
inspection and/or coping at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L
Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. The NRC is proposing to add 170.11(a)(12) to provide an
exemption from Part 170 fees for those licensee-specific performance
assessments or evaluations for which the licensee volunteers at NRC's
request. This change would accommodate NRC's proposal to include
performance assessments and evaluations in Part 170, except those for
which the licensee volunteers at NRC's request and which are accepted
by the NRC.
g. The NRC is proposing to revise Sec. 170.12, Payment of Fees, to
reflect the NRC's proposals to expand Part 170 to include performance
assessments, evaluations, and incident investigations, reviews of
reports and other documents, and full cost recovery for project
managers. This section would also be revised to delete references to
amendment fees that are not based on full cost to reflect the NRC's
proposal to eliminate these fees from Part 170 and include the costs in
the Part 171 annual fee for these materials licensees.
Section 170.12(h), Method of Payment, would be redesignated as
170.12(f) and revised to specify the information the NRC needs to issue
refunds
is section would also be revised to delete references to
amendment fees that are not based on full cost to reflect the NRC's
proposal to eliminate these fees from Part 170 and include the costs in
the Part 171 annual fee for these materials licensees.
Section 170.12(h), Method of Payment, would be redesignated as
170.12(f) and revised to specify the information the NRC needs to issue
refunds. This change is necessitated by new Treasury requirements that
were effective January 1, 1999.
In summary, the NRC is proposing to:
1. Assess Part 170 fees, for licenses subject to Part 170 full cost
fees, to recover costs for all plant or licensee-specific inspections,
including performance reviews, assessments, evaluations, and incident
investigations, reviews of reports and other documents, and all of the
project managers' time excluding time spent on generic activities and
leave time;
2. Eliminate ``flat'' amendment fees for materials licenses and
recover the amendment costs through Part 171 annual fees assessed to
materials licensees;
3. Revise the two 10 CFR part 170 hourly rates; and
4. Revise the licensing fees assessed under 10 CFR part 170 to
comply with the CFO Act's requirement that fees be revised to reflect
the cost to the agency, and to reflect the revised hourly rates.
B. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 171: Annual Fees for Reactor Licenses,
Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, Including Holders of
Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality Assurance
Program Approvals, and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC
comply with the CFO Act's requirement that fees be revised to reflect
the cost to the agency, and to reflect the revised hourly rates.
B. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 171: Annual Fees for Reactor Licenses,
Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, Including Holders of
Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality Assurance
Program Approvals, and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC
The NRC proposes three major amendments to 10 CFR part 171 and
several administrative amendments to update information in certain
sections and to incorporate the major proposed changes. These major
changes would result in annual fees being assessed to licensees
previously exempted from annual fees, increased annual fees for some
licensees, and decreased annual fees for other licensees. To address
concerns about potential significant fee increases for certain
categories of licensees, the NRC is presenting two annual fee options
for public comment, as described in 2. below. The Commission will
determine which option to incorporate in its final rule after
evaluating public comments.
The proposed changes are consistent with our statutory mandate;
that is, charging a class of licensees for NRC costs attributable to
that class of licensees. The changes are consistent with the
Congressional guidance in the Conference Committee Report on OBRA-90,
which states that the ``conferees contemplate that the NRC will
continue to allocate generic costs that are attributable to a given
class of licensees to such class'' and the ``conferees intend that the
NRC assess the annual charge under the principle that licensees who
require the greatest expenditures of the agency's resources should pay
the greatest annual fee'' (136 Cong. Rec. at H12692-93)
ich states that the ``conferees contemplate that the NRC will
continue to allocate generic costs that are attributable to a given
class of licensees to such class'' and the ``conferees intend that the
NRC assess the annual charge under the principle that licensees who
require the greatest expenditures of the agency's resources should pay
the greatest annual fee'' (136 Cong. Rec. at H12692-93). Costs not
attributable to a class of licensees would be allocated following the
conferees' guidance that ``the Commission should assess the charges for
these costs as broadly as practicable in order to minimize the burden
for these costs on any licensee or class of licensees so as to
establish as fair and equitable a system as is feasible.'' (136 Cong.
Rec. at H12692-3). The Conference Report guidance also provides that:
``These expenses may be recovered from such licensees as the
Commission, in its discretion, determines can fairly, equitably and
practicably contribute to their payment.'' As in the past, these costs
would be allocated to the entire population of NRC licensees that pay
annual fees, based on the amount of the budget directly attributable to
a class of licensees. This results in a higher percentage of these
costs being allocated to operating power reactor licensees as opposed
to other classes of licensees.
The major proposed changes to Part 171 are in the following areas.
1. Reactor Decommissioning/spent Fuel Storage
The NRC is proposing to revise 10 CFR 171.15 to establish a spent
fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee to be assessed to all
Part 50 power reactor licensees, regardless of their operating status,
and to those Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license. The
full amount of the FY 1999 annual fee would be billed to those Part 50
licensees who are in a decommissioning or possession only status upon
publication of the FY 1999 final rule. Payment would be due on the
effective date of the FY 1999 rule
sed to all
Part 50 power reactor licensees, regardless of their operating status,
and to those Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license. The
full amount of the FY 1999 annual fee would be billed to those Part 50
licensees who are in a decommissioning or possession only status upon
publication of the FY 1999 final rule. Payment would be due on the
effective date of the FY 1999 rule. For operating power reactors and
those Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license, the new fee
would be added to the fourth quarter FY 1999 annual fee bill. Any
adjustments for prior payments during FY 1999 would be made in
accordance with Sec. 171.19(b). The current annual fees in 10 CFR
171.16 for Part 72 licenses for independent spent fuel storage would be
eliminated.
This proposed change would affect two existing NRC annual fee
policies:
(a) Costs for generic and other activities related to dry storage
of spent fuel that are not recovered through Part 170 licensing and
inspection fees are recovered through Part 171 annual fees assessed to
all Part 72 licensees; and
(b) Part 171 annual fees are not assessed to reactor licensees in
decommissioning or possession only status. Power reactor licensees who
are in a decommissioning or possession only status would, for the first
time, be subject to Part 171 annual fees for their Part 50 license.
However, these licensees currently pay an annual fee for any Part 72
license they hold.
The current policy has raised three concerns:
(a) The fee structure could create a disincentive for licensees to
pursue dry storage;
(b) The fairness of assessing multiple annual fees if a licensee
holds multiple ISFSI licenses for different designs; and
to Part 171 annual fees for their Part 50 license.
However, these licensees currently pay an annual fee for any Part 72
license they hold.
The current policy has raised three concerns:
(a) The fee structure could create a disincentive for licensees to
pursue dry storage;
(b) The fairness of assessing multiple annual fees if a licensee
holds multiple ISFSI licenses for different designs; and
(c) Not all affected licensees are being assessed the costs of
NRC's generic decommissioning activities.
The NRC announced in the FY 1998 proposed fee rulemaking (April 1,
1998, 63 FR 16046) and final fee rulemaking (June 10, 1998, 63 FR
31840), that it planned to reexamine the current annual fee exemption
policy for licensees in decommissioning or holding possession only
licenses and the annual fee policy for reactors' storage of spent fuel
and include any changes to the current fee policies in the FY 1999 fee
rulemaking. One purpose of the review was to assure consistent fee
treatment for both wet storage (i.e., spent fuel pool) and dry storage
(i.e., independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs)) of spent
fuel. The Commission previously determined that both storage options
are considered safe and acceptable forms of storage for spent fuel.
Under current fee regulations, Part 50 licensees in decommissioning who
store spent fuel in the spent fuel pool are not assessed an annual fee,
but licensees who store spent fuel in an ISFSI under Part 72 are
assessed an annual fee. The proposed change would give equivalent fee
treatment to both storage options.
As indicated previously, Part 171 annual fees are not currently
assessed to reactor licensees who have notified the NRC that they no
longer want an NRC license and have permanently ceased operations. This
policy is based on the premise that the primary benefit the NRC
provides a licensee is the authority to use licensed facilities or
material
quivalent fee
treatment to both storage options.
As indicated previously, Part 171 annual fees are not currently
assessed to reactor licensees who have notified the NRC that they no
longer want an NRC license and have permanently ceased operations. This
policy is based on the premise that the primary benefit the NRC
provides a licensee is the authority to use licensed facilities or
material. Although NRC's generic decommissioning activities support
both licenses authorizing operations and those limited to
decommissioning or possession only, today only licensees with an
operating license bear these costs. This becomes a larger problem for
operating licensees because, as the number of operating licensees
declines, the financial burden on the remaining active licensees
increases. Thus, the proposed rule is intended to ensure that all power
reactor licensees who benefit from NRC's generic activities bear a fair
portion of these costs relating to decommissioning of reactors.
With regard to spent fuel storage, holders of licenses issued under
Part 72 for ISFSIs are currently assessed annual fees for each Part 72
license they hold. Part 72 covers both general and specific licenses.
Part 72 general licenses are granted to licensees who hold a Part 50
license. Part 72 specific licenses must be applied for and their
issuance is not contingent upon the licensee holding a Part 50 license.
Because the Part 72 general licenses are issued by regulation to all
Part 50 licensees, these licenses are subject to annual fees only when
they have been used (i.e, once spent fuel has been loaded into the
generally-licensed ISFSI). If a licensee holds more than one Part 72
license, for example, a Part 72 general license and a Part 72 specific
license for two different designs, they are assessed an annual fee for
each license. Under the proposed change, only one annual fee would be
charged
s are subject to annual fees only when
they have been used (i.e, once spent fuel has been loaded into the
generally-licensed ISFSI). If a licensee holds more than one Part 72
license, for example, a Part 72 general license and a Part 72 specific
license for two different designs, they are assessed an annual fee for
each license. Under the proposed change, only one annual fee would be
charged.
Costs for generic activities associated with storage of spent fuel
in the spent fuel pool (wet storage) are currently included in the
annual fee assessed to operating power reactors because the Part 50
licenses cover this storage. Thus, if a Part 50 licensee is in
decommissioning and stores spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, it is not
assessed an annual fee. On the other hand, if a Part 50 licensee is in
decommissioning and stores spent fuel in an ISFSI, it is assessed an
annual fee for each Part 72 ISFSI license used.
