[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68268-68274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28110]
========================================================================
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. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 68268]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171
[NRC-2008-0664]
RIN 3150-AI54
Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular Reactors
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its licensing, inspection, and annual fee regulations to
establish a variable annual fee structure for light-water small modular
reactors (SMR). Under the proposed variable annual fee structure, an
SMR's annual fee would be calculated as a function of its licensed
thermal power rating. This proposed fee methodology complies with the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (OBRA-90). The
NRC will hold a public meeting to promote full understanding of the
proposed rule and to facilitate public comments.
DATES: Submit comments by December 4, 2015. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but the NRC
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date. For additional information about the public meeting, see
Section XII, ``Public Meeting,'' of this document.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0664. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
Mail 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 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677. For additional direction on
obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining
Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arlette Howard, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1481, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
The NRC anticipates that it will soon receive license applications
for light-water SMRs. In fiscal year (FY) 2008, the NRC staff
determined that the annual fee structure for part 171 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) fees, which was established in
1995, should be reevaluated to address potential inequities for future
SMRs, due to their anticipated design characteristics. These
characteristics include modular design, factory component fabrication,
and thermal power capacities of 1,000 megawatts thermal (MWt) or less
per module. These SMRs also may include safety and security design
features that could ultimately result in a lower regulatory oversight
burden for this type of reactor. Despite these significant differences,
under the NRC's current fee structure, an SMR would be required to pay
the same annual fee as a current operating reactor. OBRA-90 instructs
the NRC to ``establish, by rule, a schedule of charges fairly and
equitably allocating'' various generic agency regulatory costs ``among
licensees'' and, ``[t]o the maximum extent practicable, the charges
shall have a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing
regulatory services and may be based on the allocation of the
Commission's resources among licensees or classes of licensees.''
Because of the significant anticipated differences between SMRs and the
existing reactor fleet, applying the current fee structure to SMRs
appears to be contrary to OBRA-90's requirement that the NRC's fees be
``fairly and equitably'' allocated among its licensees. Therefore, the
NRC proposes to implement a variable annual fee structure for SMR
licensees that would include a minimum fee, a variable fee, and a
maximum fee based on an SMR site's cumulative licensed thermal power
rating.
A draft regulatory analysis (Accession No. ML15226A588 in the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)) has been
developed for this proposed rulemaking and is available for public
comment (see Section XIII, Availability of Documents).
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
B. Submitting Comments
II. Background
A. Operating Reactor Annual Fee Structure
B. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding an Annual Fee
Structure for SMRs
C. Evaluation of Four Alternative Annual Fee Structures for SMRs
D. Preferred Approach for an Annual Fee Structure for SMRs
III. Discussion
A. What action is the NRC proposing to take?
B. When would these actions become effective?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the NRC?
IV. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section
V. Draft Regulatory Analysis
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
VIII. Plain Writing
IX. National Environmental Policy Act
X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XII. Public Meeting
XIII. Availability of Documents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0664 when contacting the NRC
about
[[Page 68269]]
the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0664.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time
that a document is referenced. For the convenience of the reader, the
ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the ``Availability
of Documents'' section of this document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0664 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
A. Operating Reactor Annual Fee Structure
Over the past 40 years the NRC has assessed, and continues to
assess, fees to applicants and licensees to recover the cost of its
regulatory program. The NRC's fee regulations are governed by two laws:
(1) The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31
U.S.C. 483 (a)); and (2) OBRA-90 (42 U.S.C. 2214). Under OBRA-90, the
NRC is required to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual
budget authority through fees, not including amounts appropriated for
Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, amounts appropriated for generic
homeland security activities (non-fee items), amounts appropriated from
the Nuclear Waste Fund, and amounts appropriated for Inspector General
services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The NRC assesses two types of fees to meet the requirements of
OBRA-90. First, licensing and inspection fees, established in 10 CFR
part 170 under the authority of the IOAA, recover the NRC's cost of
providing specific benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees.
Second, annual fees, established in 10 CFR part 171 under the authority
of OBRA-90, recover NRC's generic and other regulatory costs that are
not otherwise recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees during the fiscal
year.
