Variable Annual Fee Structure for Power Reactors, 12735-12737 [E9-6554]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12735
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 56
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 171
[NRC–2008–0664]
RIN 3150–AI54
Variable Annual Fee Structure for
Power Reactors
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR).
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
whether to propose to amend its rule
governing annual fees to establish a
variable annual fee structure for power
reactors based on licensed power limits.
Current regulations governing annual
fees require that each operating power
reactor pay the same annual fee,
regardless of the size of the reactor. The
NRC has determined that the current
single annual fee structure for power
reactors should be reviewed in light of
the potential for future licensing of
small and medium sized nuclear
reactors, some of which may not be used
to generate electric power, and some of
which may be used and licensed in
configurations of up to twenty (20)
reactors (modules). Although issuance
of a license for a small or medium sized
reactor which triggers imposition of fees
may be several years in the future, this
ANPR invites early input from
interested stakeholders and the public
on the issues relevant to the
establishment of a variable annual fee
structure for power reactors.
DATES: Submit comments by June 8,
2009. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the Commission is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of the following methods.
Comments submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available
for public inspection. Because your
VerDate Nov<24>2008
01:22 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2008–0664. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attn:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive a reply e-mail confirming
that we have received your comments,
contact us directly at 301–415–1677.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
Federal workdays (Telephone 301–415–
1677).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this document
using the following methods:
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this page,
the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca I. Erickson, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone 301–415–
7126; e-mail Rebecca.Erickson@nrc.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC is required each year, under
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1990 (OBRA–90) (42 U.S.C. 2214), as
amended, to recover through fees to
NRC licensees and applicants
approximately 90 percent of its budget
authority after subtracting the amounts
appropriated from the Nuclear Waste
Fund (NWF), amounts appropriated for
Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR)
activities, and amounts appropriated for
generic homeland security activities.
The 10 percent not recovered by fees in
the NRC’s annual appropriation covers
the costs of agency activities that do not
provide a direct benefit to NRC
licensees, such as international
assistance and Agreement State
activities.
The NRC assesses two types of fees to
meet the requirements of OBRA–90, as
amended. First, license and inspection
fees, established in 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 special
benefits to identifiable applicants and
licensees. Examples of the services
provided by the NRC for which these
fees are assessed are the review of
applications for new licenses and the
review of renewal applications, the
review of amendment requests, and
inspections. Second, annual fees
established in 10 CFR part 171 under
the authority of OBRA–90, as amended,
recover generic and other regulatory
costs not otherwise recovered through
10 CFR part 170 fees.
The assessment of annual fees by the
NRC began in fiscal year (FY) 1987 to
meet the requirements of Public Law
99–272, the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(COBRA 1), which required the NRC to
recover 33 percent of its budget
authority. In the FY 1987 fee rule, the
NRC established a uniform annual fee
for each licensed nuclear power reactor
under the new part 171 (51 FR 33224;
September 18, 1986). The NRC also
considered calculating the annual fee on
power reactors based on the thermal
megawatt ratings of those reactors in the
FY 1987 proposed fee rule (51 FR
1 COBRA was replaced in December 1987, when
Congress passed OBRA 87. The NRC is currently
under the requirements of OBRA 90, as amended.
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
12736
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules
24078, 24082–3; July 1, 1986). In its
consideration, the NRC analyzed the
amendment, operator licensing, and
inspection costs as billed to licensees
for the period of June 1984 to June 1985.
At that time, the NRC analysis found no
necessary relationship or predictive
trend between the thermal megawatt
rating of a reactor and NRC regulatory
costs.
In recognition of the problem that
some licensees of smaller reactors may
have in paying substantially increased
fees due to the requirements of the new
part 171, the NRC provided for fee
exemptions under § 171.11 Exemption
(51 FR 33230; September 18, 1986):
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
The Commission may, upon application,
grant an exemption, in part, from the annual
fee required pursuant to this part. An
exemption under this provision may be
granted by the Commission taking into
consideration the following factors:
(a) Age of the reactor;
(b) Size of the reactor;
(c) Number of customers in rate base;
(d) Net increase in KWh cost for each
customer directly related to the annual fee
assessed under this part; and
(e) Any other relevant matter which the
licensee believes justifies the reduction of the
annual fee.
