RULEMAKING ISSUE 

(Notation Vote)

March 27, 2015 SECY-15-0044

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Maureen E. Wylie 

Chief Financial Officer 

SUBJECT: PROPOSED VARIABLE ANNUAL FEE STRUCTURE FOR 

SMALL MODULAR REACTORS 

PURPOSE: 

To request Commission approval to draft a proposed rule that would amend Part 171 of Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “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,” 

and other affected parts, to include a variable annual fee structure for Small Modular Reactors 

(SMRs). 

BACKGROUND: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) fee structure is based on the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (OBRA-90), which requires the NRC to recover 

approximately 90 percent of its budget authority each year, less amounts appropriated from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund, amounts appropriated for waste incidental to reprocessing, and amounts 

appropriated for generic homeland security activities. To meet the requirements of OBRA-90, 

the NRC publishes a rule each year that establishes two types of fees: 

(1) hourly fees and flat fees to recover NRC costs for specific services provided to 

identifiable applicants and licensees under 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;” and 

(2) annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 to recover generic and other regulatory costs 

not otherwise recovered under 10 CFR Part 170. 

CONTACT: Arlette Howard, OCFO/DPB/ICPB 

 (301) 415-1481 
The Commissioners -2- 

Under the current annual fee structure using a re-baselining method (see SECY-05-0164, 

“Annual Fee Calculation Method,” dated September 15, 2005 (Accession No. ML052580332 in 

the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)), the NRC 

allocates 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees equally among the operating power reactor licensees to 

recover budgetary resources expended for rulemaking and other generic activities which benefit 

the entire fee class. In 2008, NRC staff determined that the annual fee structure for 10 CFR 

Part 171 fees established in 1995 should be reevaluated to address potential inequities for future 

SMRs, due to the limited SMR power production capacity and SMR modularity. 

For comparison, current operating power reactors have licensed power limits that range from 

1,500 to 4,408 megawatts thermal (MWt). SMRs are expected to be much smaller in size than 

the reactors in the existing fleet, with licensed thermal power limits that will likely range from 160 

to 800 MWt per module. Yet under the NRC’s current fee structure, SMRs would be required to 

pay the same annual fee as the existing operating fleet, notwithstanding their smaller size. 

In addition, under the 1995 fee structure, multi-module nuclear plants would be allocated 10 CFR 

Part 171 annual fees on a per-licensed-module basis. For example, a multi-module nuclear plant 

with 12 licensed SMR modules would have to pay 12 times the annual fee paid by a single large 

operating plant with an equivalent cumulative thermal power rating. Such a structure would be 

inconsistent with OBRA-90’s mandate to allocate fees fairly and equitably. 

In early 2009, NRC staff examined potential changes to the fee methodology and sought public 

input on the establishment of a variable annual fee structure for power reactors based on 

licensed thermal power limits. The NRC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPR) for the variable annual fee structure for power reactors in the Federal Register on 

March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12735). While 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 a total of 16 public comments from licensees, industry groups, and private 

individuals, providing a wide range of inputs for agency consideration. Nine commenters 

supported adjusting the current power reactor annual fee methodology for small and mediumsized power reactors by some means. These commenters suggested basing the annual fee on 

either: a) a risk matrix, b) the thermal power ratings (in 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 that did not support 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 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 provide a fee benefit to 

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. 
The Commissioners -3- 

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 evaluate the computation of annual fees for power reactors by various fee 

methodologies. The Commission approved the staff’s recommendation in the October 13, 2009, 

Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-09-0137 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092861070). 

The NRC staff subsequently formed a working group composed of representatives from the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and the 

Office of New Reactors (NRO) to analyze the various fee methodologies that were identified in 

the public responses to the ANPR. The working group analyzed the ANPR comments, as well 

as position papers 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 comments and the working group’s analysis that, 

in the staff’s opinion, would be equitable to all power reactor licensees, including SMRs: 

1. Continue the existing annual fee structure, but define a modular site of up to 

12 reactors or 4,000 MWt licensed power 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 (MWt). 

