ML20214N261
| ML20214N261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1986 |
| From: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q655 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR46425, FRN-51FR24697, RULE-PR-40 AB56-1-42, NUDOCS 8609160208 | |
| Download: ML20214N261 (15) | |
Text
- . .
I e
n-M.GS-/
PART lli.-Cimpleta This Part Only if the Rsqu2st is frr Approvcl cf e Call:ctlIn
' of Information Under the Paperwork Reductlen Act arnd 5 CFR 1320.
(([ ,
- 13. Abstract-Descrioe needs. uses and affected pubtic in 50 words or less
" Nuclear waste management, Environmental monitoring, Groundwater monitoring" The proposed rule would add new requirements for' additional groundwater monitoring data for uranium recovery facilities, in order to conform to EPA regulations.
dW
- 14. Type of information collection (check only one) p_
information collections not containedin rules 2 O Emergency submission (certificationattached) 1 Regular submission Information collections contained in rules 7. Enter eate of e,pected or actuai rederai 6 rinaior ntenm finaiwitnout pnar NPRu 3 0 taisting reguiation (no change propos,d) Register publication at this stage of rulemakmg AO Regutarsubmission 4 @ Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM) (month, dJy. year):
s O Emergency submission (certs/ication attached) 5 rinal, NPRM was previously published
- 15. Type of review requested (check only one) 4 O Reinstatement of a ereviously approved coiiection for which app,avai 1 O N wcoriec >on has espired 2@ Revisionof acurrentfyapprovedcollection s O Esisting collectionin use without an oMB controlnumber 3 0 otension of the empiration date of a currentry approved coirection without any chance in the substance or in the method of colfection
- 22. Purpose of information collection (check as many as apply)
- 16. Agency report form number (s)(nnclude standard /cptoonalform number (s)) -
~
1 O Appiication for benerits N/A 2 O Program evaivation 3 0 ceneraipurpose statist >cs
- 27. Annual reporting or disclosure burden N 4 C Regulatory or compfiance 1 Number of respondents . .
5 D Program planning or rnanagement 2
2 Number of responses per respondent .....
50 6 0 Research 3 Tota l annua \ responses (line t tomes hne 2) 6.7 7 O Audit 4 Hours per response .
335 5 Totat hours (Lee 3 rimes line 41 23. f requency of recordkeeping or reporting (check all that apply)
- 18. Annualrecordkeepicgbutden 10 Recordkeeping 1 Numberof recordkeepers . ... .
Reporting 2 Annuat hours per recordkeeper. .....
.. 2 O onoccasion 3 Total recerdkeeping hours (hne 1 times hne 2) 4 Recordkeeping retention period years 3 0 weekiy .
4 O Montniy
- 19. Total annual burden 1?.an3 s O quarter \y 1 Requested (line 17 5 plus line 183) . ...
6 O Semi annually 2In current OM8 inventory ... ..
M nM
+ W 7 0 Annua lIy 3 0ilterence (tine !!ess line 2) ........ 8 O Siennia1\y Esplanation o! difference
+ 335 9 0 otner(describe):
4 Program change . .... .
5 Adi ustment . 24. Respondents' obligation to comply (check the strongestabhgation thata/*pV.
- 20. Current (most recent) oMB controi number or comment number 1 O veruntary 3150-0020
- 2 C Required to obtain or retain a benefit
- 21. Requested espiratien cate 3E Mandatory 3 years from date of acoroval O ves O u :
- 15. Are the respondents primarilyeducational agencies or institutions or is the pnmary purpose of the coite
- 26. Does the agency use samplieg to select respondents or does the agency. .recommend . . . or prescribe . . . the Nsuse ofNs by respondents? ,,.
- 27. Regulatory authority for the information collection : or.other(specity):
an M :or rR _
10 crR Paperwork Certification in subm.tting this recuest for oMB approvat, the agency head the senior official or an at.thorized repres Pnvacy Act. statistical standards or directives. and any other app 6 cable inf ormation pohey direct;ves cafe have been compfied w ~'
b $9Jture of pecgram offsC al 8609160208 860904 4
~ ' -
Cate
$ gnatu e ce agency reac.tne senior ott.c.m or an aancr :eo representative 1
Patricia G. Norry, Director .