In an effort to provide a more
equitable distribution among the
licensed nuclear power reactors of the
amount required to be collected, the
NRC re-evaluated the uniform annual
fee for power reactors. As a result, under
the FY 1989 Fee Rule (53 FR 52632;
December 29, 1988), each reactor was
assessed fees based on those NRC
activities from which it benefited as a
type or within a class of reactors. The
new methodology took into account the
kind of reactor, its location and other
considerations in relation to the generic
research and other costs associated with
power reactor regulation.
In FY 1995, the NRC re-examined this
very detailed and labor intensive
approach to determine reactor annual
fees in an attempt to streamline the fee
program. The NRC’s analysis
determined that the complex fee
assessment was implemented when
there were significant differences in the
NRC research funding for the various
types of reactors, which was no longer
the case. Further, the NRC determined
that establishing a single uniform
annual fee for each operating power
reactor would not cause an unfair
burden and would simplify the fee
process. As a result, the NRC amended
§ 171.15 to implement a uniform annual
fee assessed to all licensed operating
power reactors (60 FR 32218; June 20,
1995).
In the FY 2005 fee rule (70 FR 30526;
May 26, 2005), the NRC amended the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
01:22 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
fee exemption under § 171.11 that was
implemented in 1986 by eliminating the
‘‘size of the reactor’’ factor. Because
none of the smaller reactors were still
licensed to operate, the NRC had not
issued waivers on the basis of size for
several years. Moreover, no other class
of licensee contained an exemption
provision based on size. Therefore, the
reference to size of the reactor as a
consideration in evaluating annual fee
exemption requests was no longer
needed.
In FY 2008, approximately 90 percent
of NRC’s fee recoverable budget was
allocated to the operating power
reactors fee class, of which
approximately 60 percent or $419.3
million was recovered through part 171
annual fees. The $419.3 million in
budgeted costs was divided equally
among the 104 power reactors licensed
to operate, which resulted in an FY
2008 annual fee of $4,032,000 per
reactor under § 171.15(b)(1).
Additionally, under § 171.15(c)(1) each
power reactor licensed to operate was
assessed a spent fuel storage/reactor
decommissioning annual fee of
$135,000 in FY 2008. Thus, the total FY
2008 annual fee of $4,167,000 was
assessed to each power reactor.
The 104 power reactors currently
licensed to operate have licensed power
limits ranging from 1500 to 3990
megawatts thermal (MWt). However, the
NRC anticipates receiving applications
to license small and medium sized
commercial nuclear reactors with
capacities ranging from 30 to 1000 MWt.
The small and medium sized reactors
could be any of the advanced reactor
designs, including high-temperature
gas-cooled reactors, sodium-cooled fast
reactor, and small light-water reactors.
Some of these small and medium sized
reactors may not generate electric
power, but instead be used to generate
process heat for industrial applications
such as the production of hydrogen.
Current regulations governing annual
fees for power reactors require the same
fees from a nuclear reactor designed to
produce electrical or heat energy.
Specific Proposal
The Commission is considering
whether to propose to amend § 171.15 to
establish a variable annual fee structure
for power reactors based on the reactor’s
licensed power limit contained in the
operating license (including a combined
license).
Specific Considerations
Before it considers a proposed rule on
the subject, the NRC is seeking advice
and recommendations on this matter
from all interested persons. The NRC
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
invites advice and recommendations on
an amendment to annual fees for power
reactor licensees reflecting these and
any other pertinent points from all
interested persons. Comments and
supporting reasons are particularly
requested on the following questions:
Power Reactors Variable Fees
Q.1. Should the NRC establish a
variable annual fee structure based on
either the licensed thermal or electric
power limits of the power reactor? What
variables should be considered in
establishing such a fee structure? In
particular, should reactors producing
process heat be treated the same as
reactors producing heat for the
generation of electricity? What are the
considerations associated with
establishing a variable annual fee
structure based upon thermal, as
opposed to electric power?
Q.2. If the NRC establishes a variable
annual fee structure, what should the
ranges be for each group or category of
reactors? What criteria should be used
to determine the fees for the different
groups or categories of reactors (e.g.,
power level, reactor technology,
associated NRC resources)?