The working group examined these four alternatives and informed the NRC’s Chief Financial 

Officer (CFO) that Alternative 4 was the preferred recommendation. Alternative 4 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 maximum fee. This variable scale also 

allows for the single site treatment of multi-module nuclear plants for licensed reactor modules 

up to 4,000 MWt. 

However, the working group did not recommend that the variable fee methodology should be 

applied to existing operating reactors. The working group determined, based on public feedback 

in response to the ANPR, on feedback from public meetings held in 2010, and from the position 

papers from NEI and ANS referenced above, that the NRC’s uniform fee policy for the operating 

reactor fleet should remain unchanged. For example, Exelon’s response to the ANPR stated that 

the current uniform base fee for all power reactors provides predictability, stability, and fairness 

of allocating NRC’s cost recovery. This statement further supported the NRC’s fiscal year (FY) 

1995 policy to streamline the fee program by assessing one uniform fee. For the NRC, the 

previous methodology for calculating operating reactor annual fees was labor intensive and time 

consuming. At that time, the NRC further determined that the detailed breakdown of the reactor 

 
The Commissioners -4- 

fee calculations used to compute the significant differences in research funding for the various 

types of reactors no longer existed. Therefore, the uniform base fee for all power reactors in 

FY 1995 proved to be the optimal approach because it simplified the fee process without causing 

undue burden to industry and the NRC. 

The working group also recommended to the CFO that the use of a licensed thermal power 

rating as a benchmark is the best approach for calculating 10 CFR Part 171 fees because this 

method best satisfies the “fairly and equitably” requirements of OBRA-90. Conceptual SMR 

proposals reviewed by the NRC to date comprise a variety of designs and intended purposes, 

including electrical power generation, industrial process heat, and desalination. Additionally, 

ANPR respondents noted that different SMR designs used for electrical power production could 

have varied levels of power conversion efficiency. Basing fees on power production, therefore, 

could have the unintended effect of increasing fees for a licensee with greater efficiency 

compared to a similar SMR with an equivalent thermal power rating but lower electrical power 

conversion efficiency. The working group recommended that licensed thermal power be used 

as the fee benchmark because it offers the most appropriate means of ensuring that fees across 

the SMR class were fair and equitable. 

In comparison to the recommended Alternative 4 approach, the working group determined that 

Alternative 1 showed some fee relief for multi-module sites by allowing the power ratings of 

multiple modules to be combined, similar to the treatment of certain size multiple units under 

the Price-Anderson Act.1

 However, for a single module site, the high annual fee still could 

substantially exceed the cost of providing regulatory services to these licensees, posing the 

same OBRA-90 fairness problem. For Alternative 2, the working group found that the generic 

costs recovered through annual fees do not always align with a particular class of licensees, 

nor can annual fees be appropriately distributed among licensees. The NRC determined in 

1995, when it previously allocated annual fees to different licensee classes, that this approach 

can result in complex and inefficient analyses that do not provide a clear or reliable 

determination of licensee annual fees. Finally, Alternative 3 would require the staff to establish 

a risk matrix for all operating power reactor licensees (including SMRs) that considers factors 

such as source term, baseline core damage frequency, and early large release frequency as 

components of the matrix to determine the probability of risk to public health and safety in 

computation of the annual fee. The working group determined that this fee methodology would 

be costly to implement and maintain as probabilistic risk analysis technology evolves. Further, 

and perhaps more critically, Alternative 3 is arguably contrary to OBRA-90, which requires the 

NRC to allocate fees based on regulatory costs rather than regulatory risk factors, and could be 

legally objectionable. 

The CFO transmitted the working group’s 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 

 

 

1 See 42 U.S.C. § 2210(b)(5)(B) (stating that multi‐reactor facilities at a single site consisting of reactors 

with a rated capacity between 100,000 electrical kilowatts and 300,000 electrical kilowatts are treated as 

a single entity for insurance purposes if those reactors have a combined rated capacity less than 

1,300,000 electrical kilowatts). 
The Commissioners -5- 

its recommendation that the annual fee structure for SMRs should 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 prior 

to the initiation of the SMR proposed rulemaking. Following submission of this memorandum, 

the working group had completed its charter and was disbanded. 

