UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

October 19, 2016 

SECRETARY 

COMMISSION VOTING RECORD 

DECISION ITEM: 

TITLE: 

SECY-16-0097 

FEE SETTING IMPROVEMENTS AND FISCAL YEAR 2017 

PROPOSED FEE RULE 

The Commission acted on the subject paper as recorded in the Staff Requirements 

Memorandum (SAM) of October 19, 2016. 

This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote 

sheets, views and comments of the Commission . 

Enclosures: 

1. Voting Summary 

2. Commissioner Vote Sheets 

cc: Chairman Burns 

Commissioner Svinicki 

Commissioner Baran 

OGC 

EDO 

PDR 

~#{-0 AnnetteLVietti-Cook 

Secretary of the Commission 
VOTING SUMMARY - SECY-16-0097 

RECORDED VOTES 

NOT 

APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN PARTICIPATING COMMENTS DATE 

Chrm. Burns x x x 10/17/16 

Cmr. Svinicki x x x 10/13/16 

Cmr. Baran x x x 9/2016 
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

Chairman Burns 

SECY-16-0097: FEE SETTING IMPROVEMENTS AND 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROPOSED FEE RULE 

Approved X Disapproved X Abstain_ Not Participating_ 

COMMENTS: Below Attached X None 

Entered in STARS 

Yes X 

No ---

IGNATURE 

(..f'.-october 2016 

DATE 
Chairman Burns Comments on SECY-16-0097 

"Fee Setting Improvements and Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Fee Rule" 

I appreciate the staff's efforts to evaluate potential changes to improve transparency and 

simplify how the NRC calculates and accounts for fees . The staff identified four policy areas 

where it requested Commission approval to analyze potential long-term improvements. Based 

on a review of the paper and on stakeholder input, I am not convinced that pursuing these 

proposed improvements would ultimately result in meaningful improvements to the license fee 

process or make our fee process more transparent and equitable. Therefore, except as noted 

below, I disapprove any further efforts pursuing these areas of improvement. 

Notwithstanding my disapproval, I do want to compliment the staff for taking the initiative to take 

a hard look at our fee setting processes. In particular, I encourage the staff to continue its work 

in the 14 administrative areas identified in SECY-16-0097. I would also concur with 

Commissioner Baran that staff should look at accelerating efforts to transition to an electronic 

billing system. I was frankly surprised that the agency still relies on hardcopy bills and postal 

mail, so the benefits of an electronic billing system seem apparent. 

I do support the staff's further exploration of the proposed policy improvement to charge a flat 

fee for each license amendment review or other similar routine activity for materials program 

licensees. This change will provide a degree of predictability in fees. However, I only approve 

further exploration of this policy change in a piloting form for uranium recovery licensees at this 

time. At the Commission meeting on this subject, the representative from the National Mining 

Association indicated her belief that there are activities that are well suited to flat fees. 

Therefore, staff's analysis should initially be focused in this area. To accelerate the timeframe 

this change could be implemented, the staff should also assess whether existing data can be 

used to establish the baseline and evaluate two years of future data rather than collect and 

analyze three years of future data. 

Stephen G. Burns 

110ctober 2016 
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI 

SECY-16-0097: FEE SETTING IMPROVEMENTS AND 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROPOSED FEE RULE 

Approved In-Part Disapproved In-Part Abstain_Not Participating_ 

COMMENTS: Below Attached XX None 

Entere}Yin "STARS" 

Yes.Y_No 

IGNATURE 

~//;$/2016 
Commissioner Svinicki's Comments on SECY-16-0097 

Fee Setting Improvements and Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Fee Rule 

At the outset, I sincerely commend the staff for having brought an expansive mindset to the 

consideration of the Commission's direction to look at the transparency, simplicity, and 

timeliness of the NRC's fee setting and billing processes. It is clear that the staff was open and 

innovative in its thinking and that broad external input was received and considered . The 

Commission's public meeting on this topic was also informative. After careful consideration of 

the specific policy proposals advanced by the staff, however, I do not find promise in pursuit of 

the policy proposals and disapprove any further effort to refine or implement these proposals, 

with the exception of one narrow pilot initiative, mentioned below. 

I note, however, that I do find strong and immediate potential for further progress towards the 

objectives of transparency, simplicity, and timeliness in the activities described both in 

Enclosure 1 to the paper, entitled, "Administrative Changes in the Fiscal Year 2017" and in the 

section of the Fee Transformation List starting on page 5, headed "Process Changes 

Recommended for Future Consideration - FY 2018 and Beyond." In fact, these changes are so 

meritorious that I do not support delaying their consideration for over a year. The same NRC 

steering committee that was formed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) to 

develop the policy proposals should instead turn its attention to these other areas of 

administrative change and internal process improvement. In addition, the staff should examine 

more exhaustively any opportunities to accelerate adoption of electronic billing processes, to 

include opportunities to enhance the level of detail contained in the invoices provided. Any 

future consideration of substantive policy changes to our process would rest on a stronger 

foundation if a number of the administrative changes were implemented first. 

Also, I considered carefully the proposal related to billing for vendor inspections. Although this 

proposal had some initial, intuitive appeal, when I solicited for reaction among representatives of 

the Vogtle Units 3 & 4 and Summer Units 2 & 3 construction teams, I received strong cautions 

against introducing any change to this billing policy in light of the likely negative, disruptive effect 

on the supply chain for each project. Since these projects are among the largest construction 

undertakings in the United States, and certainly the largest under NRC's regulatory purview, I 

cannot support introducing any supply chain instability in the absence of compelling regulatory 

need, which does not exist here. 