Q.3. Current nuclear power plants use
a configuration in which a single large
reactor provides the heat to produce
electric power. However, future plant
concepts may include two or more small
to medium sized reactors to provide the
heat to power one or more turbines
connected to an electric generator.
Should a variable annual fee structure
account for the potential configurations?
Q.4. Current nuclear power plants
have one, two or three large reactors
located at the same site. Current
applications for new reactors could
result in up to four large reactors at a
single site. However, future plant
concepts may have up to twenty (20)
reactors (modules) operating at the same
site. Should the variable annual fee
structure account for this configuration?
If so, what are the considerations in
establishing such a fee structure?
Q.5. Currently, each licensed reactor
located at the same site is treated as a
separate unit for purposes of calculating
and assessing the annual fee. However,
external stakeholders in the past have
suggested that a single comprehensive
license be issued for a set of modular
reactors located at a single site. The
licensee would have substantial
flexibility in determining whether and
when to construct and operate each
reactor module in such a plant. Should
the variable annual fee structure
account for this reactor licensing
concept? If so, what are the
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules
considerations in establishing such a fee
structure?
Q.6. Are there other factors that
should be considered in determining the
annual fee for power reactors?
There will be another opportunity for
additional public comment in
connection with any proposed rule that
may be developed by the Commission.
List of Subjects in 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.
The authority citation for this
document is: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C.
5841.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of March, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J.E. Dyer,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–6554 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0261; Directorate
Identifier 2009–CE–017–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Dornier
Luftfahrt GmbH Models Dornier 228–
100, Dornier 228–101, Dornier 228–200,
Dornier 228–201, Dornier 228–202, and
Dornier 228–212 Airplanes
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed
AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct
an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:
Excessive wear on a guide pin of a power
lever has been detected during inspections.
The total loss of the pin could cause loss of
the flight idle stop and lead to inadvertent
activation of the beta mode in flight. The
inadvertent activation of beta mode in flight
can result in loss of control of the airplane.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
01:22 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
The proposed AD would require actions
that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by April 24, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg
Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone: (816) 329–4130; fax: (816)
329–4090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2009–0261; Directorate Identifier
2009–CE–017–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12737
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
Community, has issued AD No.: 2009–
0031, dated February 18, 2009 (referred
to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct
an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:
Excessive wear on a guide pin of a power
lever has been detected during inspections.
The total loss of the pin could cause loss of
the flight idle stop and lead to inadvertent
activation of the beta mode in flight. The
inadvertent activation of beta mode in flight
can result in loss of control of the airplane.
For the reasons described above, this new
EASA Airworthiness Directive (AD)
introduces a repetitive detailed inspection of
the guide pins of the power and condition
levers and requires the replacement of the
pins that exceed the allowable wear-limits.
You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Relevant Service Information
RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology
has issued Dornier 228 Alert Service
Bulletin ASB–228–279, dated December
19, 2008. The actions described in this
service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified
in the MCAI.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of the Proposed AD
This product has been approved by
the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with this State of
Design Authority, they have notified us
of the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all
information and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same
type design.
Differences Between This Proposed AD
and the MCAI or Service Information
We have reviewed the MCAI and
related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But
we might have found it necessary to use
different words from those in the MCAI
to ensure the AD is clear for U.S.
operators and is enforceable. In making
these changes, we do not intend to differ
substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related
service information.
We might also have proposed
different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12735-12737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6554]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12735]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 171
[NRC-2008-0664]
RIN 3150-AI54
Variable Annual Fee Structure for Power Reactors
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering whether
to propose to amend its rule governing annual fees to establish a
variable annual fee structure for power reactors based on licensed
power limits. Current regulations governing annual fees require that
each operating power reactor pay the same annual fee, regardless of the
size of the reactor. The NRC has determined that the current single
annual fee structure for power reactors should be reviewed in light of
the potential for future licensing of small and medium sized nuclear
reactors, some of which may not be used to generate electric power, and
some of which may be used and licensed in configurations of up to
twenty (20) reactors (modules). Although issuance of a license for a
small or medium sized reactor which triggers imposition of fees may be
several years in the future, this ANPR invites early input from
interested stakeholders and the public on the issues relevant to the
establishment of a variable annual fee structure for power reactors.