Under the current annual fee structure, SMRs would be required to
pay the same annual fee as those paid by the operating reactor fee
class. For the operating reactor fee class, the NRC allocates 10 CFR
part 171 annual fees equally among the operating power reactor
licensees to recover those budgetary resources expended for rulemaking
and other generic activities which benefit the entire fee class. If 10
CFR part 171, in its current form, is applied to SMRs, then each SMR
reactor would be required to pay the same flat annual fees as the
existing operating reactor fleet, even though SMRs are expected to be
considerably smaller in size and are expected to utilize designs that
may reduce the NRC's regulatory costs per reactor.
Additionally, under the current annual fee structure, multimodule
nuclear plants would be assessed annual fees on a per-licensed-module
basis, as stated in the draft regulatory analysis, in the section
titled ``Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative
Approaches.'' For example, an SMR site with 12 licensed SMR modules
with low thermal power ratings would have to pay 12 times the annual
fee paid by a single large operating reactor, even if that single
reactor had higher thermal power rating than the combined power of the
12 SMR modules; this disparity raises fairness and equity concerns
under OBRA-90. The SMR licensees could apply for fee exemptions to
lower their annual fees; however, fee exceptions are appropriate only
for unanticipated or rare situations. OBRA-90 requires NRC to
establish, by rule, a schedule of charges fairly and equitably
allocating annual fees among its licensees. If the NRC anticipates up-
front that its annual fee schedule will not be fair and equitable as
applied to a particular class of licensees, then amending the schedule,
rather than planning to rely on the exemption process, is the better
course of action for complying with OBRA-90.
B. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding an Annual Fee
Structure for SMRs
In order to address any potential inequities described above, the
NRC began re-evaluating its annual fee structure as it relates to SMRs.
In March 2009, the NRC published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) for a variable annual fee structure for power
reactors in the Federal Register (74 FR 12735, March 25, 2009).
Although the ANPR nominally addressed the fee methodology used for all
power reactors, its principal focus was on how to best adapt the
existing fee methodology for future SMRs.
The NRC received 16 public comments on the ANPR from licensees,
industry groups, and private individuals. These comments provided a
wide range of input for agency consideration. Nine commenters supported
adjusting the current power reactor annual fee methodology for small
and medium-sized power reactors by some means. These commenters
suggested basing the annual fee on either: (a) A risk matrix, (b) the
thermal power ratings (in megawatts thermal, MWt), (c) the cost of
providing regulatory service, or d) an amount proportional to the size
of the system based on megawatt (MW) ratings compared to a fixed
baseline. Three commenters representing small reactor design vendors
supported a variable fee rate structure as a means to mitigate the
impacts of the existing fee structure on potential customers of their
small reactor designs.
Other commenters not supporting the variable annual fee structure
recommended the following changes to the fee methodology: (a)
Reinstatement of reactor size as a factor in evaluating fee exemption
requests under 10 CFR
[[Page 68270]]
171.11(c), (b) establishment of power reactor subclasses, or (c)
performance of additional analysis before making any changes to the
current fee structure. Two commenters expressed an unwillingness to
subsidize operating SMRs at the expense of their own businesses and
believed that the flat-rate methodology provided regulatory certainty
and assisted the ability to make ongoing financial plans.
In September 2009, the NRC staff submitted SECY-09-0137, ``Next
Steps for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Variable Annual Fee
Structure for Power Reactors,'' to the Commission for a notation vote
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092660166). The paper summarized the comments
received in response to the ANPR and requested Commission approval to
form a working group to analyze the commenters' suggested
methodologies. The Commission approved the staff's recommendation in
the October 13, 2009, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-09-
0137 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092861070).
C. Evaluation of Four Alternative Annual Fee Structures for SMRs
The NRC subsequently formed a working group to analyze the ANPR
comments, as well as position papers submitted to the NRC from the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), ``NRC Annual Fee Assessment for Small
Reactors,'' dated October 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103070148); and
from the American Nuclear Society (ANS), ``Interim Report of the
American Nuclear Society President's Special Committee on Small and
Medium Sized Reactor (SMR) Generic Licensing Issues,'' dated July 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML110040946).
Four possible alternatives emerged from the working group's
analysis of the public comments and the NEI and ANS position papers:
1. Continue the existing annual fee structure, but define a modular
site of up to 12 reactors or 4,000 MWt licensed power rating as a
single unit for annual fee purposes.
2. Create fee classes for groups of reactor licensees and
distribute the annual fee costs attributed to each fee class equally
among the licensees in that class.