The limited pilot proposal that I approve is that advanced by Chairman Burns, namely, a pilot 

initiative to explore whether a flat fee structure could be established for routine licensing matters 

in the area of uranium recovery. At the Commission's public meeting, the representative of the 

National Mining Association indicated that some association member companies may be 

interested in volunteering for this pilot. If a willing volunteer does not come forward, however, 

this pilot should not be pursued because NRC effort is best invested where some dissatisfaction 

with our fee processes is evident, is clearly expressed, and can be addressed with particularity. 
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

Commissioner Baran 

SECY-16-0097: FEE SETTING IMPROVEMENTS AND 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROPOSED FEE RULE 

Approved X Disapproved X Abstain Not Participating_ 

COMMENTS: Below Attached X None 

Entered in "STARS" 

Yes X 

No_ 

~ATURE 

i/-z__o/;<. 

DATE 
Commissioner Saran's Comments on SECY-16-0097, 

"Fee Setting Improvements and Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Fee Rule" 

In order to enhance the transparency, timeliness, and fairness of NRC's fees, the Chief 

Financial Officer is recommending that the agency further analyze four potential fee process 

policy changes in the near term. This recommendation is based on the work of a staff steering 

committee, which considered public comments submitted by interested stakeholders. The 

steering committee also identified seven additional fee policy changes and 18 fee process 

changes for possible future consideration. I appreciate the staff's efforts and the valuable 

stakeholder feedback we have received. 

The first potential change recommended for further analysis is to base annual fees on 

the size of the licensed facility instead of charging all licensees in a fee class the same fee. For 

example, this could mean charging annual fees for operating power reactors based on their 

megawatt thermal generation rather than a flat annual fee for each unit. I disapprove pursuing 

this change. Licensees are not questioning the equitability of the current approach, and it is not 

clear that the size of a facility is an accurate indicator of the costs of regulating the facility. 

The second idea recommended for study is charging operating reactors a new combined 

fee instead of separate annual and hourly fees. I disapprove pursuing this change because it 

would likely be more complicated than the current approach and require significant staff 

resources to develop without providing a clear benefit. 

The third concept is to charge flat fees rather than hourly fees for some types of routine 

materials regulatory reviews. I approve the staff taking a closer look at this idea. Flat fees 

would be less precise than hourly fees so a given licensee might be charged a bit more or less 

than it would if it were charged hourly. On the other hand, this approach would provide upfront 

fee certainty, which licensees view as a significant benefit. Uranium recovery licensees have 

stated that some uranium recovery licensing actions may be particularly well-suited for this 

potential fee change. In examining the concept of flat fees, the staff should initially focus on the 

feasibility and mechanics of charging flat fees for appropriate uranium recovery licensing 

actions. 

The fourth potential change recommended for additional analysis is to charge hourly 

fees for all contested hearing costs instead of spreading these costs among licensees through 

annual fees. I disapprove pursuing this change. I think it is unfair to require applicants and 

licensees to automatically pay the costs of other parties (in this case, the NRC staff) to a 

contested proceeding. While it is appropriate for an applicant or licensees to pay the costs of a 

staff regulatory review, it is very different to require them to pay the hourly costs of attorneys 

who may take opposing positions in litigation. I see contested hearings as a special case where 

an entity should not be directly charged for agency costs clearly associated with that particular 

entity. 

A number of stakeholders have expressed the concern that the shutdown of nuclear 

power plants will leave fewer operating reactors to fund the agency's costs, resulting in higher 

annual fees every time a plant shuts down and stops paying operating reactor fees. As a 

practical matter, this has not occurred because the agency's budget has been shrinking. Even 

though there are fewer operating reactors, the annual fee per reactor has actually decreased in 

recent years. But the underlying dynamic is real. One way to address this issue is to rely less 

on annual fees and more on hourly fees . The staff's list of potential policy changes for future 

consideration includes charging hourly fees to vendors for vendor inspections and charging 

1 
hourly fees for white papers. In each case, the idea is that the clear beneficiary of a regulatory 

action is not currently being charged an hourly fee for that action. I propose that the staff 

actively explore these two potential improvements in the near term. 

One process improvement identified for implementation in fiscal year 2020 is to redesign NRC's billing system to send electronic (rather than hardcopy) invoices by email (instead 

of postal mail). I recognize that this upgrade will require significant resources and work, but I 

encourage the staff to look for opportunities to accelerate this transition within the agency's 

resource constraints. 

There are a number of fee process changes for future consideration that warrant careful 

attention to avoid unintended safety consequences. For example, having NRC inspectors 

provide up-front cost estimates before conducting a baseline inspection could enhance 

transparency and provide advanced notice of billing for inspection hours. But this step should 

not apply to resident inspectors or reactive inspections. And it will be important for NRC 

managers to ensure that NRC inspectors are focused on safety rather than on meeting an 

estimate of the hours required for an inspection that is made before the inspectors know what 

they are going to find when they begin their work. That imperative to focus on safety also 

applies to the potential changes of including the number of hours taken to perform an inspection 

in inspection reports and providing the names of individual NRC employees who performed 

billed work on invoices. The staff should thoroughly consider the implications of these potential 

changes before deciding whether to implement them. 

Because the staff would need to further develop the details of the remaining policy and 

process changes identified for future consideration, I am not expressing a view on those 

potential changes at this time. 

2