DATES: Submit comments by June 8, 2009. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made
available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2008-0664. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not
receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments,
contact us directly at 301-415-1677.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (Telephone 301-
415-1677).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
301-415-1101.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca I. Erickson, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-7126; e-mail
Rebecca.Erickson@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC is required each year, under the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) (42 U.S.C. 2214), as amended, to
recover through fees to NRC licensees and applicants approximately 90
percent of its budget authority after subtracting the amounts
appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), amounts appropriated
for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) activities, and amounts
appropriated for generic homeland security activities. The 10 percent
not recovered by fees in the NRC's annual appropriation covers the
costs of agency activities that do not provide a direct benefit to NRC
licensees, such as international assistance and Agreement State
activities.
The NRC assesses two types of fees to meet the requirements of
OBRA-90, as amended. First, license and inspection fees, established in
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 special benefits to identifiable applicants and
licensees. Examples of the services provided by the NRC for which these
fees are assessed are the review of applications for new licenses and
the review of renewal applications, the review of amendment requests,
and inspections. Second, annual fees established in 10 CFR part 171
under the authority of OBRA-90, as amended, recover generic and other
regulatory costs not otherwise recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees.
The assessment of annual fees by the NRC began in fiscal year (FY)
1987 to meet the requirements of Public Law 99-272, the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA \1\), which required
the NRC to recover 33 percent of its budget authority. In the FY 1987
fee rule, the NRC established a uniform annual fee for each licensed
nuclear power reactor under the new part 171 (51 FR 33224; September
18, 1986). The NRC also considered calculating the annual fee on power
reactors based on the thermal megawatt ratings of those reactors in the
FY 1987 proposed fee rule (51 FR
[[Page 12736]]
24078, 24082-3; July 1, 1986). In its consideration, the NRC analyzed
the amendment, operator licensing, and inspection costs as billed to
licensees for the period of June 1984 to June 1985. At that time, the
NRC analysis found no necessary relationship or predictive trend
between the thermal megawatt rating of a reactor and NRC regulatory
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ COBRA was replaced in December 1987, when Congress passed
OBRA 87. The NRC is currently under the requirements of OBRA 90, as
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recognition of the problem that some licensees of smaller
reactors may have in paying substantially increased fees due to the
requirements of the new part 171, the NRC provided for fee exemptions
under Sec. 171.11 Exemption (51 FR 33230; September 18, 1986):
The Commission may, upon application, grant an exemption, in
part, from the annual fee required pursuant to this part. An
exemption under this provision may be granted by the Commission
taking into consideration the following factors:
(a) Age of the reactor;
(b) Size of the reactor;
(c) Number of customers in rate base;
(d) Net increase in KWh cost for each customer directly related
to the annual fee assessed under this part; and
(e) Any other relevant matter which the licensee believes
justifies the reduction of the annual fee.
In an effort to provide a more equitable distribution among the
licensed nuclear power reactors of the amount required to be collected,
the NRC re-evaluated the uniform annual fee for power reactors. As a
result, under the FY 1989 Fee Rule (53 FR 52632; December 29, 1988),
each reactor was assessed fees based on those NRC activities from which
it benefited as a type or within a class of reactors. The new
methodology took into account the kind of reactor, its location and
other considerations in relation to the generic research and other
costs associated with power reactor regulation.
In FY 1995, the NRC re-examined this very detailed and labor
intensive approach to determine reactor annual fees in an attempt to
streamline the fee program. The NRC's analysis determined that the
complex fee assessment was implemented when there were significant
differences in the NRC research funding for the various types of
reactors, which was no longer the case. Further, the NRC determined
that establishing a single uniform annual fee for each operating power
reactor would not cause an unfair burden and would simplify the fee
process. As a result, the NRC amended Sec. 171.15 to implement a
uniform annual fee assessed to all licensed operating power reactors
(60 FR 32218; June 20, 1995).