Section 171.15 would be revised to include the spent fuel storage/
reactor decommissioning annual fee to be assessed to Part 50 power
reactor licensees and those Part 72 specific licensees who do not hold
a Part 50 license. The annual fees in Sec. 171.16 for fee categories 1B
and 13B would be eliminated. This change would not affect the manner in
which licensing and inspection costs are recovered (i.e., Part 170 fees
would still be assessed to Part 72 licensees and to Part 50 licensees
in decommissioning or possession only status for licensing and
inspection services). The NRC would continue to include the costs for
generic decommissioning/reclamation costs for nonpower reactors, fuel
facilities, materials, and uranium recovery licensees in the surcharge
assessed to operating licensees, including operating power reactors.
2. Annual Fees
The NRC is proposing to establish new baseline annual fees for FY
1999. The annual fees in Secs
and
inspection services). The NRC would continue to include the costs for
generic decommissioning/reclamation costs for nonpower reactors, fuel
facilities, materials, and uranium recovery licensees in the surcharge
assessed to operating licensees, including operating power reactors.
2. Annual Fees
The NRC is proposing to establish new baseline annual fees for FY
1999. The annual fees in Secs. 171.15 and 171.16 would be revised for
FY 1999 to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 1999 budget
authority, less fees collected under 10 CFR part 170 and funds
appropriated from the NWF and the General Fund. The total amount to be
recovered through annual fees for FY 1999 is $339.8 million, compared
to $360.2 million for FY 1998.
In the FY 1995 final fee rule (June 20, 1995; 60 FR 32218), the NRC
stated that it would stabilize annual fees as follows:
For FY 1996 through FY 1999, the NRC would adjust the annual fees
only by the percentage change (plus or minus) in NRC's total budget
authority unless there was a substantial change in the total NRC budget
authority or the magnitude of the budget allocated to a specific class
of licensees. If either condition occurred, the annual fee base would
be recalculated. The percentage change would be adjusted based on
changes in 10 CFR Part 170 fees and other adjustments as well as on the
number of licensees paying the fees. This method of determining annual
fees is the ``percent change'' method. The FY 1996, FY 1997, and FY
1998 annual fees were based on the percent change method.
Rebaselining
condition occurred, the annual fee base would
be recalculated. The percentage change would be adjusted based on
changes in 10 CFR Part 170 fees and other adjustments as well as on the
number of licensees paying the fees. This method of determining annual
fees is the ``percent change'' method. The FY 1996, FY 1997, and FY
1998 annual fees were based on the percent change method.
Rebaselining
The NRC believes that it is appropriate to establish new baseline
fees for FY 1999 based on the program changes that have taken place
since the baseline fees were established in FY 1995, including those
resulting from the agency's strategic planning efforts, downsizing,
reorganization of agency resources, and the proposed addition of a new
annual fee class (spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning) as
previously described. In addition, there have been several fee policy
changes since FY 1995. Fee policy changes include the elimination of
renewal fees in FY 1996 for most materials licensees, the proposed
elimination of amendment fees for these licensees in FY 1999, and the
inclusion of these costs in the materials licensees' annual fees.
Rebaselining Options
The NRC is specifically seeking public comment on two optional
rebaselining methods for establishing the FY 1999 annual fees:
Option A, rebaselining without a cap; and
Option B, rebaselining with a cap so that no licensee's annual fee
increases more than 50 percent from FY 1998.
Option A would result in a reduction in annual fees from FY 1998 of
approximately 6.8 percent for each operating power reactor, which
includes the proposed spent fuel storage/decommissioning annual fee to
be assessed to these licensees, and reductions of approximately 7 to 49
percent for certain materials licensees. However, annual fees would
increase dramatically for certain other licensees
Option A would result in a reduction in annual fees from FY 1998 of
approximately 6.8 percent for each operating power reactor, which
includes the proposed spent fuel storage/decommissioning annual fee to
be assessed to these licensees, and reductions of approximately 7 to 49
percent for certain materials licensees. However, annual fees would
increase dramatically for certain other licensees. For example,
rebaselining without a cap would result in an increase of approximately
112 percent for conventional mills for extraction of uranium from
uranium ores, 212 percent for solution mining licensees, 120 percent
for transportation cask users, and up to approximately 57 percent for
certain other materials licensees. Factors contributing to the annual
fees increases are changes in budgeted costs for those classes of
licensees, the increased hourly rates, decreases in the numbers of
licensees and, for the smaller materials licenses, the results of the
biennial review of Part 170 fees required by the CFO Act. The biennial
review shows that the average number of professional hours to conduct
inspections and to review new license applications for materials
licenses increased for some fee categories and decreased for other fee
categories. The average time to conduct inspections and the average
time to review new license applications for the smaller materials
license fee categories are used to allocate the materials budget for
rebaselining the annual fees because they reflect the complexity of the
license. Increases in the average professional time for inspections and
reviews of new license applications result in increased annual fees for
the affected fee categories if all else remains the same. In addition,
rebaselining reflects the renewal and amendment costs that would be
included in the annual fee for these materials licensees, which were
not included in FY 1995
complexity of the
license. Increases in the average professional time for inspections and
reviews of new license applications result in increased annual fees for
the affected fee categories if all else remains the same. In addition,
rebaselining reflects the renewal and amendment costs that would be
included in the annual fee for these materials licensees, which were
not included in FY 1995.
Option B would also result in annual fee decreases for FY 1999 for
operating power reactor licensees and certain materials licensees and
increases for other licensees. However, the increases would be no more
than 50 percent of the FY 1998 annual fee. The decreases for certain
licensees under Option B would be slightly less than under Option A
because the 50 percent cap on annual fee increases would result in
approximately $700,000 being added to the annual fee assessed to other
licensees who pay annual fees. Because approximately 80 percent of the
FY 1999 surcharge would be assessed to operating power reactors, the
net result of Option B would be a reduction of approximately 6.75
percent in annual fees for FY 1999 for operating power reactors
compared to a reduction of approximately 6.95 percent under Option A, a
difference of approximately $6,000 for each power reactor. The
decreases under both options include the new spent fuel storage and
reactor decommissioning annual fee to be assessed to operating power
reactor licensees. Other licensees whose rebaselined annual fees do not
increase by 50 percent or more would also pay slightly more under
Option B than they would under Option A.
Table III below shows the FY 1999 proposed annual fees under both
rebaselining options for representative categories of licensees.
uel storage and
reactor decommissioning annual fee to be assessed to operating power
reactor licensees. Other licensees whose rebaselined annual fees do not
increase by 50 percent or more would also pay slightly more under
Option B than they would under Option A.
Table III below shows the FY 1999 proposed annual fees under both
rebaselining options for representative categories of licensees.
Table III
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed FY 1999 annual fee
-------------------------------
Class of licensees Option A
(without a Option B
cap) (with a cap)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Reactors (including spent fuel $2,769,000 $2,775,000
storage/reactor decommissioning annual
fee)...................................
Spent fuel storage/reactor 199,000 199,000
decommissioning........................
Nonpower Reactors....................... 85,900 85,600
High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility..... 3,281,000 3,288,000
Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility...... 1,100,000 1,103,000
UF6 Conversion Facility................. 472,000 473,000
Uranium Mills........................... 131,000 92,100
Solution Mining......................... 109,000 52,100
Transportation:
Users and Fabricators............... 66,700 66,800
Users only.......................... 2,200 1,500
Typical Materials Licenses:
Radiographers....................... 14,700 14,700
Well loggers........................ 9,900 10,000
Gauge users......................... 2,600 2,500
Broad scope medical................. 27,800 27,800
Broad scope manufacturers........... 26,000 24,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
only.......................... 2,200 1,500
Typical Materials Licenses:
Radiographers....................... 14,700 14,700
Well loggers........................ 9,900 10,000
Gauge users......................... 2,600 2,500
Broad scope medical................. 27,800 27,800
Broad scope manufacturers........... 26,000 24,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual fees assessed to each class of licensees includes a
surcharge to recover those NRC budgeted costs that are not directly or
solely attributable to the classes of licensees but must be recovered
from the licensees to comply with the requirements of OBRA-90. The FY
1999 budgeted costs that would be recovered in the surcharge from all
licensees are shown in Table IV.
Table IV--Surcharge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999
Category of costs budgeted costs
($, M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Activities not attributable to an existing NRC
licensee or class of licensee:
a. International activities......................... 6.3
b. Agreement State oversight........................ 6.4
c. Low-level waste disposal generic activities, and. 4.1
d. Site decommissioning management plan activities 4.6
not recovered under Part 170.......................
2. Activities not assessed Part 170 licensing and
inspection fees or Part 171 annual fees based on
existing law or Commission policy:
a. Fee exemption for nonprofit education 6.9
institutions.......................................
b. Licensing and inspection activities associated 2.8
with other Federal agencies........................
c. Costs not recovered from small entities under 10 5.3
CFR 171.16(c)......................................
3. Activities supporting NRC operating licensees and
others:
a. Regulatory support to Agreement States........... 14.6
b
n 6.9
institutions.......................................
b. Licensing and inspection activities associated 2.8
with other Federal agencies........................
c. Costs not recovered from small entities under 10 5.3
CFR 171.16(c)......................................
3. Activities supporting NRC operating licensees and
others:
a. Regulatory support to Agreement States........... 14.6
b. Decommissioning/reclamation, except those related 4.2
to power reactors..................................
---------------
Total Budgeted Costs............................ 55.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC would continue to allocate the surcharge costs, except LLW
surcharge costs, to each class of licensees based on the percent of
budget for that class. The NRC would continue to allocate the LLW
surcharge costs based on the volume disposed by the certain classes of
licensees. The proposed surcharge costs allocated to each class are
included in the annual fee that would be assessed to each licensee. The
FY 1999 surcharge costs that would be allocated to each class of
licensee are shown in Table V.
Table V.--Allocation of Surcharge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLW surcharge Non-LLW surcharge
---------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Percent $,M Percent $,M surcharge $,M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating power reactors........ 74 3.0 80.3 41.0 44.0
Spent fuel storage/reactor 6.3 3.2 3.2
decommissioning................
Nonpower reactors............... 0.1 0.0 0.0
Fuel facilities................. 8 0.4 5.0 2.6 2.9
Materials users................. 18 0.7 5.9 3.1 3.8
Transportation.................. 1.0 0.5 0.5
Rare earth facilities........... 0.1 0.0 0.0
Uranium recovery...............
