ML20141M652
| ML20141M652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/21/1996 |
| From: | Sollenberger D NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135F257 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR26730, RULE-PR-51 AF65-2-008, AF65-2-8, NUDOCS 9611180111 | |
| Download: ML20141M652 (3) | |
Text
_- . .- .. . - .- . . . - . - , - . - . . - - . . -. .. - . . . .
.w 0Kl
.)*' hf Q~Q; PbR From: Dennis Sollenberger To: TWD2.TWP9.BMM Date: 10/21/96 9:57am subject: Rulemaking Plan - 10 CFR Part 51.60 i
(. The Office of State Programs has reviewed the package and concurs I
in the rulemaking plan. .A few minor comments were discussed with Joe' Mate by Dennis Sollenberger. The concurrence in this plan was discussed with OSP management with Mr. Bangart agreeing.
Dennis Sollenberger for the Office of State Programs.
l CC: RLB2, PHL, TWD2.TWP9.JJM i
I l
1 i
l
)
i l i !
o Ij f
~
l l
.}
o Because of the small burden currently imposed by the requirement and the small number of licensees that would be affected, the cost savings from eliminating the requirement through a direct final rule will not i equal the cost of promulgating the rule unless the "high case" i assumption is made. .
Recommendation
! The staff recommends the selection of Alternative 4 since it has a potential to achieve a savings. The staff believes that because of the limited work experience in this area to date (only one application has thus far been submitted), the actual time to develop and review environmental reports may l be skewed to the low side. In order to take a conservative approach. the ,
staff believes that actual costs for such activities will be closer t.o the ;
high option rather than the low option. The staff also believes that public l l comments on the rulechange can be mitigated by improving the information , i made available in the rulemaking package. The process of reviewing l j decommissioning and reclamation activities currently addresses environmental i issues, and may involve a full NEPA review including public notice and ; ,
public meetings. Therefore no additional public controversy over the rule '
)
change is expected to arise.
Office of General Counsel Leaal Analysis OGC was asked for its preliminary opinion relative to the NMSS request to i eliminate Item (b)(3) from 10 CFR 51.60. OGC concurred with the conclusion i that submission of an Environmental Report on the termination of a uranium l uill is useless and unnecessary. At the time of the termination of the !
license, the work is done, and the environmental impacts have been mitigated in accordance with the NRC and EPA rules. OGC saw no outstanding legal j issues in eliminating the requirement, assuming that the basis for the rule change was not arbitrary or capricious, and is acceptable from the !
standpoint of compliance with NEPA. With respect to NEPA, 0GC saw no significant legal problem. In 0GC's opinion, termination of the specific license after completion of reclamation and decommissioning, payment of !
funds for long term care and oversight, and the Commission's determination under Section 83c of the Atomic Energy Act is not a major Federal action, i but is ministerial and an adjunct to the transfer of the site to the ,
permanent custodian under the NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28.
Aareement State implementation Problems oR vpA LL aois, (o g ,
Although uranium,, production fa ilities are located in three Agreement '
States - Washington, Colorado, and Texas, there is no impact on the Agreement States as a result of the proposed amendment. There is no requirement for the Agreement States to follow or comply with the i requirements of 10 CFR 51.60 because there is no compatibility requirement )
- for this particular regulatioq. Hence, there is no impact on the Agreement States as a result of the proposed changes to 10 CFR 51.60 l
12
l * .
- .h Suonortino Documents Needed This rulemaking requires a simple Regulatory Analysis to assess the changes in burden on both the licensee and the NRC. No backfit analysis or [
environmental impact assessment will be required.
l Resources Needed l
! The estimated resources needed to accomplish the rulemaking would be l approximately one quarter of a staff year. About 60 per cent of the effort l would be from RES and the remaining 40 per cent would come primarii) from l NMSS, OGC, and State Programs. An expansion of the analysis conducted in I this rulemaking plan into a simple regulatory analysis would require a few thousand dollars. All resources are within the existing budget allocation.
Lead Office Staff and Staff from Suncortina Offices The lead office for this effort would be RES and the project officer would be Joseph J. Mate. Other staff offices and personnel included would be:
Bob Fonner ,
, State Programs - ttoyd Oell-ing DE N N : $ J OLL EN BE MER l 1 l Steerino Grouo/Workino Group j There is no need for a steering group for this rulemaking. The Working !
Group is identified above. l l Enhanced Public Particioation l This rulemaking will be placed on the electronic bulletin board at Fedworld.
l The proposed amendment will also be published in the Federal Reaister as a direct final rule. Comments can still be made during the specified period l before the rule becomes the final rule becomes effective.
, EDO or Commission Issuance l
! Because the draft amendment does not represent a significant policy issue, l it is recommended that the Executive Director for Operations issue the final
, rule.
Schedule The estimated time to publish this rule in final form using the direct final rule approach is approximately 3 months from the date of the approval of the rulemaking by the EDO.
13
!