ML20210R817

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re 10CFR40, Domestic Licensing of Source Matl. Estimated Respondent Burden Is 335 H

ML20210R817
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/14/1986
From:	Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
OMB-3150-0020, OMB-3150-20, NUDOCS 8605190356
Download: ML20210R817 (14)

Text

, e PDk

• ~'en,-

p 5'*"" "" s 3 .

Request for OMB Review ne. seerno m3) -

. ' /i- 1 x Cc.tiid Fy '

.important .#

Rxd instructions before comp'eting form. Do not use the same SF 83 Send three copies of this form, the material to be reviewed, and for 13 request both an Executne Order 12291 review and approval under paperwork-three copies of the supporting statement, to:

the Paperwork Reduction Act. *

, Answer all questions in Part 1. If this request is for review under E.O. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ,

( 12291, complete Part II and sign the regulatory certification. If this Office of Management and Budget r quest is for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR Attent< ion: Docket Library Room 320.

1320. skip Part II. comp *.ete Part 111 and sign the paperwork certification. Washi,ngton DC20503 PART 1.-Complete This Part for All Requests.

~~

.1. Department / agency and B.areaufotface originatmg request 2.Agencytode U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 1 5 0

3. Name of person who can Dest answer questions regardeng this request Telephone number Kitty S. Draconette I ( 3ni ) Ap_agnn _ _,

4. Title of snformation collection or rulemaking 10 CFR Part 40, " Domestic Licensing of Source Naterial" r

v

?<

q 5. Legat authonty for mformatson collect >on or rule (cr e Urnted States Code. Puake Law. or becutrue Order) 42 use 2201(o) .or

6. Affected public(checA attthatapply) 5 0 rederaiagenciesorempioyees 1 O indiv.duaisorhousehoids a rarms s O Non.profitinstitutions

• 2 State or locaigovernments 4 Q Busiriesses orother for profit 7 @ Smal1businessesororganisatens PARTil.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291

7. Regulation identif.er Number (RIN)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. or, None assigned O Wpe e,f suomess>on (check one on each category) Type of review requested

~

Classification Stage of development 3 j 1 0 sgancare 1 O uaior 1 eroposed or draft 2 Pending

2 O Nonmaior 2 rinat or interim vinai. with enor prop.2si 3 Emergency 3 rinal or in'enm feel. without snar proposai 4 Statutory ortud cialdeadline -.

~

9. CFR section affected g CFR

10. Does this regulation contain reporting or recordbeeping requirements that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320? ................. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O ve. Qu.

11. tf a major rule. is there a regulatory impact analysis attached? . . . . . .... . . . . .. . .1 Yes 2 O Na If"No " ded OMB warre the analysis? - .[I 3 O ves 4 D N;.

Cartification for Regulatory Submissions i.

In submitting this request for oMB review, the authorized regulatory contact and the progra#{ officiat certify that the requirements of E.o.12291 and any aschcat ic polecy direr' eves have been comphed wrth. J Signature of program off.ciat ~~

Date .

l.

5.gnature of authorized regulatory contact - '

. Date

, 12.10AtS use enty)

Pro ews esitens ensoeie - *oS 388"d*'8 I*** E 3 t'. s essN 7saeco 634-ao34 P w e h t b i **r B605190356 B60514 s era tsto'*ne r o u. ..

PDR ORG- EUBOMB s PDR w.

j .

PART lil.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for Approval of a Collectlin of Information Under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320. ,

13. Abstract-Descries needs, uses and affected pubhc in So words or less

" Nuclear waste management Environmental monitoring, Groundwater monitoring" The proposed rule would add new. requirements for'additioncl groundwater monitoring data for uranium recovery facilities, in ' order to conform to EPA regulations. .

14. Type of informaten conection (cfmA only one)

Information conections not containedin reden 1 Regular submission 2 O Emergeacy submission (certificatieastrached>

Information eenections containedin twies 6 Finalorinterim fW without prior NPRM 7. Enter date of espected or actual Federat 3 O Existing reguistion (no changeproposed)

Register publication at this stage of rulemakeg 4 @ Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) A Regular subrnession (mortt/t, day, year)-

5 Fina'. NPRM was previously published 8 Emergency submissioh (certificatio1 attached)

15. Type of review requested (check only one) 4 Reinstatement of a previously approved collection for which approval 1 New collection

• * * *E , .