---
Operating power reactors........ 74 3.0 80.3 41.0 44.0
Spent fuel storage/reactor 6.3 3.2 3.2
decommissioning................
Nonpower reactors............... 0.1 0.0 0.0
Fuel facilities................. 8 0.4 5.0 2.6 2.9
Materials users................. 18 0.7 5.9 3.1 3.8
Transportation.................. 1.0 0.5 0.5
Rare earth facilities........... 0.1 0.0 0.0
Uranium recovery................ 1.3 0.7 0.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Surcharge............. 4.1 51.1 55.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budgeted costs allocated to each class of licensees and the
calculation of the rebaselined fees are described in 3. and 4. below.
The workpapers which support this proposed rule show in detail the
allocation of NRC budgeted resources for each class of licensee and how
the fees are calculated. The workpapers may be examined at the NRC
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC
20555-0001.
Because the final FY 1999 fee rule will be a ``major'' final action
as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, the NRC's fees for FY 1999 would become effective 60 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The NRC will
send an invoice for the amount of the annual fee upon publication of
the FY 1999 final rule to reactors and major fuel cycle facilities. For
these licensees, payment would be due on the effective date of the FY
1999 rule. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date
during FY 1999 falls before the effective date of the final FY 1999
final rule would be billed during the anniversary month of the license
and continue to pay annual fees at the FY 1998 rate in FY 1999
l rule to reactors and major fuel cycle facilities. For
these licensees, payment would be due on the effective date of the FY
1999 rule. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date
during FY 1999 falls before the effective date of the final FY 1999
final rule would be billed during the anniversary month of the license
and continue to pay annual fees at the FY 1998 rate in FY 1999. Those
materials licensees whose license anniversary date falls on or after
the effective date of the final FY 1999 final rule would be billed at
the FY 1999 revised rates during the anniversary month of the license
and payment would be due on the date of the invoice.
In addition to comments on the rebaselining method for determining
FY 1999 annual fees, public comments are also being sought on whether
the NRC should, in future years, continue to use the percent change
method and rebaseline fees every several years as established in the FY
1995 fee rule statement of considerations, or return to a policy of
rebaselining annual fees every year.
3. Revised Fuel Cycle and Uranium Recovery Matrixes
The NRC is proposing to use revised matrixes in the determination
of annual fees for fuel facility and uranium recovery licensees. As
part of the rebaselining efforts, the NRC is proposing to use a revised
matrix depicting the categorization of fuel facility and uranium
recovery licenses by authorized material and use/activity and the
relative programmatic effort associated with each category.
a. Fuel Facility Matrix
e revised matrixes in the determination
of annual fees for fuel facility and uranium recovery licensees. As
part of the rebaselining efforts, the NRC is proposing to use a revised
matrix depicting the categorization of fuel facility and uranium
recovery licenses by authorized material and use/activity and the
relative programmatic effort associated with each category.
a. Fuel Facility Matrix
The NRC is proposing to use a revised fuel facility matrix based on
the commensurate level of regulatory effort related to the various fuel
facility categories from both safety and safeguards perspectives. The
revised matrix results in the annual fees more accurately reflecting
our current costs of providing generic and other regulatory services to
each fuel facility type.
The FY 1999 budgeted costs of approximately $16.3 million to be
recovered in annual fees assessed to the fuel facility class is
allocated to the individual fuel facility licensees based on the
revised matrix. The revisions to the matrix take into account changes
in process operations at certain fuel facilities. The revised matrix
also explicitly recognizes the addition of the uranium enrichment
plants to the fee base and a reduction of three licensees ( B&W Parks
Township, B&W Research and General Atomic) as the result of the
termination of licensed activities. In the revised matrix (which is
included in our workpapers that we are making public), licensees are
grouped into five categories according to their licensed activities
(i.e., nuclear material enrichment, processing operations and material
form) and according to the level, scope, depth of coverage and rigor of
generic regulatory programmatic effort applicable to each category from
safety and safeguards perspectives. This methodology can be applied to
determine fees for new licensees, current licensees, licensees in
unique license situations, and certificate holders
nuclear material enrichment, processing operations and material
form) and according to the level, scope, depth of coverage and rigor of
generic regulatory programmatic effort applicable to each category from
safety and safeguards perspectives. This methodology can be applied to
determine fees for new licensees, current licensees, licensees in
unique license situations, and certificate holders.
The methodology is amenable to changes in the number of licensees
or certificate holders, licensed-certified material/activities, and
total programmatic resources to be recovered through annual fees. When
a license or certificate is modified, given that NRC
recovers approximately 100 percent of its generic regulatory program
costs through fee recovery, this fuel facility fee methodology may
result in a change in fee category and may have an effect on the fees
assessed to other licensees and certificate holders. For example, if a
fuel facility licensee amended its license/certificate in such a way
that it resulted in them not being subject to Part 171 fees applicable
to fuel facilities, the budget for the safety and/or safeguards
component would be spread among those remaining licensees/certificate
holders, resulting in a higher fee for those remaining in the fee
category.
The methodology is applied as follows. First, a fee category is
assigned based on the nuclear material and activity authorized by
license or certificate. Although a licensee/certificate holder may
elect not to fully utilize a license/certificate, the license/
certificate is still used as the source for determining authorized
nuclear material possession and use/activity. Next, the category and
license/certificate information are used to determine where the
licensee/certificate holder fits into the matrix. The matrix depicts
the categorization of licensees/certificate holders by authorized
material types and use/activities and the relative programmatic effort
associated with each category
or determining authorized
nuclear material possession and use/activity. Next, the category and
license/certificate information are used to determine where the
licensee/certificate holder fits into the matrix. The matrix depicts
the categorization of licensees/certificate holders by authorized
material types and use/activities and the relative programmatic effort
associated with each category. The programmatic effort (expressed as a
value in the matrix) reflects the safety and safeguards risk
significance associated with the nuclear material and use/activity, and
the commensurate generic regulatory program (i.e., scope, depth and
rigor).
The effort factors for the various subclasses of fuel facility
licensees are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effort factors
No. of --------------------------------------------------------------
facilities Safety Safeguards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Enriched Uranium Fuel....... 2 91 (33.1%)............................ 76 (54.7%)
Enrichment....................... 2 70 (25.5%)............................ 34 (24.5%)
Low Enriched Uranium Fuel........ 4 88 (32.0%)............................ 24 (17.3%)
UF6 Conversion................... 1 8 (2.9%).............................. 3 (2.2%)
Limited Operations Facility...... 1 12 (4.4%)............................. 0 (0%)
Others........................... 1 6 (2.2%).............................. 2 (1.4%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These effort factors are applied to the $16.3 million total annual
fee amount. This amount includes the low level waste (LLW) surcharge
and other surcharges allocated to the fuel facility class.
b. Uranium Recovery Matrix
.......... 1 6 (2.2%).............................. 2 (1.4%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These effort factors are applied to the $16.3 million total annual
fee amount. This amount includes the low level waste (LLW) surcharge
and other surcharges allocated to the fuel facility class.
b. Uranium Recovery Matrix
Of the $2.1 million total budgeted costs allocated to the uranium
recovery class to be recovered through annual fees, approximately
$870,000 would be assessed to the DOE to recover the costs associated
with DOE facilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). The remaining $1.3 million would be recovered
through annual fees assessed to conventional mills, solution mining
uranium mills, and mill tailings disposal facilities. Because the
proposed FY 1999 annual fees would result in certain uranium recovery
licensees going from an annual billing process based on the anniversary
date of their license to quarterly billing, those licensees would be
billed upon publication of the final FY 1999 rule for the balance of
the full FY 1999 annual fee. Payment of the balance of the FY 1999
annual fee would be due on the effective date of the FY 1999 rule.
The NRC is proposing to revise the matrix established in FY 1995
for establishing the annual fees for the conventional mills, solution
mining uranium mills, and mill tailings disposal facilities. The
revised matrix reflects NRC's significantly increased efforts related
to groundwater concerns for in-situ licenses and its somewhat increased
efforts related to groundwater concerns for conventional mills. The
revised matrix also reflects an increase in regulatory efforts related
to waste operations for in-situ licenses. The matrix has also been
updated to reflect the changes in the number of licensees within each
fee category
icantly increased efforts related
to groundwater concerns for in-situ licenses and its somewhat increased
efforts related to groundwater concerns for conventional mills. The
revised matrix also reflects an increase in regulatory efforts related
to waste operations for in-situ licenses. The matrix has also been
updated to reflect the changes in the number of licensees within each
fee category. The number of conventional mills has decreased from 4 in
FY 1995 to 3 in FY 1999 and the number of licensees in the solution
mining fee category has increased by 1.
The methodology for establishing Part 171 annual fees for uranium
recovery licensees has not changed:
(1) The methodology identifies three categories of licenses:
conventional uranium mills, solution mining uranium mills, and mill
tailings disposal facilities. Each of these categories benefits from
the generic uranium recovery program;
(2) The matrix relates the category and the level of benefit, by
program element and subelement;
(3) The two major program elements of the generic uranium recovery
program are activities related to facility operations and those related
to facility closure;
(4) Each of the major program elements was further divided into
three subelements;
(5) The three major subelements of generic activities related to
uranium facility operations are activities related to the operation of
the mill, activities related to the handling and disposal of waste, and
activities related to prevention of groundwater contamination. The
three major subelements of generic activities related to uranium
facility closure are activities related to decommissioning of
facilities and cleanup of land, reclamation and closure of the tailings
impoundment, and cleanup of contaminated groundwater. Weighted factors
were assigned to each program element and subelement.
The applicability of the generic program in each subelement to each
uranium recovery category was qualitatively estimated as either
significant, some, minor, or none
s related to decommissioning of
facilities and cleanup of land, reclamation and closure of the tailings
impoundment, and cleanup of contaminated groundwater. Weighted factors
were assigned to each program element and subelement.
The applicability of the generic program in each subelement to each
uranium recovery category was qualitatively estimated as either
significant, some, minor, or none.
