FR 2025-02779

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing amendments to its fee schedules for fiscal year 2025. These changes are intended to comply with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which mandates that the NRC recover nearly all of its annual budget through fees. Notably, the proposal includes adjustments to licensing and inspection fees and introduces a reduced hourly rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants. This initiative aligns with legislative acts aimed at promoting the development of advanced nuclear technologies.

Key Concerns

The document presents several notable concerns. Firstly, the sophistication of its language, particularly in sections discussing fee calculations and legal references, may pose an understanding barrier for the general public. For individuals without a legal or regulatory background, grasping the intricacies of these proposals could be challenging.

Moreover, the increase in the professional hourly rate from $317 to $323 signals a significant jump that may raise eyebrows among stakeholders, as the rationale behind this change might seem unclear or unjustified. Stakeholders could perceive this increase as wasteful spending unless well explained and supported by cost-benefit analysis.

There is also the matter of the complex methodology used for calculating various fees, including the Reduced Hourly Rate. While detailed explanations are provided, the process might be considered overly complicated, potentially confusing stakeholders or the public.

The document heavily relies on assumptions, as a full-year appropriation is not yet enacted for fiscal year 2025. This reliance on assumptions could lead to unforeseen budgetary instability, possibly impacting stakeholders financially.

In addition, the proposed rule suggests excluding a large amount of activities—totaling $151 million—from the fee recovery requirement. Such exclusion might lead to an imbalance in resource allocation, which could affect the NRC's ability to carry out regulatory activities effectively.

Finally, the inclusion of numerous legislative references and amendments without straightforward clarification might lead to misunderstandings among audiences who lack specialized legal knowledge.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

Broad Public Impact: For the public at large, the NRC's fee proposals could influence the cost dynamics within the nuclear energy sector. If costs for licensees rise due to the adjustments, this could ultimately affect energy costs for consumers.

Specific Stakeholder Impact: The adjustments detailed in the proposal could significantly impact existing and prospective nuclear reactor projects. The introduction of a reduced hourly rate specifically for advanced nuclear reactor applicants is a move to encourage innovation and development of cleaner energy technologies. While this may benefit stakeholders engaged in advanced nuclear technology projects by lowering costs, other stakeholders might bear higher charges due to increased fees elsewhere, such as in professional hourly rates or annual fees for operating power reactors.

The document essentially seeks to balance regulatory costs with advancing nuclear innovation, attempting to ensure compliance with legislative requirements while accounting for future-focused energy solutions. However, the complexity and potential financial implications necessitate careful scrutiny by stakeholders and the public.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a proposed rule for fiscal year 2025 that includes several financial allocations and references. These are critical for understanding how the NRC intends to manage its budget and fees moving forward.

Summary of Financial Allocations

The FY 2025 budget request is set at $994.9 million, with $20.0 million proposed to offset the Nuclear Reactor Safety budget through carryover. Consequently, the gross budget authority utilized in the proposed fee rule is $974.9 million, representing an increase of $30.8 million from FY 2024. This increased budget supports enhancements in technical reviews, cybersecurity, IT infrastructure, and federal pay raises for NRC employees.

Exclusions from the fee recovery requirement account for $151.0 million, which is an increase of $13.9 million from the previous year. These excluded activities encompass various crucial sectors like homeland security, educational grants, and advanced reactor infrastructure, among others. After considering these exclusions, the NRC estimates that $826.1 million must be recovered through fees for FY 2025. Of this amount, $216.0 million is expected from part 170 service fees, and $610.1 million from part 171 annual fees.

Financial Allocations Related to Identified Issues

The proposal includes a significant increase in the professional hourly rate from $317 to $323, which highlights concerns about potential wasteful spending or unjustified increases. This increase is part of the NRC's strategy to manage rising expenses related to salaries, benefits, and crucial system upgrades. However, without clear justification, stakeholders might question the necessity of such an increment and how it aligns with efficient resource management.

Furthermore, the methodology employed in calculating Reduced Hourly Rates and other fee-related structures appears complex. For instance, the Reduced Hourly Rate is proposed at $146 per hour, a reduction from the standard professional hourly rate. While this could be beneficial for advanced nuclear reactor applicants, its calculation methodology might confuse stakeholders, leading to concerns about transparency and the potential for unforeseen financial burdens.

The primary challenge lies in the assumptions made in the absence of a full-year appropriation. The proposal depends heavily on forecasting and assumptions regarding the utilization of carryover funds and fee collection estimates, which could create budgetary instability if actual appropriations differ from expectations.

Lastly, the extensive exclusion of activities from the fee recovery requirement (totaling $151 million) might reduce the available resources for regulatory actions necessary to ensure safety and compliance. Stakeholders could be left questioning how this exclusion would impact the NRC's ability to fulfill its regulatory duties effectively.

In conclusion, while the NRC's proposed financial allocations aim to support an extensive array of enhancements and infrastructural developments, questions about their complexity, transparency, and reliance on assumptions pose potential challenges in gaining full stakeholder confidence. Simplifying the language and making clear how these financial aspects impact overall regulatory operations could enhance public understanding and trust.