ML20211N147

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re 10CFR100, Reactor Site Criteria. Estimated Respondent Burden Is 50,000 H

ML20211N147
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/12/1986
From:	Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
OMB-3150-0093, OMB-3150-93, NUDOCS 8612180149
Download: ML20211N147 (8)

Text

YM

. . MSI0 lim gm . 3 S'l"*' '""" s a Request for OMB Reviewtea 8 j -

Important Rzad instructions before completing form Do not use the same SF 83 Send three copies of this form, the matenal to be reviewed, and for to request both an Executive 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. OfficeofInformationand Regulatory Affairs 12291, compkte Part ll and sign the regulatory certification. If this Of fice of Management and Budget r; quest is for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR Attention: Docket Library, Room 3201 1320, skip Part it, complete Part lit and sign the paperwork certification. Washington, DC 20503 PART 1.-Complete This Part for All Requests.

1. Dep1rtment/apncy and Bureau /of f ece origmating request 2. Agency code U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 1 5 .Q _

3. Nima of person who can best answer questions regardmg thrs request Telephone number Hazel Smith <301 > 492-8730

4. Title of mformation coilection or rulemaking 10 CFR 100, Reactor Site Criteria QLl authority for information coilectson or tule (cite ltnited Srates Code. Publoc las. or Executwe Order) 42 use 2201(o) . ,,

6. Affected public(checA allthatapply) 5 0 rederaiagenciesorempioyees 1 O ind widuais or houseneids 3 0 rarms s O Non profitinstitutions 2 O state oriocaigovernments 4 El Businessesorother for-profit 7 0 smati businesses or organizations PART ll.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291

7. Regulation identifier Number (RIN)

_ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ . _. or. None assigned O

8. Type of submission (check one on each category) Type of review requested Classification Stage of development 1 O standard i O Maior i O e,oposed or draft 2 O rending 2 O Nonmajor 2 O rinaiorinterimfinai.witnpriorproposai 3 0 cmergency 3 0 rinai or intenm finai, witnout enor proposai 4 0 statutoryor,udiciaideadiine

9. CFR section affected CrR

10. Does this regulation contmn reportmg or recordkeeping requirements that require OMB apprcval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320? - O ves O No 11, if a major rute. is there a regulatory impact analysis attached > 1 O yes 2 O No It"No," did OMB wa.ve the analysis? 3 0 ves 4 0 No C:rtification for Regulatory Submissions in subm.tting tnis request for CMB review, the authorized regulatory contact and the program official certify that the requiremer*ts of E O.12291 and any appiicabte policy directives hve been compiied with.

signature of program erfiaai Date

~~

s.gnature of authonied reruiatorr con act

! l i nee ,

8612180149 861212  !

12. gous use onin PDR ORO EUSOMB PDR l previous ed.tm ot.se*ta Nsr4 754o 00 63a a034 83 108 * *

$[, , '

Cb 5 Cr R 1320and E O 12291

PART lit.--Cothpleta This Part C2fy if th] Cequest is for Apprmi af a C:llection -

of Inf r rmation Under the Paoerwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320.

13. Abst,act-Descnbenceds.usesandaffectedoubhcin50worosoriess " Nuclear facility safety, seismic and geologic siting" Nuclear power plant construction applicants are required to provide NRC with seismic and gelogic data pertaining to the facility site.

14. Type of infortnation collecten (check only one) information collections not contained in rules 1 O Regular submission 2 O Emergencysubmission(cerfihcationattached>

Information collections containedin rules 3 @ Existing regulation (no charge proposed) 6 Final or intenrn final without pnor NPRM 7. Enter date of espected or actuat Federal 4 0 Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM) A O Regularsubmission Register pubhcation at this stage of rulemaking 5 0 rinai. t.m .a previousir pubhined B O Ernergency submission (certshcation attached) (month. day, year):

.15. Type of review requested (check only one) 1 O New collection 4 @ Reinstatement of a previously approved collection for which approval 2 O Revision of a currently approved collection .

has eiipired 3 0 Extension of the expiration date of a currently approved coiiection 5 0 Existing coiiection in use without an ous controi number without any change in the substance or in the method of collection

16. Ag ency teport form number (s)(snclude standard /optionalform number (s)) 22. Purpose of information collection (check as rrmy as apply) g i O Appiication for benefits 2 O erogram evaivation