Of fico nr neinig tyti ., f
- s. . .
i .
S""'"*83 -
Request for OMB Review
@e, Se:: ember 1953)
Irnpirtant R:ad 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 t.)(Iqu';st both an Eiecutne Orcer 12291 review and approval under paperwork-three copies of the supporting statement. to:
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Answer all cuest:ons in Part 1. If this request is for review under E.O. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs .
12291, complete Part 11 and sign the regulatory certification. If this Office of Management and Budget r:cuest is for approval under the Papemork Reduction Act and 5 CrR Attention: Docket Library. Room 320.
1320. skip Part II. comp;ete Part lil and sign the paperwork certification. Washington, DC 20503 PART l.-Complete This Part for All Requests.
1.Depirtment/ agency and Bs reaufotfece originating request 2. Agencycode U.S. !1uclear Regulatory Commission 3 1 5 0
- 2. Nam;of person wno can oest answer questions regaroing tnis request Telepnone numoer Kitty S. Dragonette ! ( 7n1 ) a97_M7nn
-4 Titinf information collection or ruiemalung 10 CFR Part 40, " Domestic Licensing of Source Naterial" k
~
- 5. Legal tuthority for snformation collection or rute (ct:e United States Coce. Puohc Law, or Esecutne Orcer) 42 Usc 2201(o) . or
- 6. Atfected pubhC(check aIIthJt apply) 5 Federalagencies or employees 3 Individuals or households 3 Farms 6 Non-profit institutions 2 O stateoriocaigovernments 4 D susmesses or other for. profit 7 o smari businesses or organeat,ons PARTll.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291
- 7. Cegulation identifier Number (RIN)
, _ _ _ _ _ _, or, None assigned
~
S. Type of suomussion (chess one un each categoryk s. Type of review requested Classificattorr Stage of development '.' 1 standard
'l O uajor 1 eroposed or draft 2 Pending
.2 Nunmajor 2 O rinaiorintenm finai.w tn enor proposai 3 Emergency 3 0 renai or intenm fmai. witnout enor prooosai 4 O statutory oraudiciaideaeiine
- 9. CFR section affected CFR
- 10. Does this regulation contam reporting or recordkeeping requirements that require oMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320? .. . . . . .... . . . ... . . . . . . . . Yes [] No
- 11. If a major rule es there a regulatory impact analysis attached? . . . .. . . .1 Yes 2 O Na if"Ns.** did OMB war,e the analysis? . . - -
3 O ves 4 D N.3 C:rtification for Regulatory Submissions lo submitting this request for CMB review, the authorized regulatory contact and the prograre official certify that the requirements of E.O.12291 and any apphc.3t ic pobey directrves have been comphed with. 3 signatur3 of program official Date k
~ ~
5'gnature of autnorged regulatory contact Date
- 12. (oaf 8 cse onty)
Peeve,s eo s.ons etto.ete g3 ggg standsed f orm a3 @ r. er NsN 7s4000 634 do34 Prew e s. .s t , es e 5 CFR 130G a-3 r 0 t tt .,
f . a
l
[7590-011 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Documents containing reporting or recordkeeping requirements: Office of Management and Budget review AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Notice of the Office of Management and Budget review of infomation collection.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recently submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
- 1. Type of submission, new, revision or extension: Revision.
- 2. The title of the infomation collection:
10 CFR Part 40, " Domestic Licensing of Source Material" and NRC Form 484, " Sample Format for Reporting Detection Monitoring Data"
- 3. The form number if applicable: HRC Fom 484
- 4. How of ten the collection is required: Semiannually
- 6. An estinate of the number of resoonses: 50
- 7. An estimate of the total number of hours needed to complete the requirement or request: 335
- 8. An indication of whether Section 3504 (h), Pub. L.96-511 applies:
Not applicable.