The resulting relative weighted factor per facility for the various
subclasses and the proposed FY 1999 annual fee for each are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of benefit
-----------------------------------------------
Number of Total weight
facilities Category -------------------------------
weight Value Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I facilities.............................. 3 770 2310 31
Class II facilities............................. 7 645 4515 61
11e(2) disposal................................. 1 475 475 6
11e(2) disposal incidental to existing tailings 2 75 150 2
sites..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Annual Fee Determination for Other Classes
a. Power Reactor Licensees
The approximately $267.3 million in budgeted costs to be recovered
through annual fees assessed to operating power reactors would be
divided equally among the 104 operating reactors. This results in a
proposed FY 1999 annual fee of $2,570,000 per reactor under Option A,
or $2,576,000 under Option B. In addition, each operating reactor would
be assessed the proposed spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning
annual fee, which for FY 1999 is $199,000 for each power reactor
l fees assessed to operating power reactors would be
divided equally among the 104 operating reactors. This results in a
proposed FY 1999 annual fee of $2,570,000 per reactor under Option A,
or $2,576,000 under Option B. In addition, each operating reactor would
be assessed the proposed spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning
annual fee, which for FY 1999 is $199,000 for each power reactor. This
would result in a total FY 1999 annual fee of $2,769,000 under Option
A, or $2,775,000 under Option B, for each operating power reactor.
b. Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning
For FY 1999, budgeted costs of approximately $24.8 million are to
be recovered through annual fees assessed to Part 50 power reactors and
to Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license. The costs would
be divided equally among the 125 licensees, resulting in a proposed FY
1999 annual fee of $199,000 for each licensee under both Option A and
Option B.
c. Nonpower Reactors
Budgeted costs for FY 1999 of approximately $343,400 are to be
recovered from four nonpower reactors subject to annual fees. This
results in a proposed FY 1999 annual fee of $85,900 under Option A, or
$85,600 under Option B.
d. Rare Earth Facilities
The FY 1999 budgeted costs of approximately $91,200 for rare earth
facilities to be recovered through annual fees would be spread
uniformly among the three licensees who have a specific license for
receipt and processing of source material. This results in a proposed
annual fee of $30,400 under Option A, or $30,500 under Option B for
each rare earth facility.
e. Materials Users
Facilities
The FY 1999 budgeted costs of approximately $91,200 for rare earth
facilities to be recovered through annual fees would be spread
uniformly among the three licensees who have a specific license for
receipt and processing of source material. This results in a proposed
annual fee of $30,400 under Option A, or $30,500 under Option B for
each rare earth facility.
e. Materials Users
To equitably and fairly allocate the $30.5 million in FY 1999
budgeted costs to be recovered in annual fees assessed to the
approximately 5700 diverse material users and registrants, the NRC has
continued the methodology used in FY 1995 to establish baseline annual
fees for this class. The annual fee is based on the Part 170
application fees and an estimated cost for inspections. Because the
application fees and inspection costs are indicative of the complexity
of the license, this approach continues to provide a proxy for
allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse
categories of licensees based on how much it costs NRC to regulate each
category. The fee calculation also continues to consider the inspection
frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and
resulting regulatory costs associated with the categories of licensees.
The annual fee for these categories of licensees is developed as
follows:
Annual fee = (Application Fee + (Average Inspection Cost divided by
Inspection Priority)) multiplied by the constant + (Unique Category
Costs).
The constant is the multiple necessary to recovery $30.5 million
and is 1.3 for FY 1999. The unique category costs are any special costs
that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licensees. For FY
1999, unique cost of approximately $955,400 were identified for the
medical development program which is attributable to medical licensees.
The proposed annual fees for each fee category under Option A and
Option B are shown in Sec. 171.16(d).
f. Transportation
for FY 1999. The unique category costs are any special costs
that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licensees. For FY
1999, unique cost of approximately $955,400 were identified for the
medical development program which is attributable to medical licensees.
The proposed annual fees for each fee category under Option A and
Option B are shown in Sec. 171.16(d).
f. Transportation
Of the approximately $3.6 million in FY 1999 budgeted costs to be
recovered through annual fees assessed to the transportation class of
licensees, approximately $870,000 would be recovered from annual fees
assessed to DOE based on the number of Part 71 Certificates of
Compliance DOE holds. Of the remaining $2.7 million, approximately 10
percent would be allocated to holders of approved quality assurance
plans authorizing use, and approximately 90 percent would be allocated
to holders of approved quality assurance plans authorizing design,
fabrication, and use. This results in proposed FY 1999 annual fees of
$2,200 under Option A or $1,500 under Option B for holders of approved
quality assurance plans for use only. The proposed FY 1999 annual fees
for holders of approved quality assurance plans for design,
fabrication, and use would be $66,700 under Option A, or $66,800 under
Option B.
5. Administrative Amendments
a. Section 171.13 would be amended to establish an annual fee for
power reactors in a decommissioning or possession only status.
b. Section 171.15 would be revised to as follows:
(1) The heading for Sec. 171.15 would be revised to read: Section
171.15 Annual Fees: Reactor licenses and independent spent fuel storage
licenses
r Option A, or $66,800 under
Option B.
5. Administrative Amendments
a. Section 171.13 would be amended to establish an annual fee for
power reactors in a decommissioning or possession only status.
b. Section 171.15 would be revised to as follows:
(1) The heading for Sec. 171.15 would be revised to read: Section
171.15 Annual Fees: Reactor licenses and independent spent fuel storage
licenses
(2) Paragraph (b) of Sec. 171.15 would be revised in its entirety
to establish the FY 1999 annual fees for operating power reactors,
power reactors in decommissioning or possession only status, and Part
72 licensees who do not hold Part 50 licenses. Fiscal year references
would be changed from FY 1998 to FY 1999. The activities comprising the
base annual fees and the additional charge (surcharge) are listed in
Sec. 171.15(b) and (c) for convenience purposes.
Each operating power reactor would pay an FY 1999 annual fee of
$2,769,000 under Option A or $2,775,000 under Option B, which includes
the proposed annual fee of $199,000 for spent fuel storage/reactor
decommissioning. Each power reactor in decommissioning or possession
only status and each Part 72 licensee who does not hold a Part 50
license would pay the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual
fee of $199,000 under Option A or Option B in FY 1999.
(3) Paragraph (e) of Sec. 171.15 would be revised to show the
amount of the FY 1999 annual fee for nonpower (test and research)
reactors. The NRC would continue to grant exemptions from the annual
fee to Federally-owned and State-owned research and test reactors that
meet the exemption criteria specified in Sec. 171.11(a)(2).
(4) Paragraph (f) of Sec. 171.15 would be revised to change fiscal
year date references.
c. Section 171.16 would be amended as follows:
f the FY 1999 annual fee for nonpower (test and research)
reactors. The NRC would continue to grant exemptions from the annual
fee to Federally-owned and State-owned research and test reactors that
meet the exemption criteria specified in Sec. 171.11(a)(2).
(4) Paragraph (f) of Sec. 171.15 would be revised to change fiscal
year date references.
c. Section 171.16 would be amended as follows:
(1) Section 171.16(c) covers the fees assessed for those licensees
that can qualify as small entities under NRC size standards. A
materials licensee may pay a reduced annual fee if the licensee
qualifies as a small entity under the NRC's size standards and
certifies that it is a small entity using NRC Form 526. This section
would be revised to clarify that failure to file a small entity
certification in a timely manner could form the basis for the denial of
any refund that would otherwise be due. The NRC would continue to
assess two fees for licensees that qualify as small entities under the
NRC's size standards. In general, licensees with gross annual receipts
of $350,000 to $5 million would pay a maximum annual fee of $1,800. A
second or lower-tier small entity fee of $400 is in place for small
entities with gross annual receipts of less than $350,000 and small
governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000. No
change in the amount of the small entity fees is being proposed because
the small entity fees are not based on budgeted costs but are
established at a level to reduce the impact of fees on small entities.
The small entity fees are shown in the proposed rule for convenience.
oss annual receipts of less than $350,000 and small
governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000. No
change in the amount of the small entity fees is being proposed because
the small entity fees are not based on budgeted costs but are
established at a level to reduce the impact of fees on small entities.
The small entity fees are shown in the proposed rule for convenience.
(2) Section 171.16(d) would be revised to establish the FY 1999
annual fees for materials licensees, including Government agencies,
licensed by the NRC. The amount or range of the proposed FY 1999 annual
fees for materials licenses range from $600 for a license authorizing
the use of source material for shielding, to $27,800 for a license of
broad scope for human use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear
material. Because of rounding, the fees for most materials licensees
would be the same under Option A and Option B. The proposed annual fee
for the ``master'' materials licenses of broad scope issued to
Government agencies $351,000 under Option A or Option B.
(3) Footnote 1 of Sec. 171.16(d) would be amended to provide a
waiver of the annual fees for materials licensees, and holders of
certificates, registrations, and approvals, who either filed for
termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession
only/storage only licenses before October 1, 1998, and permanently
ceased licensed activities entirely by September 30, 1998. All other
licensees and approval holders who held a license or approval on
October 1, 1998, would be subject to the FY 1999 annual fees.
Holders of new licenses issued during FY 1999 would be subject to a
prorated annual fee in accordance with the current proration provision
of Sec. 171.17. For example, those new materials licenses issued during
the period October 1 through March 31 of the FY would be assessed one-
half the annual fee in effect on the anniversary date of the license
would be subject to the FY 1999 annual fees.
Holders of new licenses issued during FY 1999 would be subject to a
prorated annual fee in accordance with the current proration provision
of Sec. 171.17. For example, those new materials licenses issued during
the period October 1 through March 31 of the FY would be assessed one-
half the annual fee in effect on the anniversary date of the license.
New materials licenses issued on or after April 1, 1999, would not be
assessed an annual fee for FY 1999. Thereafter, the full annual fee
would be due and payable each subsequent fiscal year on the anniversary
date of the license. Beginning June 11, 1996 (the effective date of the
FY 1996 final rule), affected materials licensees are subject to the
annual fee in effect on the anniversary date of the license. The
anniversary date of the materials license for annual fee purposes is
the first day of the month in which the original license was issued.
d. Section 171.19 Payment, would be amended as follows:
(1) Section 171.19(b) would be revised to update the fiscal year
references, to include a billing process for those licensees whose
annual fee for the previous fiscal year was based on the anniversary
date of the license and whose revised annual fee for the current fiscal
year would be based on quarterly billing, and to give credit for
partial payments made by certain licensees in FY 1999 toward their FY
1999 annual fees. The NRC anticipates that the first, second, and third
quarterly payments for FY 1999 will have been made by operating power
reactor licensees and some large materials licensees before the final
rule becomes effective. Therefore, the NRC would credit payments
received for those quarterly annual fee assessments toward the total
annual fee to be assessed. The NRC would adjust the fourth quarterly
invoice to recover the full amount of the revised annual fee or to make
refunds, as necessary
een made by operating power
reactor licensees and some large materials licensees before the final
rule becomes effective. Therefore, the NRC would credit payments
received for those quarterly annual fee assessments toward the total
annual fee to be assessed. The NRC would adjust the fourth quarterly
invoice to recover the full amount of the revised annual fee or to make
refunds, as necessary. Payment of the annual fee is due on the date of
the invoice and interest accrues from the invoice date. However,
interest would be waived if payment is received within 30 days from the
invoice date.