17. Annual reporting or disclosure burden 3 0 ceneraipurposestatistics 3

1 Number of respondents . 4 @ Regulatoryorcomphance 2 Number of responses per respondent 5 O Programpianningormanaement 3 Tttal annual responses (hne 1 times hne 2) 3 6 0 Research 4 Hours per response 16s666 7 O Audit 6 Totat hours (kne 3 times hne 4) 60,000

18. Annualrecordkeepingburden 23. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (check all that apply) 1 Number of recordkeepers . 1 O Recordkeeping 2 Annual hours per recordkeeper. Reporting 3 Tttat recordkeeping hours (hne 1 times hoe 2) 2 @ onoccasion 4 Recordkeeping retention penod years 3 C Weekly

19. Total annual burden 4 O uonthry 1 Requested (hne 17 5 plus hne 18-3) -

50,000 $ 0 quarteriy 2 in current oMB inventory .

0 6 0 semi.annuaiiy 3 Difference (fine lless hne2)

+50,000 7 O Annuaiiy Erplanation of difference 8 0 Biennsally 4 Program change +50,000 9 0 otner(desenbe):

5 Adjustment .

20. Curr:nt (most recent) oM B control number or comment number 24. Respondents' obligation to comply (check the strongest obhgation that apphes) 3150-0093 1 O voiuntary

21. Requested empiration date 2 O Required to obtain or retain a benefit 12/31/89 3 p y ,no ,.,,,

25. Ars the respondents pnmanly educational agencies or institutions or is the pnmary purpose of the collection related to Federal education programs? O Yes Q No

26. Does the agency use sampi,ng to select respondents or does the agency recommend or presenbe the use of samphng or statistical analysis by respondents? . O Ye5 QNo

27. R;gulatory authonty for the information collection 10 crR 100  ; o, rR  ; or.other (specify).

Paperwork Cert 6fication in submitting this request for oMB approval, the agency liead, the senior official or an authonzed representative. certifies that the requirements of 5 CFR 1320. the Privrcy Act. statistical standards or directives, and any other applicable enf ormation pobcy directives have been comphed with.

Signature of program official Date Signature of agency head, the senior offscial of an authorized representa ve Date Patricia G. Norry, Director '

Office of Administration dAv M d% M#O O GPO 1984 0 - 453-776

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 100, APPENDIX A Description of the Information Collection The Connission's regulations,10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," Appen-dix A " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" (Cri-

! terion II, Paragraph 3; Criterion IV; and Criterion VI (b) (1)) require appli-cants to provide the types of information which show evidence or clues as to the size and frequency of occurrence of prehistoric earthquakes, and evidence of the last time there was movement along faults at the site or in the site region to determine whether or not there is a potential for fault offset during the life of a nuclear power plant.

The information required by 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, must be submitted with the application for a construction permit (CP) or operating license (OL).

Although no new applications are anticipated for the next three years this clearance is necessary in the event the NRC has a need to reassess some previous seismic positions. The NRC review process for a construction permit or an operating license application ranges from one to several years. The NRC staff reviews the Safety Analysis Report for one to two months and, if necessary, generates a request for additional information. The applicant usually responds within one to six-months, depending on the complexity of the issues. The average time is usually about three months. The responses are reviewed and a draft Safety Evaluation Report is written by the NRC staff. This document summarizes conclusions and highlights any outstanding issues. The staff arranges for a meeting and site visit to resolve any open issues. When the open issues have been resolved, the staff writes tie final Safety Evaluation Report which is published and used as a basis for the remainder of the NRC licensing process, i.e., the meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which usually takes about li years.

1 SUPP STATEMENT PART 100, APP A

During the next 3 years, Appendix A will be used as an aid for evaluating sig-nificant new geologic and seismic data as to whether or not it will have an effect on the earthquake design bases for several operating nuclear power plants.

Appendix A will continue to serve as a basis for NRC-sponsored research.

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Need for the Collection of Information. The information required by these criteria may be needed by the NRC to assess the adequacy of proposed seismic design bases and the design bases for other geological hazards for nuclear power plants. It is submitted to the NRC as part of the application and supporting documentation for a construction permit and operating license for a nuclear power plant.

Moreover, Appendix A, supplemented by the Standard Format and the Standard Review Plan, is used by applicants as general guidance in planning investigations of nuclear power plant sites.

2. Agency use of Information. The NRC reviews the geological and seismo-logical information to determine the suitability of the proposed site for a nuclear power plant and the suitability of the plant design bases established in consideration of the seismic and geologic charac-teristics of the proposed site. A construction permit or operating license cannot be issued until this data has been reviewed and approved by the NRC.