3. Calculate the annual fee for each licensed power reactor as a
function of potential risk to public health and safety using a risk
matrix.
4. Calculate the annual fee for each licensed power reactor as a
function of its licensed thermal power rating.
The NRC staff further concluded that the original Alternative 3,
which calculated the annual fee for each SMR as a function of its
potential risk to public health and safety using a risk matrix, did not
warrant further consideration and analysis because of the technical
complexities and potential costs of developing the probalistic risk
assessments necessary to implement this alternative.
D. Preferred Approach for an Annual Fee Structure for SMRs
The working group examined the alternatives and informed the NRC's
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) that Alternative 4 was the working
group's preferred recommendation because it allows SMRs to be assessed
specific fee amounts based on their licensed thermal power ratings
(measured in MWt) on a variable scale with a minimum fee and a maximum
fee. Additionally, the variable portion of the fee allows for multiple
licensed SMR reactors on a single site to be treated as a single
reactor for fee purposes up to 4,000 MWt. The working group determined
that these attributes best align with NRC requirements under OBRA-90.
The CFO submitted the final recommendations to the Commission in an
informational memorandum dated February 7, 2011, ``Resolution of Issue
Regarding Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small and Medium-Sized
Nuclear Power Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML110380251). The
memorandum described the results of the working group's efforts and its
recommendation that the annual fee structure for SMRs be calculated for
each newly licensed power reactor as a function of its licensed thermal
power rating. The memorandum indicated that the staff intended to
obtain Commission approval for the planned approach during the process
for developing the proposed rule.
In FY 2014, the staff reviewed the analysis and recommendations in
the 2011 memorandum and determined that they remained sound. However,
the working group identified one additional area for consideration
related to the maximum thermal power rating eligible for a single
annual fee.
In the FY 2011 memorandum, the CFO proposed an upper threshold of
4,000 MWt for multi-module power plants to be allocated a single annual
fee. This value was comparable to the largest operating reactor units
at the time (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 at
3,990 MWt each). Subsequently, a power uprate was approved for Grand
Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, which raised the maximum licensed thermal
power rating to 4,408 MWt. Therefore, the working group recommended
setting the single-fee threshold for a multi-module nuclear plant at
4,500 MWt on the SMR variable annual fee structure scale so that the
maximum fee remains aligned with the largest licensed power reactor.
With this change, the staff submitted final recommendations to the
Commission and requested approval to proceed with a proposed rulemaking
for an SMR annual fee structure in a memorandum dated March 27, 2015,
``Proposed Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular Reactors''
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15051A092). The Commission approved the staff's
request to proceed with a proposed rulemaking on May 18, 2015, in SRM-
SECY-15-0044 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15135A427).
III. Discussion
A. What action is the NRC proposing to take?
Based on the Commission's approval in SRM-SECY-15-0044, May 18,
2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15135A427), the NRC staff is proposing to
implement a variable annual fee structure for SMRs. As detailed in the
draft regulatory analysis, the NRC determined the current annual fee
structure may not be fair and equitable for assessing fees to SMRs
based on the unique size and characteristics of SMRs.
As explained in the Background section of this proposed rule, the
NRC staff previously solicited public input regarding an annual fee
structure for SMRs via an ANPR, and the NRC staff submitted two papers
to the Commission discussing alternative annual fee structures which
resulted in the recommendation of the variable annual fee structure as
the preferred approach. In FY 2015, for this proposed rule and draft
regulatory analysis, the NRC staff further refined the original
alternatives and concluded that a ``no action alternative'' should be
added to serve as the baseline to compare against all other
alternatives for this proposed rulemaking.
Therefore, the four alternatives analyzed for this rulemaking are
as follows:
1. No action.
2. Continue the existing annual fee structure for all reactors but
allow for ``bundling'' of SMR reactor modules up to a total of 4,500
MWt as a single SMR ``bundled unit.''
3. Continue the existing annual fee structure for the current fleet
of operating power reactors but establish a third fee class for SMRs
with fees commensurate with the budgetary resources allocated to SMRs.
[[Page 68271]]
4. Continue the existing annual fee structure for the current fleet
of operating power reactors but calculate the annual fee for each SMR
site as a multi-part fee which includes minimum fee, variable fee and
maximum fee.