2 @ Revision of a currently approved co!Iection 5 Esisting collection in use without an OM8 control number 3 Extension of the empiration date of a currentty approved collection without any change in the substance or in the method of coffection

22. Purpose of information collection (check as many as apply)

16. Aghncy report form number (s)(include standard /optionalform number (s))

NRC Form 484 - Sample For%It for Re[ ort- 10 Abi'icauon for d-fits

/

inQ Detectinn Mnn 4 +m.4m. n+ 2 O Program evaluation

~ ' " ' " "

17. Annuel reporting or disclosure burden 3 General purpose stattstics 1 Number of respondents . .. ... .

26 4 3 Regulatoryorcomptiance 2 Number of responses per respondent .. ..

2 5 C Program planning or management 3 Total annuai responses (line J temes line 2) ...

50 6 Research 4 Hours per response . .......... 6.7 7 0 Audit S Titalhours fline 3 times line n 335

23. Frequency of recordkeepmg or reporting (check a# that appfy)

18. AnnualrecordkeepiegDurden 1 umber of recordkeepers . ........

1 O Recordkeeping 2 Annual hours per recordkeeper. ..... .

Kep0ffET 3 Total recordkeeping hours (hne 2 times hoe 2) . 2 O onoccasion 4 Ricordkeeping retention period .

year $ 3 0 weekty .

19. Totri annual burden 4 O Monthiy 1 Rnuested(hne 17-5plusline 183) . ..

i?.003 5 Quarterfy 2 In current OMS inventory ..

I2.0M 6 6 Semi annually 3 Difference (line 11essline 2) . .......

+ W 7 0 Annually 8 Buennialty Esplanation ofdifference 4 Program change . . ......... + 335 9 0 other(desenb ): .

5 Adjustment . .

24. Respondents' obl gation to cornply(check the sfrorIgest obhgation that appt.es

20. Current (most recent) oM B controf nurnber or comment number

' 1 O voiuntary -

3150-0020 ,

21. Mquested eapitation date = 2,  ; Requieed to obtain or retain a benefrt l 3 5 Maadato'y 3 years from date of acoroval

25. Ara the respondents primanly educational agencies or inattutions or is the primary purpose of the collection related to Federat educaj l

26. Does the agency use samphng to select respondents or does the agency recomtnend . . . .

or prescribe

. . . .. . the . .use. . of

. samphng or statistical analyse  ;

by asspondents? . .......... . .......

U. R;gulatory authority for the inforrnation collection 10 40 M FR :or.other (speerfy):

crR :or I e

f P perwork Certification in submitting this reouest for oMB approval, the agency head, the senior of ficial or ar authorized representative, certifies that the requirements of 5 C Presccy Act. statistical standards or directives, and any other appbcabfe inicemation pokcy directrves have been comphed with. "~

Date S gna ure of program otticial .

Date S.gnature of agency neaa. tne sener off.c.at or an aarw.rees representative ,

Patricia G. Norry, Director

~

fqQ hn j i !W Offira n f adm i n f e + e + 4. n..,..

}. ,

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR RULEMAKING 1

" URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS: GROUND-WATER PROTECTION AND OTHER ISSUES" T0 AMEND 10 CFR PART 40 DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL

- AND NRC FORM 484, " SAMPLE F0P. MAT FOR REPORTING DETECTION MONITORING DATA" Description of the Information Collection The Commission's rules for the management and disposal of uranium and thorium mill tailings are contained in 10 CFR Part 40. The existing requirements in 10 I CFR Part 40 are covered by OMB No. 3150-0020. The Commission is proposing to amend its regulations governing the disposal of these wastes. The draft proposed rule notice is enclosed. The proposed changes are intended to conform existing NRC regulations to the ground-water protection regulations published l by the Ent'ronmental' Protection Agency (EPA) for uranium and. thorium mill tailings as required by law. EPA published the standards October 7, 1983 (49 FR 45926) after submitting the regulation to 0MB for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Since EPA has no' implementing'respcnsibility, the October 7,1983 notice stated, "This rule does-not contain any information 1

collection requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act ,

J of 1980 U.S.C. 3501, et seq." EPA also prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 520/1-83-010).--

The proposed-chinges require a. change in focus for collection and reporting of.