In the FY 2005 fee rule (70 FR 30526; May 26, 2005), the NRC
amended the fee exemption under Sec. 171.11 that was implemented in
1986 by eliminating the ``size of the reactor'' factor. Because none of
the smaller reactors were still licensed to operate, the NRC had not
issued waivers on the basis of size for several years. Moreover, no
other class of licensee contained an exemption provision based on size.
Therefore, the reference to size of the reactor as a consideration in
evaluating annual fee exemption requests was no longer needed.
In FY 2008, approximately 90 percent of NRC's fee recoverable
budget was allocated to the operating power reactors fee class, of
which approximately 60 percent or $419.3 million was recovered through
part 171 annual fees. The $419.3 million in budgeted costs was divided
equally among the 104 power reactors licensed to operate, which
resulted in an FY 2008 annual fee of $4,032,000 per reactor under Sec.
171.15(b)(1). Additionally, under Sec. 171.15(c)(1) each power reactor
licensed to operate was assessed a spent fuel storage/reactor
decommissioning annual fee of $135,000 in FY 2008. Thus, the total FY
2008 annual fee of $4,167,000 was assessed to each power reactor.
The 104 power reactors currently licensed to operate have licensed
power limits ranging from 1500 to 3990 megawatts thermal (MWt).
However, the NRC anticipates receiving applications to license small
and medium sized commercial nuclear reactors with capacities ranging
from 30 to 1000 MWt. The small and medium sized reactors could be any
of the advanced reactor designs, including high-temperature gas-cooled
reactors, sodium-cooled fast reactor, and small light-water reactors.
Some of these small and medium sized reactors may not generate electric
power, but instead be used to generate process heat for industrial
applications such as the production of hydrogen. Current regulations
governing annual fees for power reactors require the same fees from a
nuclear reactor designed to produce electrical or heat energy.
Specific Proposal
The Commission is considering whether to propose to amend Sec.
171.15 to establish a variable annual fee structure for power reactors
based on the reactor's licensed power limit contained in the operating
license (including a combined license).
Specific Considerations
Before it considers a proposed rule on the subject, the NRC is
seeking advice and recommendations on this matter from all interested
persons. The NRC invites advice and recommendations on an amendment to
annual fees for power reactor licensees reflecting these and any other
pertinent points from all interested persons. Comments and supporting
reasons are particularly requested on the following questions:
Power Reactors Variable Fees
Q.1. Should the NRC establish a variable annual fee structure based
on either the licensed thermal or electric power limits of the power
reactor? What variables should be considered in establishing such a fee
structure? In particular, should reactors producing process heat be
treated the same as reactors producing heat for the generation of
electricity? What are the considerations associated with establishing a
variable annual fee structure based upon thermal, as opposed to
electric power?
Q.2. If the NRC establishes a variable annual fee structure, what
should the ranges be for each group or category of reactors? What
criteria should be used to determine the fees for the different groups
or categories of reactors (e.g., power level, reactor technology,
associated NRC resources)?
Q.3. Current nuclear power plants use a configuration in which a
single large reactor provides the heat to produce electric power.
However, future plant concepts may include two or more small to medium
sized reactors to provide the heat to power one or more turbines
connected to an electric generator. Should a variable annual fee
structure account for the potential configurations?
Q.4. Current nuclear power plants have one, two or three large
reactors located at the same site. Current applications for new
reactors could result in up to four large reactors at a single site.
However, future plant concepts may have up to twenty (20) reactors
(modules) operating at the same site. Should the variable annual fee
structure account for this configuration? If so, what are the
considerations in establishing such a fee structure?
Q.5. Currently, each licensed reactor located at the same site is
treated as a separate unit for purposes of calculating and assessing
the annual fee. However, external stakeholders in the past have
suggested that a single comprehensive license be issued for a set of
modular reactors located at a single site. The licensee would have
substantial flexibility in determining whether and when to construct
and operate each reactor module in such a plant. Should the variable
annual fee structure account for this reactor licensing concept? If so,
what are the
[[Page 12737]]
considerations in establishing such a fee structure?
Q.6. Are there other factors that should be considered in
determining the annual fee for power reactors?
There will be another opportunity for additional public comment in
connection with any proposed rule that may be developed by the
Commission.
List of Subjects in 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.
The authority citation for this document is: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42
U.S.C. 5841.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J.E. Dyer,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-6554 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