This paper discusses the staff’s activities since issuance of the 2011 memorandum, the staff’s 

revised final recommendations, and the rationale for establishing a variable annual fee structure 

for SMRs. 

DISCUSSION: 

In July 2014, in preparation for this proposed SMR rulemaking, the OCFO reconstituted the 

SMR Fees working group, composed of members from OCFO, NRO, the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office of 

Administration, and OGC. The working group reviewed the analysis and recommendations in 

the 2011 memorandum and determined that they remained sound. The working group also 

identified one additional area for consideration related to the maximum thermal power rating 

eligible for a single annual fee. 

In the 2011 memorandum, the CFO proposed an upper threshold of 4,000 MWt for multimodule 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). Since 2011, an approved power uprate for Grand Gulf Nuclear 

Station, Unit 1 has raised the maximum licensed thermal power rating to 4,408 MWt. 

Therefore, the current working group recommends setting the single-fee threshold for a multimodule nuclear plant at 4,500 MWt on the SMR variable annual fee structure scale. 

With this change, the CFO continues to recommend Alternative 4 as the best approach to 

provide regulatory certainty for SMR fees and satisfaction of OBRA-90 requirements. This 

alternative includes a variable annual fee structure for SMRs to be calculated as a function of 

the cumulative licensed thermal power rating and single-fee treatment of reactor modules with a 

cumulative licensed thermal power rating of up to 4,500 MWt. 

Section 6101 of OBRA-90 states, in pertinent part: 

(3) AMOUNT PER LICENSEE - The Commission shall establish, by rule, a 

schedule of charges fairly and equitably allocating the aggregate amount of 

charges described in paragraph (2) among licensees. To 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. 

Regarding the relationship between the 10 CFR Part 171 annual fee charges for SMRs and the 

cost of providing regulatory services to SMRs, the NRC staff currently lacks quantitative data to 

suggest that SMRs will require fewer (or more) NRC resources in comparison to current 

operating power reactors because there are not yet any operating SMRs regulated by the NRC. 

But, SMRs are expected to be significantly smaller than large power reactors, and will likely 

 
The Commissioners -6- 

incorporate innovative concepts such as factory fabrication, advanced passive safety features, 

security-by-design features, and Nuclear Steam Supply System/Balance of Plant modularity. 

SMRs are expected to have enhanced levels of safety and therefore may require a reduced 

emergency planning (EP) zone size, reduced plant staffing, and potentially reduced NRC 

oversight requirements.2

 These features may reduce the NRC’s generic resource support

requirements for SMRs as a class. Therefore, even though the staff cannot develop a 

quantitative basis at this time, a qualitative assessment of SMR support resource requirements 

based on these considerations provides an initial means of satisfying OBRA-90 because it 

provides a reasonable basis for the premise that the generic regulatory costs associated with 

regulating SMRs may be smaller than those regulatory costs associated with the existing fleet of 

power reactors. This premise would justify applying a lower and variable annual fee for SMRs, 

because most SMRs may not require the same amount of NRC staff regulatory services as their 

larger counterparts. Further, if experience does not validate the staff’s assumptions once SMR 

support resource data becomes available, then the NRC can review and potentially modify the 

SMR variable annual fee structure through rulemaking to ensure that the NRC is allocating its 

fees in a fair and equitable manner. This is an advantage of the variable annual fee approach-it 

will provide the NRC with the flexibility to ensure that the agency remains compliant with OBRA–

90 as SMR operational cost data is acquired. The staff will commit to review data for SMR 

support requirements annually, once SMRs become operational, and to make adjustments as 

needed in the annual fee rulemakings to ensure that the requirements of OBRA-90 are fully met.

If the proposed SMR policy is approved by the Commission, the NRC staff plans to commence 

development of a proposed rule to implement Alternative 4 using the following definitions and 

criteria for the SMR variable annual fee structure: 

-Small Modular Reactor for the purpose of calculating fees, means the class of power reactors 

having a licensed thermal power rating less than or equal to 1,000 MWt (300 MWe) per module.