(2) Section 171.19(c) would be revised to update fiscal year
references.
As in FY 1998, the NRC would continue to bill annual fees for most
materials licenses on the anniversary date of the license (licensees
whose annual fees are $100,000 or more would continue to be assessed
quarterly). The annual fee assessed would be the fee in effect on the
license anniversary date, unless the annual fee for the prior year was
less than $100,000 and the revised annual fee for the current fiscal
year is $100,000 or more. In this case, the revised amount would be
billed to the licensees upon publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, adjusted for any annual fee payments already made for
that fiscal year based on the anniversary month billing process. For FY
1999, the anniversary date billing process applies to those materials
licenses in the following fee categories: 1C, 1D, 2A(2) Other, 2A(3),
2A(4), 2B, 2C, 3A through 3P, 4A through 9D, 10A, and 10B. For annual
fee purposes, the anniversary date of the materials license is
considered to be the first day of the month in which the original
materials license was issued. For example, if the original materials
license was issued on June 17 then, for annual fee purposes, the
anniversary date of the materials license is June 1 and the licensee
would continue to be billed in June of each year for the annual fee in
effect on June 1
sary date of the materials license is
considered to be the first day of the month in which the original
materials license was issued. For example, if the original materials
license was issued on June 17 then, for annual fee purposes, the
anniversary date of the materials license is June 1 and the licensee
would continue to be billed in June of each year for the annual fee in
effect on June 1. Materials licensees with anniversary dates in FY 1999
before the effective date of the FY 1999 final rule would be billed
during the anniversary month of the license and continue to pay annual
fees at the FY 1998 rate in FY 1999. Those materials licensees with
license anniversary dates falling on or after the effective date of the
FY 1999 final rule would be billed at the FY 1999 revised rates during
the anniversary month of their license. Payment would be due on the
date of the invoice.
The NRC reemphasizes that the annual fee will be assessed based on
whether a licensee holds a valid NRC license that authorizes possession
and use of radioactive material.
In summary, the NRC is proposing to:
1. Establish a new spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning
annual fee in 10 CFR 171.15, and eliminate the current annual fee in 10
CFR 171.16 for independent spent fuel storage licenses. The proposed
annual fee would be assessed to all Part 50 power reactor licensees,
including those in decommissioning or possession only status, and to
those Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part 50 license;
2. Establish new baseline annual fees for FY 1999. Because the
rebaselined fees would result in significant increases for some
licensees, the NRC is seeking public comment on two potential methods
for establishing the FY 1999 annual fees: (1) rebaseline the fees
without a cap on fee increases, or (2) rebaseline the annual fees with
a cap so that no licensees' annual fee increases more than 50 percent
from FY 1998; and
3
al fees for FY 1999. Because the
rebaselined fees would result in significant increases for some
licensees, the NRC is seeking public comment on two potential methods
for establishing the FY 1999 annual fees: (1) rebaseline the fees
without a cap on fee increases, or (2) rebaseline the annual fees with
a cap so that no licensees' annual fee increases more than 50 percent
from FY 1998; and
3. Use revised matrixes for allocating the fuel facility and
uranium recovery budgeted costs to licensees in those fee classes.
III. Plain Language
The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, ``Plain
Language
in Government Writing,'' directed that the Federal government's writing
be in plain language (63 FR 31883; June 10, 1998). The NRC requests
comments on this proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity
and effectiveness of the language used. Comments on the language used
should be sent to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of
action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental impact assessment has been prepared for the proposed
regulation. By its very nature, this regulatory action does not affect
the environment, and therefore, no environmental justice issues are
raised.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements
and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
VI. Regulatory Analysis
regulation. By its very nature, this regulatory action does not affect
the environment, and therefore, no environmental justice issues are
raised.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements
and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
VI. Regulatory Analysis
With respect to 10 CFR part 170, this proposed rule was developed
pursuant to Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of
1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) and the Commission's fee guidelines. When
developing these guidelines the Commission took into account guidance
provided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4, 1974, in its decision of
National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S.
36 (1974) and Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Company,
415 U.S. 345 (1974). In these decisions, the Court held that the IOAA
authorizes an agency to charge fees for special benefits rendered to
identifiable persons measured by the ``value to the recipient'' of the
agency service. The meaning of the IOAA was further clarified on
December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia: National Cable Television Association v.
Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1976);
National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications
Commission, 554 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Electronic Industries
Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109 (D.C.
Cir. 1976) and Capital Cities Communication, Inc. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1976). These
decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop fee
guidelines that are still used for cost recovery and fee development
purposes.
The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mississippi Power
and Light Co. v. U.S
Communication, Inc. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1976). These
decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop fee
guidelines that are still used for cost recovery and fee development
purposes.
The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mississippi Power
and Light Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 F.2d 223 (5th
Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1102 (1980). The Court held that--
(1) The NRC had the authority to recover the full cost of providing
services to identifiable beneficiaries;
(2) The NRC could properly assess a fee for the costs of providing
routine inspections necessary to ensure a licensee's compliance with
the Atomic Energy Act and with applicable regulations;
(3) The NRC could charge for costs incurred in conducting
environmental reviews required by NEPA;
(4) The NRC properly included the costs of uncontested hearings and
of administrative and technical support services in the fee schedule;
(5) The NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license to operate a
low-level radioactive waste burial site; and
(6) The NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.
With respect to 10 CFR part 171, on November 5, 1990, the Congress
passed Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 (OBRA-90) which required that for FYs 1991 through 1995,
approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority be recovered
through the assessment of fees. OBRA-90 was amended in 1998 to extend
the 100 percent fee recovery requirement for NRC through FY 1999. To
accomplish this statutory requirement, the NRC, in accordance with
Sec. 171.13, is publishing the proposed amount of the FY 1999 annual
fees for operating reactor licensees, fuel cycle licensees, materials
licensees, and holders of Certificates of Compliance, registrations of
sealed source and devices and QA program approvals, and Government
agencies
y requirement for NRC through FY 1999. To
accomplish this statutory requirement, the NRC, in accordance with
Sec. 171.13, is publishing the proposed amount of the FY 1999 annual
fees for operating reactor licensees, fuel cycle licensees, materials
licensees, and holders of Certificates of Compliance, registrations of
sealed source and devices and QA program approvals, and Government
agencies. OBRA-90 and the Conference Committee Report specifically
state that--
(1) The annual fees be based on the Commission's FY 1999 budget of
$469.8 million less the amounts collected from Part 170 fees and the
funds directly appropriated from the NWF to cover the NRC's high level
waste program;
(2) The annual fees shall, to the maximum extent practicable, have
a reasonable relationship to the cost of regulatory services provided
by the Commission; and
(3) The annual fees be assessed to those licensees the Commission,
in its discretion, determines can fairly, equitably, and practicably
contribute to their payment.
In addition, the NRC's FY 1999 appropriations language provides
that $3.2 million appropriated from the General Fund for activities
related to regulatory reviews and other assistance provided to the
Department of Energy and other Federal agencies be excluded from fee
recovery.
10 CFR Part 171, which established annual fees for operating power
reactors effective October 20, 1986 (51 FR 33224; September 18, 1986),
was challenged and upheld in its entirety in Florida Power and Light
Company v. United States, 846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
490 U.S. 1045 (1989).
The NRC's FY 1991 annual fee rule was largely upheld by the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Allied Signal v. NRC, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C.
Cir. 1993).
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
ober 20, 1986 (51 FR 33224; September 18, 1986),
was challenged and upheld in its entirety in Florida Power and Light
Company v. United States, 846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
490 U.S. 1045 (1989).
The NRC's FY 1991 annual fee rule was largely upheld by the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Allied Signal v. NRC, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C.
Cir. 1993).
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The NRC is required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority
through the assessment of user fees. OBRA-90 further requires that the
NRC establish a schedule of charges that fairly and equitably allocates
the aggregate amount of these charges among licensees.
This proposed rule establishes the schedules of fees that are
necessary to implement the Congressional mandate for FY 1999. The
proposed rule would result in increases in the annual fees charged to
certain licensees and holders of certificates, registrations, and
approvals, and decreases in annual fees for others. The Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, is
included as Appendix A to this proposed rule. The Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) was signed into
law on March 29, 1996. The SBREFA requires all Federal agencies to
prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the agency
is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis. Therefore, in compliance with the law, Attachment 1 to the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is the small entity compliance guide
for FY 1999.
VIII. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this proposed rule and that a backfit analysis is not
required for this proposed rule. The backfit analysis is not required
because these proposed amendments do not require the modification of or
additions to systems, structures, components, or the design of
y compliance guide
for FY 1999.
VIII. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this proposed rule and that a backfit analysis is not
required for this proposed rule. The backfit analysis is not required
because these proposed amendments do not require the modification of or
additions to systems, structures, components, or the design of
a facility or the design approval or manufacturing license for a
facility or the procedures or organization required to design,
construct or operate a facility.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 170
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental
relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power
plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
10 CFR Part 171
Annual charges, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates,
registrations, approvals, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment
penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source
material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is
proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 170 and
171.
PART 170--FEES FOR FACILITIES, MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORT
LICENSES, AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OF 1954, AS AMENDED
1. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L. 92-
314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, Pub. L. 93-4381, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 205, Pub. L. 101-576,
104 Stat. 2842, (31 U.S.C. 901).
2. In Sec. 170.2, paragraph (r) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 170.2 Scope.
* * * * *
1. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L. 92-
314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, Pub. L. 93-4381, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 205, Pub. L. 101-576,
104 Stat. 2842, (31 U.S.C. 901).
2. In Sec. 170.2, paragraph (r) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 170.2 Scope.
* * * * *
(r) An applicant for or a holder of a certificate of compliance
issued under 10 CFR Part 76.