9round-water monitoring data necessary to implement the EPA ground-water k standards. The specific changes on monitoring data are in the proposed 4

-- , , , , . , ,, -, - -- -,,n-,- -n--,-- .. r w,----e., w-,,-+ - ww- -,w-

l paragraph 7A'of C/iterion 7 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. Existing 10 CFR 40.65(a) requires the collection and submission of monitoring data every 6 months (i.e., it ir an existing recurring report). This existing requirement includes ground-water data. Since December 1983, monitoring programs at J

uranium recovery facilities should have been addressing the monitoring described in proposed paragraph 7A due to the fact that the EPA standards were directly imposed on NRC licensees. Thus the Commission is requesting data from licensees using the general provisions of 10 CFR 40.65 in order .to carry out its responsibilities to implement and enforce the EPA standards. The proposed changes also require submission of corrective action programs for Commission approval if such programs are required. See paragraph SD of Criterion 5 of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. These changes to 10 CFR Part 40 provide a somewhat different focus and scope from the existing requirements.

NRC has also developed a one-page form for ease of reporting part of the ground-water monitoring data. NRC form 484 is entitled " Sample Format for Reporting Detection Monitoring Data". A copy is enclosed. The purpose of the form is to-highlight certain information contained in the semi-annual reports l l

submitted to the NRC. The form does not impose any additional burden upon the licensee, and should make reporting easier. The NRC could have left the method for highlighting the data up to the_ licensee, but this would have required more  ;

effort than simply completing a oform designed for that purpose.-

Other provisions of the proposed changes would normally impact factors such.as the design basis for impoundments for applications submitted ;in the routine course of business.. About one quarter of NRC's milling licensees might havesto ye v - ,c-4 e--- e _ v -e v w--- - er . , , ,,-- e -- - y

l l l

- 3'-

i i

apply for new disposal capacity to meet the new EPA standards should the market j l

recover. However, the requirement to file is a result of the already imposed l EPA standards and not the prer*.nt NRC action.

To sumarize, the proposed rule requires additional monitoring data which may result in corrective action programs if necessary. Additional monitoring data, which may require some new wells, include background water quality data and increased number of constituents sampled. The monitoring requirements may also require ground-water flow data and comprehensive statistical. analytical

, methods.

A. JUSTIFICATION ..

1. Need for the Collection of Information. The conforming action is being taken to comply with the i..andate in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) and the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 to confom the NRC regulations to EPA's standards. Section 275d of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) requires NRC to implement and enforce the EPA standards. The statutes are general and do not specifically address information collection requirements.

Effective NRC implementation and enforcement of the EPA standards and final ,

confomed NRC rules require that NRC obtain 'and evaluate site specific data and infomation. Further, the EPA standards .hiive been in effect for NRC licensees since' December.6, 1983. Licensees will be required to comply with the terms of -

the EPA standard itself whether.this rule is published or not. l

)

J e

l

2. Agency dse of Information. The secondary ground-water standards imposed by EPA follow a logical sequence of actions based'on site specific information. The process begins with mor itoring for leakage from the tailings impoundments. Acceptable site specific ground-water concentration limits for hazardous constituents are set when leakage occurs. If monitoring indicates that the concentration limits have been exceeded, the licensee must take corrective action to restore ground-water quality. NRC will use the information on monitoring to determine what actions should be taken by the licensee. For example, when detection monitoring of a few indicator parameters shows that an impoundment is leaking, the licensee can be ordered to provide data on a full suite of constituent concentrations in the ground water if he has not already done so. This data is necessary so that NRC can set the site specific concentration limits included-in the EPA standard. The standards provide _for three options on concentration limits (i.e. background values, drinking water limits, or other values). The licensee cannot comply if NRC doesn't specify which option and set site specific numerical limits. Data collection is thus an integral part of the standard itself as well as a basis for NRC enforcement.

1 Submission of the licensee's proposed corrective action program for agency.

review will assure that the licensee does not implement an expensive or ~

l 1rreversible program that NRC would find unacceptable or ineffectual. It also enables NRC to assure that the s'tandard's requirement for action is being l followed and thus enhanc'e NRC's fulf'll' i ment of. its responsibilities for enforcement of the standards as required by the AEA. ,

l 1

, n

. . l l

. l l

Currently, all licensing and inspection and enforcement actions involving NRC licensed uranium recovery activities are conducted by the Region IV Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) in Denver, Colorado. T;ie Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or another regional office might conduct these l activities fer facilities in other states.