- 9. Abstract: Proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 40, as required by law, reouire additional monitoring data to be submitted. The submittal,
, using NRC Form 484, provides for more data on background ground water quality, ground water flow data, comprehensive statistical
' analytical methods, and possibly increased numbers of hazardous constituents sampled.
1
5 ;- 9 :s y c.U y .
Conies n# the submittal may he inspected or obtained Mr a fee from the NRC Public Document Poom,1717 H Street, H.U., "ashinoton, OC 20555.
Corrents and cuestions should be directed to the M'P revietter, Jefferson P.. 11111, (202) 395-7340.
The f:RC Clearance O'#icer is P. Stenhen Scott, (201) a9?-95M.
g.-
Dated at Pethesda, uaryland, this day of 1986.
For the Fuclear Reaulatory Comission Patricia G. t:orry, Director Office of Administration DISTRIBUTION NMSS r/f FCTA r/f WMLU r/f IRMB Off File IRMB r/f Phorry, ADM MSpringer, ADM JSniezek, DEDR0GR BPineles, ELD KDragonette, NMSS-WMLU MHaisfield, NMSS-WMLU RL0'Connell, NMSS d0D N.9.M..... N,M,S,S,$M,W,7/,f ,Jp!h,-pU,,,, ,,,,QD,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,DE,0,R 0hR . . . . . . . . ..ASM,,,,,,,,,,,,, .Ap3............
""'a2 = s ) R,L,Q,',, C9,ge,U,. ,[!!i,a,1,s,f,ig,1,d,, , ,,KQaspantte, ,0.8,iER).es. ..... . J Sa.iezak. . . .. . . MSpri.nger...... . Mo r r.y. ......
9..(.O.86. ,. ,,q ,eg,/.a.s. .... .3,&.?tas...., ..,,/,,,,f3,s,,,,, ,,z..,zas....., . . .. . /. , . . /.ef3. . , . , ..,.f...f,es.,..
w:c ro u aia no,soinacu o2d OFFICIAL RECORD COPY c u.s. apo m3-4oo.3
t' SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR RULEMAKING
" URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS: GROUND-WATER PROTECTION AND OTHER ISSUES" TO AMEND 10 CFR PART 40 DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F SOURCE MATERIAL AND NRC FORM 484, " SAMPLE FORMAT 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 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 drafc
~
proposed rule notice is enclosed. The proposed changes are intended to conform existing NRC regulations to the ground-water protection regulations published by the Environmental 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 responsibility, the October 7,1983 notice stated, "This rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to OM8 review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C. 3501, et seq." EPA also prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 520/1-83-010).-
4 The proposed changes require a change in focus for collection and reporting of ground-water monitoring data necessary to implement the EPA ground-water standards. The specific changes on monitoring data are in the proposed e
, , e-- , - - , - - ,, - -- c- er - , - m,--- -
n- - ,
r
. paragraph 7A of Criterion 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 is an existing recurring report). This existing requirement includes ground-water data. Since December 1983, monitoring programs at 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 Comission 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 45 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 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 j for highlighting the data up to the licensee, but this would have required more effort than simply completing a form designed for that purpose.
l l 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 have to
. apply for new disposal capacity to meet the new EPA standards should the market recover. However, the requirement to file is a result of the already imposed EPA standards and not the present NRC action.
To summarize, 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 mandate in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) and the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 to conform 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 conformed NRC rules require that NRC obtain and evaluate site specific data and information. Further, the EPA standards have 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.
I l
_4_
- 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 monitoring 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 us( 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 1.icensee 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 l for NRC enforcement.
l Submission of the licensee's proposed corrective action program for agency review will assure that the licensee does not implement an expensive or irreversible program that NRC would find unacceptable or ineffectual. It also enables NRC to assure that the standard's requirement for action'is being followed and thus enhance NRC's fulfillment of its responsibilities for enforcement of the standards as required by the AEA.