3. In Sec. 170.3, the definition of the terms Inspections,
Materials license, and Special projects are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Inspection means:
(1) Routine inspections designed to evaluate the licensee's
activities within the context of the licensee having primary
responsibility for protection of the public and environment;
(2) Non-routine inspections in response or reaction to an incident,
allegation, followup to inspection deficiencies or inspections to
determine implementation of safety issues. A non-routine or reactive
inspection has the same purpose as the routine inspection;
(3) Reviews and assessments of licensee performance;
(4) Evaluations, such as those performed by Diagnostic Evaluation
Teams; or
(5) Incident investigations.
* * * * *
Materials license means a license, certificate, approval,
registration, or other form of permission issued by the NRC under the
regulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 32 through 36, 39, 40, 61, 70, 71, 72
and 76.
* * * * *
Special projects means those requests submitted to the Commission
for review for which fees are not otherwise specified in this chapter
or
(5) Incident investigations.
* * * * *
Materials license means a license, certificate, approval,
registration, or other form of permission issued by the NRC under the
regulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 32 through 36, 39, 40, 61, 70, 71, 72
and 76.
* * * * *
Special projects means those requests submitted to the Commission
for review for which fees are not otherwise specified in this chapter.
Examples of special projects include, but are not limited to, topical
reports reviews, early site reviews, waste solidification facilities,
route approvals for shipment of radioactive materials, services
provided to certify licensee, vendor, or other private industry
personnel as instructors for Part 55 reactor operators, reviews of
financial assurance submittals that do not require a license amendment,
reviews of responses to Confirmatory Action Letters, reviews of uranium
recovery licensees' land-use survey reports, and reviews of 10 CFR
50.71 final safety analysis reports. As used in this part, special
projects does not include requests/reports submitted to the NRC:
(1) In response to a Generic Letter or NRC Bulletin which does not
result in an amendment to the license, does not result in the review of
an alternate method or reanalysis to meet the requirements of the
Generic Letter, or does not involve an unreviewed safety issue;
(2) In response to an NRC request (at the Associate Office Director
level or above) to resolve an identified safety, safeguards or
environmental issue, or to assist the NRC in developing a rule,
regulatory guide, policy statement, generic letter, or bulletin; or
f
an alternate method or reanalysis to meet the requirements of the
Generic Letter, or does not involve an unreviewed safety issue;
(2) In response to an NRC request (at the Associate Office Director
level or above) to resolve an identified safety, safeguards or
environmental issue, or to assist the NRC in developing a rule,
regulatory guide, policy statement, generic letter, or bulletin; or
(3) As a means of exchanging information between industry
organizations and the NRC for the purpose of supporting generic
regulatory improvements or efforts.
* * * * *
4. Section 170.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.5 Communications.
All communications concerning the regulations in this part should
be addressed to the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Communications may be delivered
in person at the Commission's offices at 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD.
5. In Sec. 170.11, paragraph (a)(11) is removed and reserved and
paragraph (a)(12) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 170.11 Exemptions.
(a) * * *
(12) A performance assessment or evaluation for which the licensee
volunteers at the NRC's request and which is selected by the NRC.
* * * * *
6. Section 170.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.12 Payment of fees.
(a) Application fees. Each application for which a fee is
prescribed must be accompanied by a remittance for the full amount of
the fee. The NRC will not issue a new license or an amendment
increasing the scope of an existing license to a higher fee category or
adding a new fee category prior to receiving the prescribed application
fee. The application fee(s) is charged whether the Commission approves
the application or not. The application fee(s) is also charged if the
applicant withdraws the application.
(b) Licensing fees. (1) Licensing fees will be assessed to recover
full costs for--
the scope of an existing license to a higher fee category or
adding a new fee category prior to receiving the prescribed application
fee. The application fee(s) is charged whether the Commission approves
the application or not. The application fee(s) is also charged if the
applicant withdraws the application.
(b) Licensing fees. (1) Licensing fees will be assessed to recover
full costs for--
(i) The review of applications for new licenses and approvals;
(ii) The review of applications for amendments to and renewal of
existing licenses or approvals;
(iii) Preapplication consultations and reviews; and
(iv) The full cost for project managers assigned to a specific
plant or facility, excluding leave time and time spent on generic
activities (such as rulemaking).
(2) Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional
staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended. The
full cost fees for professional staff time will be determined at the
professional hourly rates in effect the time the service was provided.
The full cost fees are payable upon notification by the Commission.
(3) The NRC intends to bill each applicant or licensee at quarterly
intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant
or licensee has on file for NRC review, until the review is completed,
except for costs that were deferred before August 9, 1991. The deferred
costs will be billed as described in paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(6) and
payable upon notification by the Commission.
(3) The NRC intends to bill each applicant or licensee at quarterly
intervals for all accumulated costs for each application the applicant
or licensee has on file for NRC review, until the review is completed,
except for costs that were deferred before August 9, 1991. The deferred
costs will be billed as described in paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(6) and
(b)(7) of this section. Each bill will identify the applications and
documents submitted for review and the costs related to each.
(4) The NRC intends to bill each applicant or licensee for costs
related to project manager time on a quarterly basis. Each bill will
identify the costs related to project manager time.
(5) Costs for review of an application for renewal of a standard
design certification which have been deferred prior to the effective
date of this rule must be paid as follows: The full cost of review for
a renewed standard design certification must be paid by the applicant
for renewal or other entity supplying the design to an applicant for a
construction permit, combined license issued under 10 CFR part 52, or
operating license, as appropriate, in five (5) equal installments. An
installment is payable each of the first five times the renewed
certification is referenced in an application for a construction
permit, combined license, or operating license. The applicant for
renewal shall pay the installment, unless another entity is supplying
the design to the applicant for the construction permit, combined
license, or operating license, in which case the entity shall pay the
installment. If the design is not referenced, or if all of the costs
are not recovered, within fifteen years after the date of renewal of
the certification, the applicant for renewal shall pay the costs for
the renewal, or remainder of those costs, at that time.
design to the applicant for the construction permit, combined
license, or operating license, in which case the entity shall pay the
installment. If the design is not referenced, or if all of the costs
are not recovered, within fifteen years after the date of renewal of
the certification, the applicant for renewal shall pay the costs for
the renewal, or remainder of those costs, at that time.
(6) Costs for the review of an application for renewal of an early
site permit which have been deferred prior to the effective date of
this rule will continue to be deferred as follows: The holder of the
renewed permit shall pay the applicable fees for the renewed permit at
the time an application for a construction permit or combined license
referencing the permit is filed. If, at the end of the renewal period
of the permit, no facility application referencing the early site
permit has been docketed, the permit holder shall pay any outstanding
fees for the permit.
(7) (i) The full cost of review for a standardized design approval
or certification that has been deferred prior to the effective date of
the rule must be paid by the holder of the design approval, the
applicant for certification, or other entity supplying the design to an
applicant for a construction permit, combined license issued under 10
CFR part 52, or operating license, as appropriate, in five (5) equal
installments. An installment is payable each of the first five times
the approved/certified design is referenced in an application for a
construction permit, combined license issued under 10 CFR part 52, or
operating license. In the case of a standard design certification, the
applicant for certification shall pay the installment, unless another
entity is supplying the design to the applicant for the construction
permit, combined license, or operating license, in which case the other
entity shall pay the installment.
on for a
construction permit, combined license issued under 10 CFR part 52, or
operating license. In the case of a standard design certification, the
applicant for certification shall pay the installment, unless another
entity is supplying the design to the applicant for the construction
permit, combined license, or operating license, in which case the other
entity shall pay the installment.
(ii) In the case of a design which has been approved and for which
an application for certification is pending, no fees are due until
after the certification is granted. If the design is not referenced, or
if all costs are not recovered, within fifteen years after the date of
certification, the applicant shall pay the costs, or remainder of
those, at the time.
(iii) In the case of a design for which a certification has been
granted, if the design is not referenced, or if all costs are not
recovered, within fifteen years after the date of the certification,
the applicant shall pay the costs for the review of the application, or
remainder of those costs, at that time.
(c) Inspection fees. (1) Inspection fees will be assessed to
recover full cost for each resident inspector (including the senior
resident inspector), assigned to a specific plant or facility. The fees
assessed will be based on the number of hours that each inspector
assigned to the plant or facility is in an official duty status (i.e.,
all time in a non-leave status will be billed), and the hours will be
billed at the appropriate hourly rate established in 10 CFR 170.20.
Resident inspectors' time related to a specific inspection will be
included in the fee assessed for the specific inspection in accordance
with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
nspector
assigned to the plant or facility is in an official duty status (i.e.,
all time in a non-leave status will be billed), and the hours will be
billed at the appropriate hourly rate established in 10 CFR 170.20.
Resident inspectors' time related to a specific inspection will be
included in the fee assessed for the specific inspection in accordance
with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) Inspection fees will be assessed to recover the full cost for
each specific inspection, including plant- or licensee-specific
performance reviews and assessments, evaluations, and incident
investigations. For inspections that result in the issuance of an
inspection report, fees will be assessed for costs incurred up to
approximately 30 days after the inspection report is issued. The costs
for these inspections include preparation time, time on site,
documentation time, and follow-up activities and any associated
contractual service costs, but exclude the time involved in the
processing and issuance of a notice of violation or civil penalty.
(3) The NRC intends to bill for resident inspectors' time and for
specific inspections subject to full cost recovery on a quarterly
basis. The fees are payable upon notification by the Commission.
(d) Special project fees. (1) Fees for special projects are based
on the full cost of the review. Special projects includes activities
such as--
(i) Topical reports;
(ii) Financial assurance submittals that do not require a license
amendment;
(iii) Responses to Confirmatory Action Letters;
(iv) Uranium recovery licensees' land-use survey reports; and
(v) 10 CFR 50.71 final safety analysis reports.
(2) The NRC intends to bill each applicant or licensee at quarterly
intervals until the review is completed. Each bill will identify the
documents submitted for review and the costs related to each. The fees
are payable upon notification by the Commission.
onfirmatory Action Letters;
(iv) Uranium recovery licensees' land-use survey reports; and
(v) 10 CFR 50.71 final safety analysis reports.