/

l

\

In summary, if the information is not generated and reported, as l i

appropriate, the nation's ground water would not be as protected and NRC could not implement and enforce the standards as required by law. ,

)

i

3. Reduction of Burden Through Information Technology. There are no legal obstacles to reducing the burden associated with this information requirement. The rule changes on ground-water monitoring are performance oriented and would allow licensees to collect and report information using any.

technique they choose. The information-is unique to each licensee and each site.

4. Effort to Identify Duplication. The Federal.Information Locator System was searched to determine NRC and other Federal Agency duplication.

None was found. The Atomic Energy Act specifically assigns implementation and enforcement responsibilities to NRC and NRC's Agreement States. No site specific permits or reporting to EPA is required. The one part of the EPA standard in 40 CFR 192 that amounted to duplication.is not included in the proposed changes. The changes do not. include.the requirement in_40 CFR-192.32(a)(2) for EPA :urre. . the site specific standards'.

. l Uranium recovery facilities when licensed.by NRC are also exempted from.

reporting licensed releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) implemen*ing regulations (40 CFR 300-302). The potential for dual reporting exists under the existing Superfund rules and NRC is coordinating with EPA staff developing new regulations in this area to try and minimize duplication when releases not authorized by license or rule occur.

Copies of the proposed rule will be sent to all affected NRC licensees. If the coments received indicate any conflicts with any other local, state, or federal regulatory requirements, they will be addressed in preparing the final rule .

5. Effort to Use Similar Information. Existing sites already have extensive environmental monitoring programs in place that address ground wter. At

- existing mill tailings sites, NRC has carefully considered existing monitoring programs and data on hand. NRC focused on the purpose and intent of the EPA standards. -In determining whether existing programs are acceptable as detection monitoring programs, NRC maximized use of existing wells and minimized the number of indicator parameters to report. The proposed rule explicitly encourages use of existing programs. The existing detection monitoringprogramswereassessedagainstseven(7)acceptancecriteria developed by staff based on guidelines EPA provided in the preamble to final 40 CFR 192. The programs ~ generally covered all~ but.2 of the 7 criteria and site ,

specific license conditions were developed to' accommodate site specific

. - - - --g s*s - er ur g -

• er e- r' - t v+-

• t

4 o .. .

~

\ .

- considerations. Thus,.the actual implementation steps'also emphasized and used existing programs to the extent practicable, d

6. Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden. Only 2 of the 27 NRC and I Agreement State licensed mills are small businesses under existing NRC small entity criteria (see 50 FR 50241, December 9,1985 for NRC criteria). Since the consequences of contaminating the ground water may be the sam for large and small entities, it is not possible to reduce the burden on small businesses by_less frequent or less complete data collection and reporting.

7. - Consequences of Less Frequent Collection. Licensees already sample wells quarterly and report the results every 6 months. Changes.to the scheme j

would be disruptive to existing procedures. The. proposed rule is flexible on reporting frequency and can acconnodate special licensee or NRC needs based on

-f. the severity of the' situation or quality of data or other' factors. It is als'o l important to keep the licensees' programs comparable to those that the EPA.

I follows for its permitees for similiar hazardous nattrials. The UMTRCA l _ amendments to the Atomic Energy Act also require NRC to assure that byproduct materials are managed in a manner that conforms to general requirements I

established by the Conmission, with the concurrence of the Administrator, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to requirements

! applicable to the possession, transfer..and disposal of similar. hazardous -

material regulated by the Admini,strator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as ,

~

L . amended. Reporting every six mo'n ths is consistent with EPA Solid Waste requirements for routine monitoring. The EPA Solid Waste requirements cover a l variety of activities and include reporting times as short as 7 days for

' ' ' ' *

• T=-p q9+- ,aw-y,- gy,-,,,,yy, ,, ..>y.9 m y , , , , , , . . _ , ,

- 8-certaincircumstadces. Such short times are not needed as a' requirement for l

mill tailings licensees and have not been proposed in the rulemaking or  !

t l

1 incie .ed in implementing license conditions. The NRC may require one time  !

, I 1 collections within 30 days, but this would be rare. Reporting times are l procedural aspects left to NRC by the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192. Finally, f

i reporting times longer than 6 months could allow any problems to develop into l i i very expensive situations to correct. Early detection can alert the licensee l and NRC before large areas are contaminated.

