Skip to main content

NRC Publishes Fee Schedule for Fiscal 2005

The NRC published its fee schedule for licensing, inspection and annual fees it charges to applicants and licensees in today's edition of the Federal Register. The following schedule becomes effective on July 25. For a PDF version of the press release announcing the changes, click here.

Class/category of licenses
Fee
Operating Power Reactors (including Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning annual fee)
$3,155,000
Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning
$159,000
Test and Research Reactors (Nonpower Reactors)
$59,500
High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility
$5,449,000
Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility
$1,632,000
UF6 Conversion Facility
$699,000
Rare Earth Mills
$73,700
Transportation:

Users/Fabricators
$80,900
Users Only
$4,300
Typical Materials Users:

Radiographers
$12,800
Well Loggers
$4,100
Gauge Users (Category 3P)
$2,500


Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Eric:
Thanks for publishing this prominently.
As the leader of a company that would like to build atomic engines that are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than current central station electrical power plants, I advocate a revision of the fee structure to take into account the fact that not all power reactors are the same.
Our proposed plants are approximately the same size or even smaller than current test reactors, but they are definitely designed to produce power, so that do not fall into the "nonpower" reactor category.
I hope your readers notice the huge gap in fees between the test reactor and the power reactor categories.
Rod Adams
http://www.atomicengines.com

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...