As explained in the draft regulatory analysis for this proposed
rule, the NRC staff analyzed Alternative 1 (the no action alternative)
and has concluded that this alternative continues to be a fair,
equitable and stable approach for the existing fleet of reactors. This
is because previous agency efforts to manage cost and fee allocations
at a more granular level proved to be labor intensive and resulted in
minimal additional benefits to licensees when compared to the flat-fee
approach (60 FR 32230; June 20, 1995). But for SMRs, the current fee
structure could produce such a large disparity between the annual fees
paid by a licensee and the economic benefits that the licensee gained
from using the license that it would be contrary to OBRA-90. For
example, a hypothetical SMR site with twelve SMR reactor modules would
have to pay twelve times the annual fee paid by a single current
operating reactor--almost $54 million per year based on FY 2015 fee
rule data. By comparison, Fort Calhoun, the smallest reactor in the
current operating fleet, would pay approximately $4.5 million in annual
fees. Such a result would be contrary to OBRA-90's requirement to
establish a fair fee schedule, and therefore the no action alternative
is unacceptable.
Small modular reactor licensees could apply for annual fee
exemptions under 10 CFR 171.11(c). The fee exemption criteria considers
the age of the reactor, number of customers in the licensee's rate
base, how much the annual fee would add to the per kilowatt-hour (kWh)
cost of electricity, and other relevant issues. But as described in
SECY-15-0044, there are no guarantees that an application for an
exemption would be approved, decreasing regulatory certainty. And,
OBRA-90 requires the NRC to establish, by rule, a schedule of charges
fairly and equitably allocating annual fees among its licensees.
Therefore, if the NRC anticipates up-front that its annual fee schedule
will not be fair and equitable as applied to a particular class of
licensees, then amending the schedule, rather than planning to rely on
the exemption process, is the far better course for complying with
OBRA-90.
Also, as explained in the draft regulatory analysis for this
proposed rule, the NRC staff evaluated Alternative 2, which continues
the existing annual fee structure for all reactors and allows for the
bundling of the thermal ratings of SMRs on a single site up to total
licensed thermal power rating of up to 4,500 MWt, which is roughly
equivalent to the licensed thermal power rating of the largest reactor
in the current fleet. Alternative 2 provides more fairness to SMRs than
Alternative 1 because it allows SMR licensees to bundle their SMRs on a
single site. For smaller SMR facilities, however, Alternative 2 would
still create great disparities among facilities in terms of the annual
fees they pay relative to the economic benefits they stand to gain from
their NRC licenses. Consider, for illustrative purposes, an SMR site
with only one NuScale reactor module. This licensee for this site would
still be required to pay the full annual fee but could only spread the
fee over 160 MWt-about $31,123 per MWt as explained in the draft
regulatory analysis. In contrast, the licensee for an SMR site
featuring 12 NuScale reactor modules would pay only $2,594 per MWt in
annual fees as explained in the draft regulatory analysis. Alternative
2, therefore, goes only part of the way towards addressing the fairness
and equity concerns that prompted this rulemaking, while leaving
significant potential for disparities from one SMR licensee to another,
in terms of the economic benefits the licensee would be able to receive
from its NRC license relative to the annual fees assessed. As with
Alternative 1, SMR licensees could apply for annual fee exemptions
under 10 CFR 171.11(c). But again there are no guarantees that an
exemption would be approved, decreasing regulatory certainty. For these
reasons, and as further explained in the draft regulatory analysis, the
NRC staff finds Alternative 2 to be an unacceptable approach.
Alternative 3, as explained in the draft regulatory analysis for
this proposed rule, would entail creating a separate fee class for SMRs
with fees commensurate with the budgetary resources allocated to SMRs,
similar to the operating reactor and research and test reactors fee
classes. This alternative would establish a flat annual fee that is
assessed equally among the licensees in the SMR class. Although this
approach has proven to be fair and equitable for the current fee
classes, this approach applied to SMRs would be unfair due to the
potential various sizes and types of SMR designs. In particular, a
single per-reactor fee could prove unduly burdensome to SMRs with low
thermal power ratings (such as 160 MWt for a single NuScale SMR) when
compared to SMRs with higher rated capacities (such as 800 MWt for a
single Westinghouse SMR). Additionally, Alternative 3 is similar to the
``no action'' alternative in the sense that fees are based per licensed
reactor or module rather than on the cumulative licensed thermal power
rating. This alternative, therefore, fails to address the fee disparity
created for SMRs using multiple small modules rather than fewer, larger
reactors with a similar cumulative thermal power rating. It is the
NRC's intent to select an SMR fee alternative that is fair and
equitable for the broadest possible range of SMR designs. Flat-rate
alternatives such as this one are inconsistent with the ``fair and
equitable'' requirements of OBRA-90 when applied to a fee class with
the wide range of SMR thermal power capacities as described by reactor
designers to date. As with the previous alternatives, SMR licensees
could apply for annual fee exemptions under 10 CFR 171.11(c). But again
there are no guarantees that an exemption would be approved, decreasing
regulatory certainty. For these reasons, and as further explained in
the draft regulatory analysis, Alternative 3 is an unacceptable
approach.
Ultimately, the NRC staff analyzed the mechanics of the variable
annual fee structure under Alternative 4 and determined that it is the
best approach for assessing fees to SMRs in a fair and equitable manner
under OBRA-90. Unlike the current fee structure, this approach
recognizes the anticipated unique characteristics of SMRs in relation
to the existing fleet. In comparison to Alternative 2, this approach
ensures that all SMRs are treated fairly, rather than just those whose
licensed thermal power rating ranges between 2,000-4,500 MWt. Unlike
Alternative 3, the variable annual fee structure assesses a range of
annual fees to SMRs based on licensed thermal power rating, rather than
assessing a single flat fee that could apply to potentially a very wide
range of SMRs.
The variable annual fee structure computes SMR annual fees on a
site basis, considering all SMRs on the site up to a total licensed
thermal power rating of up to 4,500 MWt to be a single bundled unit
that would pay the same fee as the current operating fleet. The
variable annual fee structure has three parts; a minimum annual fee
(the average of the research and test reactor fee class and the spent
fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class), a variable fee charged
on a per-MWt basis for bundled units in a particular size range below
the typical current operating fleet reactor size, and a maximum annual
fee equivalent to the
[[Page 68272]]
annual fee charged to current operating fleet reactors.
Bundled units with a total licensed thermal power rating at or
below 250 MWt would pay a flat minimum fee; for example, based on FY
2015 fee rule data, the fee would be $154K as explained in the draft
regulatory analysis. This minimum fee is consistent with the principle
that reactor-related licensees in existing low-fee classes may not
generate substantial revenue, yet still derive benefits from NRC
activities performed on generic work. Therefore, they must pay more
than a de minimis part of the NRC's generic costs. By calculating the
minimum fee for SMRs within the range of annual fees paid by other low-
fee reactor classes, this methodology satisfies OBRA-90's fairness and
equity requirements because it ensures consistent NRC treatment for
low-power and low-revenue reactors.
Fees for bundled units with a total licensed thermal power rating
greater than 250 MWt and less than or equal to 2,000 MWt would be
computed as the minimum fee plus a variable fee based on the bundled
unit's cumulative licensed thermal power rating. The variable fee
should generally correlate with the economic benefits the licensee is
able to derive from its NRC license and will ensure that similarly
rated SMRs pay comparable fees.
For a bundled unit with a licensed thermal power rating comparable
to a typical large light-water reactor that is greater than 2,000 MWt
and less than or equal to 4,500 MWt, the maximum annual fee assessed to
the licensee would be the same fee that would be paid by a reactor
licensee in the current operating fleet. This approach ensures
comparable fee treatment of facilities that stand to derive comparable
economic benefits from their NRC-licensed activities.
For SMR sites with a licensed thermal power rating that exceeds
4,500 MWt, the licensee would be assessed the maximum fee for the first
bundled unit, plus a variable annual fee for the portion of the thermal
rating above the 4,500 MWt and less than or equal to 6,500 MWt for a
second bundled unit (the licensee would not incur a second minimum fee
for the same SMR site). If a site rating exceeds the 6,500 MWt level
and it less than or equal to 9,000 MWt, the maximum fee would be
assessed for each bundled unit. The NRC considered avoiding the second
variable portion of the fee structure and simply doubling the annual
maximum fee for the second bundled unit; however, this would be unfair
if the site's second bundled unit had a small licensed thermal power
rating. Similar to the other three alternative fee structures, this
method would have failed to address the inequity of the size of the
bundled unit versus the size of the fee the licensee would have to pay.
Therefore, as demonstrated in the draft regulatory analysis, the
NRC staff concludes the variable annual fee structure allows SMRs to
pay an annual fee that is commensurate with the economic benefit
received from its license and that appropriately accounts for the
design characteristics and current expectations regarding regulatory
costs. This complies with OBRA-90's requirement to establish a fee
schedule that fairly and equitably allocates NRC's fees.
B. When would these actions become effective?
Generally, the NRC allows an adequate time (30 to 180 days) for a
final rule to become effective. The time for the final rule to become
effective depends on the scope of the rulemaking, the availability of
associated guidance, and the complexity of the final rule. With regard
to this proposed rule, the NRC proposes that the final rule become
effective 30 days from its publication in the Federal Register.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the NRC?
When submitting your comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking (RIN 3150-AI54) and Docket ID NRC-2008-
0664)
2. Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed rule;
suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested
changes.
3. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
4. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
6. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
7. Submit your comments by the comment period deadline as stated in
the DATES section of this proposed rule.
IV. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section
The following paragraphs describe the specific changes proposed by
this rulemaking.
Section 170.3 Definitions
The NRC proposes to add definitions for ``bundled unit,'' ``small
modular reactor (SMR),'' and ``small modular reactor site (SMR site).''
Section 171.5 Definitions
The NRC proposes to add definitions for ``bundled unit,'' ``maximum
fee,'' ``minimum fee,'' ``small modular reactor (SMR),'' ``small
modular reactor site (SMR site),'' ``variable fee,'' and ``variable
rate.''
Section 171.15 Annual Fees: Reactor Licenses and Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Licenses
The NRC proposes to redesignate current paragraph (e) as new
paragraph (f) and add new paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(3) to
define activities that comprise SMR annual fees and the time period the
NRC must collect annual fees from SMR licensees.
V. Draft Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC requests public comment on
the draft regulatory analysis. The draft regulatory analysis is
available as indicated in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of
this document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the
NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this document.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation
of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not
fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by
the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
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. A backfit analysis is not required because these amendments
do not require the modification of, or addition 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.
[[Page 68273]]
VIII. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to
the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
IX. National Environmental Policy Act
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of
action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an
environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been
prepared for this proposed rule.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information as
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC
is proposing amend its licensing, inspection, and annual fee
regulations to establish a variable annual fee structure for SMRs. This
action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that
contains generally applicable requirements.
XII. Public Meeting
The NRC will hold a public meeting to describe and explain the
rationale for the variable annual fee structure and to accept questions
from the public on this proposed rule.
The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of
the meeting in the Federal Register, on Regulations.gov, and on the
NRC's public meeting Web site at least 10 calendar days before the
meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting Web site
for information about the public meeting at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
XIII. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons as indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document ADAMS Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of ANPR Comments.............. ML14307A812.
ANS Position Paper, ``NRC Annual Fees ML110040946.
for Licensees''.
NEI Position Paper, ``NRC Annual Fee ML103070148.
Assessment for Small Reactors''. ML110380260.
Memorandum to the Commission, ML110380251.
``Resolution of Issue Regarding
Variable Annual Fee Structure for
Small and Medium-Sized Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' February 7, 2011.
SECY-15-0044, ``Proposed Variable ML15051A092.
Annual Fee Structure for Small
Modular Reactors'', March 27, 2015.
Staff Requirements Memorandum--SECY-15- ML15135A427.
0044, ``Proposed Variable Annual Fee
Structure for Small Modular
Reactors'', May 15, 2015.
Draft Regulatory Analysis for Proposed ML15226A588.
Changes to 10 CFR Part 171 ``Annual
Fees for Reactor Licenses and 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''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the development of this rule, the NRC may post documents
related to this rule, including public comments, on the Federal
rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-
2008-0664. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts
when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1)
Navigate to the docket folder NRC-2008-0664; (2) click the ``Sign up
for Email Alerts'' link; and (3) enter your email address and select
how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or
monthly).
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 170
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental
relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear energy, 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, Nonpayment
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; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 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
0
1. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w) (42
U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w)); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201
(42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 31 U.S.C. 901, 902, 9701; 44
U.S.C. 3504 note.
0
2. In Sec. 170.3, add, in alphabetical order, the definitions for
bundled unit, small modular reactor (SMR), and small modular reactor
site (SMR site) to read as follows:
Sec. 170.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Bundled unit is a measure of the cumulative licensed thermal power
rating for one or more SMRs located on a single SMR site. One bundled
unit is less than or equal to 4,500 MWt.