J l 1,

8. Circumstances Which Justify Variation from OM8 Guidelines. There is 1

l I no variation from OMB guidelines. l l

. 1

9. Consultations Outside the NRC. As noted under Item 4 above, copies I of the proposed rule will be sent to all affected NRC licensees. Any comments relatir.; to infomation collection, recordkeeping, or reporting will be factored into the final rule. The enclosed form was part of the licensing ,

l l l action on detection monitoring which led to requests for hearings by 11 of 13 affected licensees. None of the issues'in the requests addressed the particulars of the form. All the issues were general legal issues and general objections to the EPA standard in its entirety and did not identify any j I

recordkeeping, reportings, or information burden No other persons were

~

consulted.

t i

10. Confidentiality of Infomation. .Any'information collected is a part

~

~ .

l of'the. legal' file for each ifcensee, which is available to the public. The

-Comission has rules .in place-.in l' '- .790. for processing and protecting 1

pW*- Y-'" -T-V9+"-*yr-9 y

+---y--w - - - - - - ---w we w ----

w , + , * - p3-+-**g- m-e- +--T *'-y s' %r**

a .

> ~g-confidentiality of information. In. the past, only proprietary information has -

been involved and can be adequately protected.

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions. Not applicable. No requirements or questions of a sensitive nature are included.

12. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government. We estimate analyzing the data which will be highly site specific, and making appropriate recommendations will require about 1 staff year or $60,000 per year over the next 3 years. These estimates could vary significantly based on the levels of contamination and validity of the incoming reports.

13. Estimate of Burden. The estimated annual burden will be affected by the type of facility and site-specific factors such as the adequacy of existing monitoring wells, extent of ground-water contamination, and hydrogeologic site characteristics. We estimate that many of the facilities will need to install some additional monitoring well to (1) determine background concentrations, (2) to provide. additional data at the compliance point, and (3) to provide ground-water flow data. Assuming an average of 2 additional wells per facility would estimate a cost of about $4,000.00 per licensee or $100,000 total.

($4,000 x 25 =$100,000).

4

O *

~

10 CFR 40.65 total annual cost Costs for establishing more comprehensive statistical analytical methods are estimated to result in an average one time cost of about 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per licensee (25 licensees x 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> = 250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br /> total).

This results in about 85 hours9.837963e-4 days <br />0.0236 hours <br />1.405423e-4 weeks <br />3.23425e-5 months <br /> per year averaged over 3 years.

In addition, monitoring requirements are estimated to cost about 50% more than is currently required for 40.65 as shown in OMB No. 3150-0020 due to the number of wells and constituents sampled. Therefore 25 licensees, reporting semi-annually and requiring 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> per submittal yields a total licensee annual burden of 750 hours0.00868 days <br />0.208 hours <br />0.00124 weeks <br />2.85375e-4 months <br />. These estimates could vary significantly based on the levels of contamination found and the ability to accurately define the hazardous constituents and their plume. Use of the enclosed fann would make reporting easier but the difference in burden is within the error limits of these estimates. Therefore the total annualized 40.65 monitoring hours, averaged over 3 years, is 835(750+85). Thus the annual burden increase resulting from this rule change is 335 hours0.00388 days <br />0.0931 hours <br />5.539021e-4 weeks <br />1.274675e-4 months <br /> (835-500).

14. Reason for Changes in Burden. The explanation for the increased burden is explained in 13 above.

15. Publication for Statistical Use. None.

B. Collection of Information Einploying Statistical Methods. The

. collection of information does not employ statistical methods.

Enclosures:

1. Draft FRN for proposed rule

2. " Sample Format for Reporting Detection Monitoring Data" d

I 1

NRC FORM 484- .

SAMPLE FORMAT FOR REPORTING DETECTION MONITORING DATA ...

Background Well(s) Point of Compliance Well(s)

Date (Mo/Yr) Indicator Species Date (Mo/Yr) Indicator Species As(mg/1) Se(mg/1). pH(units) As(mg/1) se(mg/1) pH(units)

Sample Population Sample Population Sample Mean ~ Sample Mean Sample Standard' Sample Standard Deviation Deviation Sample Distribution Sample Distribution (Normal,' Poisson,other) (Normal, Poisson, other)

Statistical Significance Test:

Reference:

Sample Statistical Calculation:

3 y

. E-

.Results 'of Statistical Evaluation: E E

p; eper _ e. --

t