New geological and seismological information that becomes known during the. operating life of the plant is also evaluated on the basis of these criteria. The'se criteria also serve as the basis for ongoing NRC research in the earth sciences.

3 Effort to Identify Duplication. This information does not duplicate other information being provided to NRC.

4. Effort to Use Similar Information. All pertinent geological and seismological information concerning the nuclear site and region 2 SUPP STATEMENT PART 100, APP A

around the site are utilized in the analysis of that site whether it is a product of the criteria requirements or not.

5. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection. Less frequent collection of information will result in serious delays in the licensing processes of nuclear power plants.

6. Circumstances Which Justify Variation From OMB Guidelines. There is no variation from the guidelines.

7. Consultations Outside The NRC. None since the previous OMB review.

8. Confidentiality of Information. NRC provides no pledge of confiden-tiality for this collection of information except for certain propri- '

etary information, which is protected in accordance with the provi-sions specified in 10 CFR 2 of the NRC's regulations.

9. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government.

f Over the next three years there will not be any burden to the staff regarding CP Applications. Seismic issues are presently under review for WNP-3 (Washington Nuclear Plant, Unit 3). Estimated average annual effort for this OL review is approximately 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br /> or

$108,000 per year ($60/hr x 1800 hrs = $108,000).

NRC staff anticipates the need to collect information for effort with respect to confirming the adgequacy of seismic design bases for 2 operating reactors, Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and Rancho Seco. The NRC staff's reevaluation of earthquake design bases for Diablo Canyon is estimated to require an average of 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br /> / year at an estimated cost of $108,000 per year ($60 x 1800 hrs = $108,000). The Rancho Seco fault and earthquake assessment will require an estimated 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> per year at a cost of $54,000 per year ($60 x 900 hrs = $54,000).

Consultants employed by the NRC to provide advice in these activities as related to staff reviews completed under the requirements of 3 SUPP STATEMENT PART 100, APP A

Appendix A, Part 100, include the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Nevada-Reno, Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The estimated annual average effort for these consultants is approximately 10,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> or

$600,000 ($60 x 10,000 hrs = $600,000).

Total annual cost to the Federal Government for Appendix A-related activities is estimated to be $870,000 (60 x 14,500 hrs). Note that these hours are based on that which is projected for two operating reactors, one OL review a.nd associated consultant expenses.

10. Estimate of Industry Burden

a. The estimated annual burden for one (1) applicant and two (2) licensees (WNP-3, Diablo Canyon, and Rancho Seco) is based on the involvement of from 2 to 3 of their technical staff members for the monitoring of post-operating license seismic, activities for Rancho Seco; up to as many as 15 to 20 for the WNP-3 OL review and the monitoring of post-operating license seismic activities for Diablo Canyon. The estimated annual burden is 50,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (seeTable1).

b. The biggest portion of this estimate is based on the requirement for gathering, analyzing, and synthesizing data. In order for applicants / licensees to provide the types of information which show evidence or clues as to the size and frequency of occurrence of earthquakes, and evidence of the last time there was displace-ment along faults at the site or in the site region, to determine whether or not there is' a potential for fault offset during the life of a nuclear power plant, extensive research and analysis must be conducted. This effort involves the analysis of volumi-nous amounts of drawings, logs, maps, seismic and other geophysi-cal records, and reports.

i l

l 4 SUPP STATEMENT PART 100, APP A l

L

. 11. Reasons for Change in Burden. The burden decrease (from 67X hours to 50K hours) is realized because instead of effort being focused on gaining an OL, in the next 3 years the main effort will be focused on reevaluating the seismic design bases for operating plants, particu-larly Diablo Canyon, because of the presentation of new data and hypotheses. Moreover, there are no applications for construction of new nucicar plants scheduled for the next 3 years.

12. Publication for Statistical Use. N/A B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS' Appendix A allows for the acquisition of statistical data and the use of statistical methods, but does not require them.

Enclosure:

Summary of Supporting Statement (Table 1)

_5 SUPP STATEMENT PART 100, APP A

. TABLE 1 OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR APPENDIX A 10 CFR 100

1. ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT 16,666

2. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS ANNUALLY 3

3. ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS 50,000

4. ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL COST TO INDUSTRY $3,000,000 t

5. ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL STAFF HOURS 4,500

6. ESTIMATED NRC CONSULTANT HOURS 10,000

7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $ 870,000 (staff hours +

consultant hours x 60) 6 SUPP STATEMENT PART 100, APP A