ML20141M656
| ML20141M656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1996 |
| From: | Morrison D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135F257 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR26730, RULE-PR-51 AF-65-2-4, AF65-2-004, AF65-2-4, NUDOCS 9611180126 | |
| Download: ML20141M656 (4) | |
Text
.-. ..- . . -- - . -
i *
!1 l%F 63- :t i ga arag t UNITED STATES f ,2 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o WASHINGTON. D.C. 205S5m01 49
- ,o l
September 30, 1996 l 0 ) IC) ) {
- t MEMORANDUM T0: Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety ,
and Safeguards __
l William J. Olmstead, Associate General Counsel '
! for Licensing and Regulation !
Office of the General Counsel i Richard L. Bangart, Director j Office of State Programs - '
FROM: David L. Morrison, Director f Office of Nuclear Regulatory esearch -
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PLAN FOR AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REPORIS FROM URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSEES AT i LICENSE TERMINATION - 10 CFR 51.60 )
> I The attached rulemaking plan is provided for your review and comment i consistent with the policy in Management Directive 6.3.
The following is a summary of this request: .
- 1.
Title:
he Requirement for W Environmental Repor t/
Rulemaking License Termination - 10 Plan CFR 51.60 forburanium Recove[r" Lic
- 2. RES Task leader: Joseph J. Mate, DRA/RES, 415-6202 EP 3. Coanizant Individuals: NMSS - Mike Fliegel l OGC - Robert Fonner 1 es t - d e tJ N ia E b t L E N a t tw- E R !
- 4. Reauested Action: Concur with th preparation of a direct final rule. j
- 5. Reauested Comoletion Date: Twenty days after date of this memorandum. l
~
- 6. Backaround: As a result of the User Need memorandum from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards dated April 25, 1996, and !
l subject, " Request for Rulemaking," the RES staff undertook the l preparation of a rulemaking plan for amending 10 CFR 51.60 concerning the submission of an environmental report. The proposed amendment would i specifically eliminate the requirement for the submission of an gq environment report by uranium material licensees at the time of t/ l' license termination. Mr 4 i L gatto_\acM, seP # ;
i l-i C. J.-' Paperiello et al . -
1
- 7. Discussion: The objective of developing a.rulemaking plan is to. ensure !
l that early agreement is reached among the participants in a rulemaking request, schedules are established and met, coordination among the t
offices during development is properly effected, and there is an :
! afficient use of staff resources in developing rules. A review of !
N 'fR 51.60 indicates that the requirement concerning the submission of !
an environmental ~ report is unnecessary because of the length of time :
H involved in terminating a uranium mill license (several years) and the '
process of conducting environmental r.ev_iews throughout the license I
! termination process. By the time a licensee requests termination of a '
license, the environmental impacts identified during the licensing and
, amendment process will have been mitigated through compliance with EPA l' and NRC regulations. Hence, the only conditions that should remain in the license at the time of license termination are those that specify l what monitoring the licensee needs to perform. Therefore, we-believe that the submission of an environmental report at license termination is a unnecessary and burdensome requirement and should be eliminated.
An assessment of the cost effectiveness of this proposed rulemaking action was performed. A comparison of the savings resulting from
! amending the rule was compared to the cost of conducting the rulemaking.
! As a result of our analysis, the alternativa of a direct final rule has I
the potential to achieve a savings since a minimum staff effort would be expended in developing and promulgating a direct final rule. These l savings may not be sufficient to make the rulemaking a cost effective l alternative if adverse public comments are received on the direct final i rule and NRC is forced to address those comments in another publication.
l However,.the issue is relatively simple, straight. forward, and
! noncontroversial. The staff does not anticipate any adverse public l comment. Therefore a direct final rule may be worth a try.
Attachment:
Rulemaking Plan cc w/att.i l R. Scroggings, OC
- H. T. Bell, IG G. Cranford, IRM D. Meyer, ADM I
i l
l
- i t
l l'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . . . . _ . _ , - _ . , , . _ _ . , - , m
__,_ _ . ,. I