-Multi-module Nuclear Plant means a nuclear power station that consists of two or more 

essentially identical nuclear reactors (SMRs), where each module is a separate nuclear reactor 

capable of being operated independent of the state of completion or operating condition of any 

other module co-located on the same site, even though the nuclear power station may have 

some shared or common systems. The licensed thermal power rating for a multi-module 

nuclear plant is the cumulative licensed thermal power rating of all modules licensed for 

operation. Multi-module Nuclear Plants are eligible for the SMR variable annual fee structure. 

The NRC staff would use the following equation in the SMR variable annual fee structure to 

calculate 10 CFR Part 171 fees for SMR licensees: 

Annual Fee = Minimum Fee + [Power-250] (MWt) X Fee Rate ($/MWt) 

(Not less than the Minimum Fee) 

(Not to exceed the Maximum Fee) 

In the above equation: 

Minimum fee is defined as the low threshold on the variable scale for an SMR or multi-module 

nuclear plant with a total licensed thermal power rating for all modules less than or equal to 

 

2 http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors
The Commissioners -7- 

250 MWt. The minimum fee is the average of the individual fees for the research and test 

reactor fee class and the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class. 

Power refers to the cumulative licensed thermal power rating of an SMR or multi-module 

nuclear plant. 

Fee rate is the slope of the variable scale based on the difference between the maximum fee

and minimum fee divided by the difference between the upper limit of cumulative licensed 

thermal power for the variable fee (2,000 MWt) and the lower limit of cumulative licensed 

thermal power for the variable fee (250 MWt). 

Maximum fee is defined as the fee assessed to all large power reactors with thermal power 

ratings of greater than 2,000 MWt licensed prior to the revised rule effective date and to all 

reactors with thermal power ratings of greater than 2,000 MWt licensed after the effective date 

of the final rule on the variable annual fee structure for SMRs. The thermal power rating for 

multi-module nuclear plants is based on the cumulative licensed thermal power rating of all 

modules. Multi-module nuclear plants will pay additional annual fees, if the cumulative licensed 

thermal power exceeds 4,500 MWt, similar to the current treatment of multi-unit power reactor 

sites.

An SMR or multi-module nuclear plant would pay a minimum annual fee if its power is less than 

or equal to 250 MWt, plus an additional variable fee if the cumulative licensed thermal power is 

above 250 MWt, up to a maximum of 2,000 MWt. For any licensed power rating above 2,000 

MWt, the maximum annual fee applies. 

For example, applying the FY 2014 annual fee data for a hypothetical SMR with a cumulative 

licensed thermal power rating of 500 MWt would result in the following SMR annual fee (all 

values rounded): 

Annual Fee = Minimum Fee + [Power-250] (MWt) x Fee Rate ($/MWt) 

Annual Fee ($878,250) =$154,250 + (250 x $2,896) 

For purposes of comparison, the total FY 2014 annual fee per operating power reactor was 

$5.223 million dollars (see the 2014 Final Fee Rule published in the Federal Register on 

June 30, 2014 (79 FR 37124)). 

Impact of Proposed 2015 SMR Policy on Fee Collections

The NRC does not assess power reactor licensees 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees until the 

reactor is either given an operating license (under 10 CFR Part 50) or has received a 

Commission finding that combined license acceptance criteria have been met under 10 CFR 

52.103(g). Initially, all fees assessed to SMRs would be generated under 10 CFR Part 170 

(direct hourly fees) because the fees would be based on specific services performed by the NRC 

for the benefit of a specific SMR applicant prior to issuance of an operating license. In a given 

FY, the NRC staff predicts that collections will increase under 10 CFR Part 170 from preoperational SMRs which could result in a smaller required total fee recovery amount under 

10 CFR Part 171 for the total operating power reactor fee class. 

 
The Commissioners -8- 

The NRC does not expect to license an SMR facility for operation for several years because an 

application has not yet been received. However, the NRC is proposing this rule now, well 

before operation, to promote regulatory consistency and transparency, as well as to provide 

potential SMR applicants, the industry and the public with notice and the opportunity to 

comment on the methodology which will be used to calculate 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees for 

licensed SMR facilities. In its 2010 position paper referenced above, NEI emphasized, 

“Recognizing that a large annual fee presents a serious challenge to reactor designers, 

investors, and potential customers who are currently making investment decisions, we highly 

recommend that the NRC not postpone this rulemaking until after a small reactor license 

application is submitted.” 