(2) The NRC intends to bill each applicant or licensee at quarterly
intervals until the review is completed. Each bill will identify the
documents submitted for review and the costs related to each. The fees
are payable upon notification by the Commission.
(e) Part 55 review fees. Fees for Part 55 review services are based
on NRC time spent in administering the examinations and tests and any
related contractual costs. The fees assessed will also include related
activities such as preparing, reviewing, and grading of the
examinations and tests. The NRC intends to bill the costs at quarterly
intervals to the licensee employing the operators.
(f) Method of payment. All license fee payments are to be made
payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The payments are to
be made in U.S. funds by electronic funds transfer such as ACT
(Automated Clearing House) using E.D.I. (Electronic Data Interchange),
check, draft, money order, or credit card. Payment of invoices of
$5,000 or more should be paid via ACT through NRC's Lockbox Bank at the
address indicated on the invoice. Credit card payments should be made
up to the limit established by the credit card bank at the address
indicated on the invoice. Specific written instructions for making
electronic payments and credit card payments may be obtained by
contacting the License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch at 301-415-
7554. In accordance with Department of the Treasury requirements,
refunds will only be made upon receipt of information on the payee's
financial institution and bank accounts.
7. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.20 Average cost per professional staff-hour.
ts and credit card payments may be obtained by
contacting the License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch at 301-415-
7554. In accordance with Department of the Treasury requirements,
refunds will only be made upon receipt of information on the payee's
financial institution and bank accounts.
7. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.20 Average cost per professional staff-hour.
Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects,
Part 55 requalification and replacement examinations and tests, other
required reviews, approvals, and inspections under Secs. 170.21 and
170.31 will be calculated using the following applicable professional
staff-hour rates:
Reactor Program........................
(Sec. 170.21 Activities).............. $141 per hour.
Nuclear Materials and Nuclear Waste 140 per hour.
Program (Sec. 170.31 Activities).
8. In Sec. 170.21, the introductory text, Category K, and footnotes
1 and 2 to the table are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.21 Schedule of fees for production and utilization
facilities, review of standard referenced design approvals, special
projects, inspections and import and export licenses.
Applicants for construction permits, manufacturing licenses,
operating licenses, import and export licenses, approvals of facility
standard reference designs, requalification and replacement
examinations for reactor operators, and special projects and holders of
construction permits, licenses, and other approvals shall pay fees for
the following categories of services.
and export licenses.
Applicants for construction permits, manufacturing licenses,
operating licenses, import and export licenses, approvals of facility
standard reference designs, requalification and replacement
examinations for reactor operators, and special projects and holders of
construction permits, licenses, and other approvals shall pay fees for
the following categories of services.
Schedule of Facility Fees
[See footnotes at end of table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility categories and type of fees Fees 1 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
K. Import and export licenses:
Licenses for the import and export only of
production and utilization facilities or the export
only of components for production and utilization
facilities issued under 10 CFR part 110:
1. Application for import or export of reactors
and other facilities and exports of components
which must be reviewed by the Commissioners and
the Executive Branch, for example, actions
under 10 CFR 110.40(b):
Application--new license.................... $9,100.
Amendment................................... $9,100.
2. Application for export of reactor and other
components requiring Executive Branch review
only, for example, those actions under 10 CFR
110.41(a)(1)-(8):
Application--new license.................... $5,600.
Amendment................................... $5,600.
3. Application for export of components
requiring foreign government assurances only:
Application--new license.................... $1,700.
Amendment................................... $1,700.
4. Application for export of facility components
and equipment not requiring Commissioner
review, Executive Branch review, or foreign
government assurances:
Application--new license.................... $1,100.
Amendment................................... $1,100.
5
ent assurances only:
Application--new license.................... $1,700.
Amendment................................... $1,700.
4. Application for export of facility components
and equipment not requiring Commissioner
review, Executive Branch review, or foreign
government assurances:
Application--new license.................... $1,100.
Amendment................................... $1,100.
5. Minor amendment of any export or import
license to extend the expiration date, change
domestic information, or make other revisions
which do not require in-depth analysis or
review:
Amendment $210.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission under
Sec. 2.202 of this chapter or for amendments resulting specifically
from the requirements of these types of Commission orders. Fees will
be charged for approvals issued under a specific exemption provision
of the Commission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (e.g., Secs. 50.12, 73.5) and any other sections in
effect now or in the future, regardless of whether the approval is in
the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation
report, or other form. Fees for licenses in this schedule that are
initially issued for less than full power are based on review through
the issuance of a full power license (generally full power is
considered 100 percent of the facility's full rated power). Thus, if a
licensee received a low power license or a temporary license for less
than full power and subsequently receives full power authority (by way
of license amendment or otherwise), the total costs for the license
will be determined through that period when authority is granted for
full power operation
(generally full power is
considered 100 percent of the facility's full rated power). Thus, if a
licensee received a low power license or a temporary license for less
than full power and subsequently receives full power authority (by way
of license amendment or otherwise), the total costs for the license
will be determined through that period when authority is granted for
full power operation. If a situation arises in which the Commission
determines that full operating power for a particular facility should
be less than 100 percent of full rated power, the total costs for the
license will be at that determined lower operating power level and not
at the 100 percent capacity.
\2\ Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff
time and appropriate contractual support services expended. For
applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based
on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours
expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of
the final rule will be determined at the professional rates in effect
at the time the service was provided. For those applications currently
on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling
established by the June 20, 1984, and July 2, 1990, rules but are
still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any
applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be
billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours expended above
those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will be assessed at the
applicable rates established by Sec. 170.20, as appropriate, except
for topical reports whose costs exceed $50,000. Costs which exceed
$50,000 for any topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to a
topical report completed or under review from January 30, 1989,
through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant
se ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will be assessed at the
applicable rates established by Sec. 170.20, as appropriate, except
for topical reports whose costs exceed $50,000. Costs which exceed
$50,000 for any topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to a
topical report completed or under review from January 30, 1989,
through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any
professional hours expended on or after August 9, 1991, will be
assessed at the applicable rate established in Sec. 170.20.
* * * * *
9. Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other
regulatory services, including inspections, and import and export
licenses.
Applicants for materials licenses, import and export licenses, and
other regulatory services and holders of materials licenses, or import
and export licenses shall pay fees for the following categories of
services. This schedule includes fees for health and safety and
safeguards inspections where applicable.
Schedule of Materials Fees
[See footnotes at end of table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category of materials licenses and type of fees
\1\ Fee \2\ \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Special nuclear material:
A. Licenses for possession and use of 200
grams or more of plutonium in unsealed
form or 350 grams or more of contained U-
235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more
of U-233 in unsealed form. This includes
applications to terminate licenses as well
as licenses authorizing possession only:
Licensing and Inspection............... Full Cost.
B. Licenses for receipt and storage of
spent fuel at an independent spent fuel
storage installation (ISFSI):
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
C
ntained U-
235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more
of U-233 in unsealed form. This includes
applications to terminate licenses as well
as licenses authorizing possession only:
Licensing and Inspection............... Full Cost.
B. Licenses for receipt and storage of
spent fuel at an independent spent fuel
storage installation (ISFSI):
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
C. Licenses for possession and use of
special nuclear material in sealed sources
contained in devices used in industrial
measuring systems, including x-ray
fluorescence analyzers: \4\
Application............................ $640.
D. All other special nuclear material
licenses, except licenses authorizing
special nuclear material in unsealed form
in combination that would constitute a
critical quantity, as defined in Sec.
150.11 of this chapter, for which the
licensee shall pay the same fees as those
for Category 1A: \4\
Application............................ $1,300
E. Licenses or certificates for
construction and operation of a uranium
enrichment facility.
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
2. Source material:
A.(1) Licenses for possession and use of
source material in recovery operations
such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-
leaching, refining uranium mill
concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, ore
buying stations, ion exchange facilities
and in processing of ores containing
source material for extraction of metals
other than uranium or thorium, including
licenses authorizing the possession of
byproduct waste material (tailings) from
source material recovery operations, as
well as licenses authorizing the
possession and maintenance of a facility
in a standby mode:
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
ilities
and in processing of ores containing
source material for extraction of metals
other than uranium or thorium, including
licenses authorizing the possession of
byproduct waste material (tailings) from
source material recovery operations, as
well as licenses authorizing the
possession and maintenance of a facility
in a standby mode:
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
(2) Licenses that authorize the receipt of
byproduct material, as defined in Section
11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from
other persons for possession and disposal
except those licenses subject to fees in
Category 2.A.(1):
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
(3) Licenses that authorize the receipt of
byproduct material, as defined in Section
11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from
other persons for possession and disposal
incidental to the disposal of the uranium
waste tailings generated by the licensee's
milling operations, except those licenses
subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(1):
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
B. Licenses which authorize the possession,
use, and/or installation of source
material for shielding:
Application............................ $150.
C. All other source material licenses:
Application............................ $5,500.
3. Byproduct material:
A. Licenses of broad scope for the
possession and use of byproduct material
issued under Parts 30 and 33 of this
chapter for processing or manufacturing of
items containing byproduct material for
commercial distribution:
Application............................ $6,600.
B. Other licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material issued under Part 30 of
this chapter for processing or
manufacturing of items containing
byproduct material for commercial
distribution:
Application............................ $2,400.
C. Licenses issued under Secs
items containing byproduct material for
commercial distribution:
Application............................ $6,600.
B. Other licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material issued under Part 30 of
this chapter for processing or
manufacturing of items containing
byproduct material for commercial
distribution:
Application............................ $2,400.
C. Licenses issued under Secs. 32.72,
32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter that
authorize the processing or manufacturing
and distribution or redistribution of
radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent
kits, and/or sources and devices
containing byproduct material. This
category does not apply to licenses issued
to nonprofit educational institutions
whose processing or manufacturing is
exempt under 10 CFR 170.11(a)(4). These
licenses are covered by fee Category 3D:
Application............................ $10,200.
D. Licenses and approvals issued under
Secs. 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this
chapter authorizing distribution or
redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals,
generators, reagent kits, and/or sources
or devices not involving processing of
byproduct material. This category includes
licenses issued under Secs. 32.72, 32.73,
and/or 32.74 of this chapter to nonprofit
educational institutions whose processing
or manufacturing is exempt under 10 CFR
170.11(a)(4):
Application............................ $2,400.
E. Licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material in sealed sources for
irradiation of materials in which the
source is not removed from its shield
(self-shielded units):
Application............................ $1,700.
F. Licenses for possession and use of less
than 10,000 curies of byproduct material
in sealed sources for irradiation of
materials in which the source is exposed
for irradiation purposes. This category
also includes underwater irradiators for
irradiation of materials where the source
is not exposed for irradiation purposes:
Application............................ $3,300.
G
...... $1,700.
F. Licenses for possession and use of less
than 10,000 curies of byproduct material
in sealed sources for irradiation of
materials in which the source is exposed
for irradiation purposes. This category
also includes underwater irradiators for
irradiation of materials where the source
is not exposed for irradiation purposes:
Application............................ $3,300.
G. Licenses for possession and use of
10,000 curies or more of byproduct
material in sealed sources for irradiation
of materials in which the source is
exposed for irradiation purposes. This
category also includes underwater
irradiators for irradiation of materials
where the source is not exposed for
irradiation purposes:
Application............................ $3,400.
H. Licenses issued under Subpart A of Part
32 of this chapter to distribute items
containing byproduct material that require
device review to persons exempt from the
licensing requirements of Part 30 of this
chapter. The category does not include
specific licenses authorizing
redistribution of items that have been
authorized for distribution to persons
exempt from the licensing requirements of
Part 30 of this chapter:
Application............................ $2,000.
I. Licenses issued under Subpart A of Part
32 of this chapter to distribute items
containing byproduct material or
quantities of byproduct material that do
not require device evaluation to persons
exempt from the licensing requirements of
Part 30 of this chapter. This category
does not include specific licenses
authorizing redistribution of items that
have been authorized for distribution to
persons exempt from the licensing
requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:
Application............................ $3,200.
of byproduct material that do
not require device evaluation to persons
exempt from the licensing requirements of
Part 30 of this chapter. This category
does not include specific licenses
authorizing redistribution of items that
have been authorized for distribution to
persons exempt from the licensing
requirements of Part 30 of this chapter:
Application............................ $3,200.
J. Licenses issued under Subpart B of Part
32 of this chapter to distribute items
containing byproduct material that require
sealed source and/or device review to
persons generally licensed under Part 31
of this chapter. This category does not
include specific licenses authorizing
redistribution of items that have been
authorized for distribution to persons
generally licensed under Part 31 of this
chapter:
Application............................ $1,000.
K. Licenses issued under Subpart B of Part
32 of this chapter to distribute items
containing byproduct material or
quantities of byproduct material that do
not require sealed source and/or device
review to persons generally licensed under
Part 31 of this chapter. This category
does not include specific licenses
authorizing redistribution of items that
have been authorized for distribution to
persons generally licensed under Part 31
of this chapter:
Application............................ $600.
L. Licenses of broad scope for possession
and use of byproduct material issued under
Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for
research and development that do not
authorize commercial distribution:
Application............................ $5,500.
M. Other licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material issued under Part 30 of
this chapter for research and development
that do not authorize commercial
distribution:
Application............................ $2,300.
N. Licenses that authorize services for
other licensees, except:
opment that do not
authorize commercial distribution:
Application............................ $5,500.
M. Other licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material issued under Part 30 of
this chapter for research and development
that do not authorize commercial
distribution:
Application............................ $2,300.
N. Licenses that authorize services for
other licensees, except:
(1) Licenses that authorize only
calibration and/or leak testing
services are subject to the fees
specified in fee Category 3P; and
(2) Licenses that authorize waste
disposal services are subject to the
fees specified in fee Categories 4A,
4B, and 4C:
Application........................ $2,300.
O. Licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material issued under Part 34 of
this chapter for industrial radiography
operations:
Application............................ $5,800.
P. All other specific byproduct material
licenses, except those in Categories 4A
through 9D:
Application............................ $1,300.
4. Waste disposal and processing:
A. Licenses specifically authorizing the
receipt of waste byproduct material,
source material, or special nuclear
material from other persons for the
purpose of contingency storage or
commercial land disposal by the licensee;
or licenses authorizing contingency
storage of low-level radioactive waste at
the site of nuclear power reactors; or
licenses for receipt of waste from other
persons for incineration or other
treatment, packaging of resulting waste
and residues, and transfer of packages to
another person authorized to receive or
dispose of waste material:
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
B. Licenses specifically authorizing the
receipt of waste byproduct material,
source material, or special nuclear
material from other persons for the
purpose of packaging or repackaging the
material
t, packaging of resulting waste
and residues, and transfer of packages to
another person authorized to receive or
dispose of waste material:
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
B. Licenses specifically authorizing the
receipt of waste byproduct material,
source material, or special nuclear
material from other persons for the
purpose of packaging or repackaging the
material. The licensee will dispose of the
material by transfer to another person
authorized to receive or dispose of the
material:
Application............................ $1,700.
C. Licenses specifically authorizing the
receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct
material, source material, or special
nuclear material from other persons. The
licensee will dispose of the material by
transfer to another person authorized to
receive or dispose of the material:
Application............................ $2,500.
5. Well logging:
A. Licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material, source material, and/
or special nuclear material for well
logging, well surveys, and tracer studies
other than field flooding tracer studies:
Application............................ $6,000.
B. Licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material for field flooding
tracer studies:
Licensing.............................. Full Cost.
6. Nuclear laundries:
A. Licenses for commercial collection and
laundry of items contaminated with
byproduct material, source material, or
special nuclear material:
Application............................ $11,200.
7. Medical licenses:
A. Licenses issued under Parts 30, 35, 40,
and 70 of this chapter for human use of
byproduct material, source material, or
special nuclear material in sealed sources
contained in teletherapy devices:
Application............................ $6,100.
B
with
byproduct material, source material, or
special nuclear material:
Application............................ $11,200.
7. Medical licenses:
A. Licenses issued under Parts 30, 35, 40,
and 70 of this chapter for human use of
byproduct material, source material, or
special nuclear material in sealed sources
contained in teletherapy devices:
Application............................ $6,100.
B. Licenses of broad scope issued to
medical institutions or two or more
physicians under Parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and
70 of this chapter authorizing research
and development, including human use of
byproduct material, except licenses for
byproduct material, source material, or
special nuclear material in sealed sources
contained in teletherapy devices:
Application............................ $4,400.
C. Other licenses issued under Parts 30,
35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human
use of byproduct material, source
material, and/or special nuclear material,
except licenses for byproduct material,
source material, or special nuclear
material in sealed sources contained in
teletherapy devices:
Application............................ $2,400.
8. Civil defense:
A. Licenses for possession and use of
byproduct material, source material, or
special nuclear material for civil defense
activities:
Application............................ $320.
9. Device, product, or sealed source safety
evaluation:
A. Safety evaluation of devices or products
containing byproduct material, source
material, or special nuclear material,
except reactor fuel devices, for
commercial distribution:
Application--each device............... $5,200.
al, or
special nuclear material for civil defense
activities:
Application............................ $320.
9. Device, product, or sealed source safety
evaluation:
A. Safety evaluation of devices or products
containing byproduct material, source
material, or special nuclear material,
except reactor fuel devices, for
commercial distribution:
Application--each device............... $5,200.
B. Safety evaluation of devices or products
containing byproduct material, source
material, or special nuclear material
manufactured in accordance with the unique
specifications of, and for use by, a
single applicant, except reactor fuel
devices:
Application--each device............... $3,700.
C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources
containing byproduct material, source
material, or special nuclear material,
except reactor fuel, for commercial
distribution:
Application--each source............... $1,580.
D. Safety evaluation of sealed sources
containing byproduct material, source
material, or special nuclear material,
manufactured in accordance with the unique
specifications of, and for use by, a
single applicant, except reactor fuel:
Application--each source............... $530.
10. Transportation of radioactive material:
A. Evaluation of casks, packages, and
shipping containers:
Licensing and inspections.............. Full Cost.
B. Evaluation of 10 CFR part 71 quality
assurance programs:
Application............................ $390.
Inspections............................ Full Cost.
11. Review of standardized spent fuel
facilities:
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
12. Special projects: \5\
Approvals and preapplication/Licensing Full Cost.
activities.
Inspections............................ Full Cost.
13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of
Compliance:
Licensing.............................. Full Cost.
B. Inspections related to spent fuel Full Cost.
storage cask Certificate of Compliance.
C. Inspections related to storage of spent Full Cost
st.
12. Special projects: \5\
Approvals and preapplication/Licensing Full Cost.
activities.
Inspections............................ Full Cost.
13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of
Compliance:
Licensing.............................. Full Cost.
B. Inspections related to spent fuel Full Cost.
storage cask Certificate of Compliance.
C. Inspections related to storage of spent Full Cost.
fuel under Sec. 72.210 of this chapter.
14. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear
material licenses and other approvals
authorizing decommissioning, decontamination,
reclamation, or site restoration activities
under Parts 30, 40, 70, 72, and 76 of this
chapter:
Licensing and inspection............... Full Cost.
15. Import and Export licenses:
Licenses issued under 10 CFR part 110 of
this chapter for the import and export
only of special nuclear material, source
material, tritium and other byproduct
material, heavy water, or nuclear grade
graphite:
A. Application for export or import of
high enriched uranium and other
materials, including radioactive
waste, which must be reviewed by the
Commissioners and the Executive
Branch, for example, those actions
under 10 CFR 110.40(b). This category
includes application for export or
import of radioactive wastes in
multiple forms from multiple
generators or brokers in the exporting
country and/or going to multiple
treatment, storage or disposal
facilities in one or more receiving
countries:
Application--new license........... $9,100.
Amendment.......................... $9,100.
B. Application for export or import of
special nuclear material, source
material, tritium and other byproduct
material, heavy water, or nuclear
grade graphite, including radioactive
waste, requiring Executive Branch
review but not Commissioner review
sal
facilities in one or more receiving
countries:
Application--new license........... $9,100.
Amendment.......................... $9,100.
B. Application for export or import of
special nuclear material, source
material, tritium and other byproduct
material, heavy water, or nuclear
grade graphite, including radioactive
waste, requiring Executive Branch
review but not Commissioner review.
This category includes application for
the export or import of radioactive
waste involving a single form of waste
from a single class of generator in
the exporting country to a single
treatment, storage and/or disposal
facility in the receiving country:
Application--new license........... $5,600.
Amendment.......................... $5,600.
C. Application
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.