- e
,, -- ,7 . _ _ _
s . _ _ ,____.__m_ _
\ [
. I Currently, all licensing and inspection and enforcement actions involving NRC licensed uranium recovery activities are conducted by the Region IV Uranium .
Recovery Field Office (URf0) in Denver, Colorado. The Office of Nuc' lear Material Safety and Safeguards or another regional office might conduct thera activities for facilities in other states.
In summary, if the information is not generated and reported, as appropriate, the nation's ground water would not be as protected and NRC could not implement and enforce the standards as required by law.
- 3. Reduction of Burnen Through Information Technology. There are no legal obstacles to reducing the burden associated with this infqrmaticn 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 Duolication. The Federal Information Locatcr 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 tfie proposed changes. The changes do not include the requirement in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) for EPA concurrence in the site specific standards.
,- ~ -
. 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) implementing 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 comments 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 water. 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 rex 1mized use of existing wells and minimized the number of indicator p.7n neters to report. The proposed rule explicitly encourages use of smist'...; programs. The existing detection monitoring programs were assessed against seven (7) acceptance criteria 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
, 7 .,
considerations. Thus, the actual implementation steps also emphasized and used existing programs to the extent practicable.
4
- 6. Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden. Only 2 of the 27 NRC and 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 tJme 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.
4
- 7. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection. Licensees already sample wells quarterly and report the results every 6 months. Changes.to the scheme would be disruptive to existing procedures. The proposed rule is flexible on reporting frequency and can accomodate special licensee or NRC needs based on the severity of the situation or quality of data or other factors. It is also important to keep tile licensees' programs comparable to those that the EPA follows for its-permitees for similiar hazardous materials. The UMTRCA amendments to the Atomic En' e rgy' Act also require NRC to assure that byproduct materials are managed in a manner that conforms to general requirements established by the Comission, 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 Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as ,
amended. Reporting every six months is consistent with EPA Solid Waste requirements for routine monitoring. The EPA Solid Waste requirements cover a variety of activities and include reporting times as short as 7 days for I
i certaincircumstadces. Such short times are not needed as a requirement for mill tailings licensees and-have not been proposed in the rulemaking or included in implementing license conditions. The NRC may require one time I
collections within 30 days, but this would be rare. Reporting times are-procedural aspects left to NRC by the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192.. Finally, reporting times longer than 6 months could allow any problems to develop into . - -
very expensive situations to correct. Early detection can alert the licensee and NRC before large areas are contaminated.
8.
~
Circumstances Which Justify Variation from OMB Guidelines. There is no variation from 0MB guidelines.
4
- 9. Consultations Outside the NRC. As noted under Item 4 above, copies of the proposed rule will be sent to all affected NRC licensees. Any comments relating to information collection, recordkeeping, or reporting will be factored into the final rule. The enclosed form was part of the licensing
- action on detection monitoring which led to requests for hearings by 11 of 13 I 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 recordkeeping, reportings, or information burden No other persons were consulted.
i
- 10. Confidentiality of Information. Any information c.ollected is a part of the legal file for each licensee, which is available to the public. The Commission has rules in place in 10 CFR 2.790 for processing and protecting J
, - - - - - - -- , -.._n,. , ..._,--.-..-_-.-.,,,-,-m-,-,m...,n. -.-,.m_,...-.,,.-.-.-7.-,ve..-__-._w....,,._ , . , . . - , - .
, -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. TWe 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.
~
I
- 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 cortamination, 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).
i T
,-r---- .p ,- , , , , , , - - , , , , - - , , -,m- m- ,-n,~a.g-m-,.,-e-----e,w-m-~~- - - , , -----,-,,,rm, men,,-.--vw,,--w< ,,re-a,~,m--
. 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 form 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 Employing Statistical Methods. The collection of information does not employ statistical methods.
O 11 -
Enclosures:
- 1. Draft FRN for proposed rule
- 2. " Sample Format for Reporting Detection Monitoring Data" 9
e h
e