In the absence of an approved SMR policy by the Commission, SMRs would be subject to the 

current annual fee structure for operating power reactors, which is a uniform fee for all reactors. 

However, with or without an established SMR policy from the Commission, SMR licensees would 

have the option of applying for fee exemptions under 10 CFR 171.11(c) annually. The fee 

exemption criteria for reactors under 10 CFR 171.11(c) consider the following factors: (1) age 

of the reactor; (2) number of customers in rate base; (3) net increase in kilowatt-hour cost for 

each customer directly related to the annual fee assessed under this part; and (4) any other 

relevant matter which the licensee believes justifies the reduction of the annual fee. SMRs, 

whether licensed as stand-alone units or grouped as a multi-module power plant, are likely to 

have significantly less power generation capacity than the majority of the current operating 

power reactors. Therefore, these assumptions regarding SMRs could be considered under 

factors 2, 3, and 4 of 10 CFR 171.11(c) in determining whether a fee exemption should be 

approved or denied. 

The NRC has granted partial exemptions from the annual fee for certain small power reactors 

where imposition of the full annual fee would constitute a disproportionate burden for the 

affected plants. See Memorandum from John C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary, to Victor Stello, Jr., 

EDO, “SECY-87-66-Partial Exemptions from 10 CFR Part 171, Annual Fee for Power Reactor 

Operating Licenses,” dated April 3, 1987 (ADAMS Accession No. ML022830198).3

 See SECY87-66, “Partial Exemptions from 10 CFR Part 171, Annual Fee for Power Reactor Operating 

Licenses,” dated March 11, 1987 (ADAMS Accession No. ML022830195).4

 An SMR licensee 

applying for a fee exemption would not be guaranteed approval of its request. Reliance on 

individual exemptions from annual fee requirements contributes significantly to a lack of 

regulatory certainty for potential SMR developers and prospective applicants, especially when 

formulating an initial business case for the facility many years in advance of operation. In 

particular, a developer or prospective applicant will not know whether it would successfully obtain 

an exemption in the first instance, the extent of such an exemption, or whether an exemption 

would be granted in future years at all, and, if so, in at least the same amount. 

Therefore, the CFO recommends that this variable fee policy for SMRs which considers factors 

similar to the agency’s existing rationale for granting fee exemptions should be established now. 

 

3

 The SRM advised that the Commission did not object to an NRC staff proposal (provided for negative 

consent) to grant a partial exemption from the FY 1987 annual fee for the Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, 

and Vermont Yankee plants. 

4

 Enclosure 4 to the paper provides detailed factors the staff considered in pricing the reductions for each 

of the units. 
The Commissioners -9- 

This best satisfies the requirements of OBRA-90 and the interests of transparency and regulatory 

certainty. 

Impact of Proposed 2015 SMR Policy on Fee Regulations

The SMR variable fee rulemaking would result in some changes to the regulations under 

10 CFR Part 171, including new and revised definitions of reactor fee classes and fee 

thresholds, to be described in the proposed SMR variable fee rule. Conforming changes would 

also be required for associated affected sections of 10 CFR Part 170, to ensure consistency 

with the changes to 10 CFR Part 171. 

Consistent with its policy regarding multiple rule changes to the same CFR parts, the Office of 

the Federal Register will not publish this SMR proposed rulemaking until the FY 2015 final fee 

rule is effective in August 2015. Therefore, the NRC proposes to publish this rule in October 

2015. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The NRC staff requests approval to proceed with the SMR rulemaking, which would amend the 

current fee regulations under 10 CFR Part 171 and other affected parts to add variable annual 

fees for SMRs and multi-module nuclear power plants, and associated administrative changes. 