* * * * *
Small modular reactor (SMR) for the purposes of calculating fees,
means the class of light-water power reactors having a licensed thermal
power rating less than or equal to 1,000 MWt per module. This rating is
based on the thermal power equivalent of a light-water SMR with an
electrical power
[[Page 68274]]
generating capacity of 300 MWe or less per module.
Small modular reactor site (SMR site) is the geographically bounded
location of one or more SMRs and a basis on which SMR fees are
calculated.
* * * * *
PART 171--ANNUAL FEES FOR REACTOR LICENSES AND 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
0
3. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w), 223,
234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 44 U.S.C. 3504
note.
0
4. In Sec. 171.5, add, in alphabetical order, the definitions for
bundled unit, maximum fee, minimum fee, small modular reactor (SMR),
small modular reactor site (SMR site), variable fee and variable rate
to read as follows:
Sec. 171.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Bundled unit means a measure of the cumulative licensed thermal
power rating for one or more SMRs located on a single SMR site. One
bundled unit is less than or equal to 4,500 MWt.
* * * * *
Maximum fee is defined as the highest fee paid by a single bundled
unit. It is applied to all bundled units on an SMR site with a licensed
thermal power rating greater than 2,000 and less than or equal to 4,500
MWt and is equal to the annual fee paid by existing fleet power
reactors.
Minimum fee means one annual fee component paid by the first
bundled unit on a site with a cumulative licensed thermal power rating
of 2,000 MWt or less. For the first bundled unit on a site with a
licensed thermal power rating of 250 MWt or less, it is the only annual
fee that a licensee pays.
* * * * *
Small modular reactor (SMR) for the purposes of calculating fees,
means the class of light-water power reactors having a licensed thermal
power rating less than or equal to 1,000 MWt per module. This rating is
based on the thermal power equivalent of a light-water SMR with an
electrical power generating capacity of 300 MWe or less per module.
Small modular reactor site (SMR site) means the geographical
bounded location of one or more SMRs and a basis on which SMR fees are
calculated.
* * * * *
Variable fee means the annual fee component paid by the first
bundled unit on a site with a licensed thermal power rating greater
than 250 and less than or equal to 2,000 MWt. For additional bundled
units on a site, the variable fee is calculated based on the licensed
thermal power rating equal to or less 2,000 MWt.
Variable rate means a per-MWt fee factor applied to the first
bundled unit on a site with a licensed thermal power rating greater
than 250 and or less than or equal to 2,000 MWt, or to additional
bundled units on a site above the 4,500 MWt threshold based on the
licensed thermal power rating equal to or less than 2,000 MWt. The
factor is based on the difference between the maximum fee and the
minimum fee, divided by the difference in the variable fee licensed
thermal rating range (either 1,750 MWt for the 2,000 MWt for first
bundled unit or 2,000 MWt for additional bundled units).
0
5. In Sec. 171.15, redesignate paragraph (e) as paragraph (f), and add
new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 171.15 Annual fees: Reactor licenses and independent spent fuel
storage licenses.
* * * * *
(e)(1) Each person holding an operating license for a small modular
reactor issued under part 50 of this chapter or that holds a combined
license issued under part 52 of this chapter after the Commission has
made the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) shall pay the annual fee for
each license held during the fiscal year in which the fee is due.
(2) The annual fees for a small modular reactor(s) located on a
single site to be collected by September 30 of each year, are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bundled unit thermal power
rating * Minimum fee Variable fee Maximum fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Bundled Unit:
0-250 MWt................ TBD.......... N/A......... N/A.
> 250 <= 2,000 MWt....... TBD.......... TBD......... N/A.
> 2,000 <= 4,500 MWt..... N/A.......... N/A......... TBD.
Additional Bundled Units:
> 4,500 <= 6,500 MWt..... N/A.......... TBD......... N/A.
> 6,500 <= 9,000 MWt..... N/A.......... N/A......... TBD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note that the total annual fee paid is cumulative for the first
bundled unit and each additional bundled unit.
(3) The annual fee is assessed for the same activities listed for
the power reactor base annual fee and spent fuel storage/reactor
decommissioning reactor fee.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of October 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Maureen E. Wylie,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-28110 Filed 11-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P