To implement the SMR variable fee structure, staff will publish a proposed rule for public 

comment. By implementing these recommended policy changes, the annual 10 CFR Part 171 

fee allocation for all operating power reactors, including future SMRs, would be fairly and 

equitably allocated as required by OBRA-90. Both the proposed rule and final rule will be 

forwarded to the Commission for a 5-day review period (much like the annual fee rule), before 

they are sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Implementation of the 

proposed changes to the NRC annual fee structure via rulemaking would address inequities of 

the current 10 CFR Part 171 fee structure relative to future SMRs and multi-module nuclear 

plants. Multi-module nuclear plant fees would be based on the cumulative thermal power of all 

licensed SMR modules at each station. 

For SMRs and multi-module nuclear plants licensed after the publication of the SMR final rule, 

the annual fees would be determined by the SMR variable annual fee scale. Upon the effective 

date of the final rule, multi-module nuclear plants with a cumulative licensed thermal power for 

all licensed modules greater than 4,500 MWt, would be treated as a second unit for the 

purposes of fee allocation and would be assessed additional annual fees. 

The staff continues to support its policy of a uniform fee for the current operating power reactor 

fleet because the facts and circumstances that led to the formation of the policy remain 

unchanged. 

RESOURCES: 

This rulemaking has no significant impact on resources. 

 
The Commissioners -10- 

SCHEDULE: 

After the Commission provides direction on this paper, OCFO staff will prepare a proposed rule. 

OCFO expects that it will take several months after issuance of the SRM to submit a proposed 

rule to the Commission for approval. At that time, OCFO will provide the Commission with a 

proposed schedule that includes the proposed, final, and effective dates of the SMR rulemaking. 

The completion of the SMR rulemaking will occur between the fall and winter months so it does 

not interfere with the annual fee rulemaking schedule dates. The SMR rulemaking process 

should begin in September 2015 and end in February 2016 in order for the SMR policy to 

become effective in FY 2016. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The 

Executive Director for Operations has concurred on this paper. 

 /RA/ 

 Maureen E. Wylie 

 Chief Financial Officer 

cc: SECY 

 OGC 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 EDO 

 OIG 
The Commissioners -10- 

SCHEDULE: 

After the Commission provides direction on this paper, OCFO staff will prepare a proposed rule. 

OCFO expects that it will take several months after issuance of the SRM to submit a proposed 

rule to the Commission for approval. At that time, OCFO will provide the Commission with a 

proposed schedule that includes the proposed, final, and effective dates of the SMR rulemaking. 

The completion of the SMR rulemaking will occur between the fall and winter months so it does 

not interfere with the annual fee rulemaking schedule dates. The SMR rulemaking process 

should begin in September 2015 and end in February 2016 in order for the SMR policy to 

become effective in FY 2016. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The 

Executive Director for Operations has concurred on this paper. 

 

 /RA/

 Maureen E. Wylie 

 Chief Financial Officer 

cc: SECY 

 OGC 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 EDO 

 OIG 

SECY NOTE: THIS PAPER SHOULD BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN TEN (10) 

WORKING DAYS 

Adams:  Yes  No Initials: Initials: AH SUNSI Review: AH 

 Publicly Available  Non-Sensitive 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO: ML15051A092 *via email **see e-mail 

OFFICE OCFO/DPB/ICPB OCFO/DPB/ICPB OCFO/DPB OCFO/DPB ADM OGC 

NAME AHoward DHolley DCurtis TGrancorvitz CCarpenter JSuttenberg 

DATE 3/24/15 3/24/15 3/25/15 3/25/15 3/20/15 3/20/15 

OFFICE NRR NRO DCFO EDO CFO QTE 

NAME BDean GTracy MCMuessle MASatorius MEWylie 

DATE 3/20/15 3/23/15 3/26/15 3/ 26 /15 3/27/15 3/17/15 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY