ML20236V659

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re 10CFR62 Concerning Criteria & Procedures for Granting Emergency Access to Non Federal & Regional Low Level Waste Disposal Facilities.Estimated Respondent Burden Is 227 H

ML20236V659
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/02/1987
From:	Mcdonald W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:
References
AC24-1-39, NUDOCS 8712040449
Download: ML20236V659 (9)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:._. g a ..e Dracm~ "- 1 smea."" 8 3 - h...m Request for OMB Reviqhfled by_ 1 f important - Rev mstr ct.om Wore comtg & De r ct use tr'e same SF $3 Send tnree copies of tnis form. the material to be reviewed. and fra to reNest botn an E>ecat:ve >:e IMM rev<ew and approval unde' nacerwork-three copies of the support.nc statement. to the Pape won Red;ction Ac Ansne a cuest. css n Pac : if t m ret;uw t f oe reuen under E o. Off;ce of information and Regulatory Affairs 1229 comp;ete Part li anc s r tne regalato*y ce tteaSon if th,s Office oi Managernent ana Budget request is for approva! under tre Paperwori. Reduction Act and 5 CFR . Attention Docket Library. Room 3201 1 1320. 54 Pad il compte:e Par m ano sign the paperwera certification wasnington, DC 20503 PART l.-Complete This Part for All Requests.

1. Department,ag.ency and Bureau / office ortnatirg request

2. Agency code U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 1 5 0

3. Name 0 person wno ca9 best answer Questions regarding tnis request Telephone number 4

Janet Lambert -( 301 )443-7783

4. Iltle of information Coliectior or tuiemaning k

10 CFR Part 62 - Criteria and Procedures for Granting Emergency Access to - Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities i D. Legar aatnonts 1or mTormation conection or rwe icite unitec States Coce. Pubhc Lan. or Executwe Orcer) i 42 use 2201(oj .or

6. Affected pubhc (checA att that apply) 5 C FedraiaEenc'es or employ es O inascas or rous no,cs 3 C Farms 6 0 Nor-profit ir:stitutions 2 O state or iocar govern + eats 4 FJ Bsessas or otherfortrof t 7 O smali busmesses or organaations PART ll.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291

7. Pegulat on ideMer Number (RIN)

_ _ _ _ ~~ _ _ _.,,_, o', Norte assigned [

5. Type of sJomoss<on (wece one w eacn categcq)

Type of revsew reevested Classifkation Stage of developmen 1 O standa'd 1 C Major i U Proposed or dratt 2 O Pendmg 2 O Ncnmag 2 O F,nas or intenm Imai, with prior proposal 3 Emergency 3 0 Finat or in+enm hnal, without pnor proposat 4 0 statutory or judicialdeadane

9. CFR section affected CFR

10. Does this regulation contam repomng or recordkeeping requirements that reaut'e OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320?

C Yes C No

11. If a major rule,is there a regatatory impact analysis attached?

I Yes 2 O No if"No " did oMB waive the analysis? 3 Yes 4 O No l I C ratification for Regulatory Submissions in subrn tting tnis request for OMB review, the authorged regulatory contact anc the program official certify that the requirements of E.o.12291 and any apphab!e pobey directives have been comphed with Signature of program official Date I I l Signature of authorced regulatory contact Date 8712040449hhh

12. (OMB use only)

PDR ORG PDR a j l Previous editions CDso6ete 83-108 Standasd f orm 83(Rev 9-83) q NSN 7540-o0 634 4034 Nscnbed by OMB 5 CF R 1320 and E 0.12291

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

13. ert-Deme neen uses and aHesed outw <n Anecs or im

" Nuclear Waste Disposal, Radioactive Wastes" .10 CFR Part 62 sets out the information to be provided to the NRC by any low-level radioactive waste. generator, or state, seeking emergency access to an operating low-level radioactive. waste - disposal facility pursuant to Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments A_ciof_198L la Type ct :r fC'mahom coheClion (check orW one) Information collections not contained m rules 1 O Regula submission 2 C Emergency suomissionnethcationstrached) Information collections containedin rules 3 C Existing regulation (no change proposed) 6 Final or interim final witnout pner NPRM 7 Enter date of expected or actual Federaf 4L Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM) A C Regutar submissier Register pubhcation at this stage of rulemaking 5 LJ Final. NPRM was previously published B C Emergency submission (certification attached) (montn. coy, year) Dec. 29. 1987 l 1

15. Type of review requested (check only one) 1 $ New cohection 4 C Reinstatement of a previously approved coflection for which approval 2 O Revision of a currently approved collection 3 O Extension of the expiration date of a currently approved collection 5 O Existing conection in use without an oMB controi number

-{ without any enange in the substance or in tre metnod of collection l

16. Agency report iorm nurrber(s)(include standardeoptional form number (s))

22. Purpose of information coUect!on (check as many as apply).

None 1 O Apphcaten f r benet:ts 2 O Program evaluation 1

17. Annual recomng or disclosure burden 3 C Generalpurposestatistics 1 Number of respondents.

1 4 3 Regulatory orcomphance l 2 Number of iesponses per respondent. O.33 5 C Program plannmgor management 3 Totai annJ responses (hne 1 times hne 2) (L 33 6 C Research 4 Hours per respense MO l 7 O Audit 5 Total %urs We 3 tres hne m 227 l

28. Annual recoromeeping Duraen l 23. Frequency of recordkeeping or reportmg (ChecA all that apply) 1 Number o' recordneepers I C Recordbeeping 2 Annual hours per recordreeper.

f Reporting I 2 O on occasion 3 Totai recordkeeping hours (hne l trmes irne 2/ i 4oecorakeeping retention penoo yea'F 3 C Weekly

19. Total annua! oeder.

l 4 C Monthl ') y I I s D Qaarterty 1 Requested (kne 17 5 plus hne 18-3) _0 6 0 semiannuany 2 in current OMB inventory i 1 l 7 C Annually 3 Difference (hne j less hne 2) bpisnation of difference l l 8 0 B>enniany 4 Program change 'N 9 @ other(describe): Orse time 5 Adjustment. I I

20. Current (most recent) OMB controi number or comment nurnber

24. Respondents obhgation te cornpfy(check the strongesf obhgation thstapphes) ne 1 C Voluntary

21. Requested expiration cate 2 [ Mandatory Required to obtain or retain a benefit 3 vears from acornval data 3 LJ

25. Are the respondents primanly educational agencies or institutions or is the primary purpose of the collection related to Federal education programs? O yes Q No j

26. Does the agency use samphng to select respondents or does the agency recommend or prescribe the use of sampling or statistical analysis

. O yes G No i by respondents. i

27. Regulatory authonty for the information collection 10 CFR Part O

oi FR

or,other(specify)

Papwwsrk Certification i in submitting this request for oMB approval, the agency head. the senior official or an authorized representative. certifies that the requirements of 5 CFR 1320, the Pnvacy Act, statistical standards or directives, and any other applicable information pokcy directives have been comphed with. signsture of program offacial Date A signature of agency head, the senior official or en authon2%tative Date William G. Mcdonald, Director f g Office' of Administration and Resources Manaaement / 4 CPo 1984 o 453-7'16 l 1 \\ -_-_____--_.___L

o e OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR i 10 CFR PART 62 Criteria and Procedures for Granting Emergency Access to Non Federal I and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities Description of the Information Collection ) 10 CFR Part 62 sets out the information that will have to be previded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by any low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generator, or State, seeking emergency access to an operating low-level 3 radioactive waste disposal facility pursuant to Section 6 of the Low-Level 1 Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (The Act). A. JUSTIFICATION l 1. Need for the Collection of Information The Act (PL 99-240, January 15,1986), directs the States to develop their own LLW disposal facility or to form Compacts and cooperate in the development of regional LLW disposal facilities, so that the new facilities will be in operation by January 1,1993. The Act establishes procedures and milestones for the selection and development of these disposal ] facilities. It also establishes a system of incentives for meeting j the milestones, and penalties for failing to meet them. As provided by the Act, if States or Compacts without a LLW disposal facility j fail to meet key milestones in the Act, the States or Compacts with 1 operating non-Federal or regional LLW disposal facilities are { authorized to demand additional fees for waste accepted for disposal 4 from the LLW generators in the delinquent State or Compact, and -) ultimately to deny them further access to their facilities, l Section 6 of the Act provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission i (NRC) can override denial of access decisions and grant generators " emergency access" to the operating non-Federal disposal facilities. l To receive emergency access, a State or generator must request it and successfully demonstrate to NRC that access to LLW disposal is i necessary in order to eliminate a serious and immediate threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, and that the threat cannot be mitigated by any alternative consistent with the public health and safety, including ceasing the activities that generate the waste. From the information provided by the requestor, NRC must be able to make both determinations prior to granting j emergency access. NRC is also directed to grant extensions of i emergency access and temporary emergency access under specified circumstances. The Act also provides that as part of the overall decision to grant emergency access, NRC is to designate the operating LLW disposal facility / facilities which will receive the waste requiring emergency The requestor must submit the information necessary for NRC access. to make sure that the LLW approved for emergency access disposal is

r-compatible in form, composition, waste package, radioactivity, etc. with the criteria established by the license or the licensing agreement of the facility designated to recieve the waste. The Act provides that any requests for emergency access should { contain all information and certifications the NRC may require to J make its determinations. { The Commission is publishing a proposed rule (new 10 CFR Part 62) establishing the criteria and procedures to be used for granting emergency acess to non-Federal and regional low-level waste disposal facilities. The proposed rule sets out the information and certifications to be provided in a request for emergency access in order for NRC to determine whether emergency access should be granted and which disposal facilities should receive the wastes. Section 62.11 specifies the number of copies that must be submitted with a request for emergency access. NRC is requiring that the original and 10 (ten) copies be submitted with the request. This 1 section also provides for publication in the Federal Register of a notice acknowledging receipt of a request for a determination and asking for public comment on the request to be submitted to the NRC l within 10 days of the date of notice. Section 62.11 also provides that a copy of that notice be transmitted to specific potentially affected parties. 10 CFR 62.12 specifies the information that must be provided to NRC in a request for emergency access. For each generator for which the request applies, general information identifying the generator of the LLW requiring emergency access, the activity responsible for generating the waste, a description of the waste including its composition, characteristics, volume, and packaging, is required. The NRC also is requiring that information concerning the circumstances which resulted in the need to request emergency access, and the impacts to the public health and safety or the common defense and security if emergency access is not granted, be provided in requests for emergency access. 10 CFR 62.13 specifies the information that must be provided to demonstrate that there are no mitigating alternatives. Information detailing the process used by the requestor to identify, consider, and reject alternatives to emergency access is required, as well as information concerning the actual alternatives themselves. 10 CFR 62.14 specifies the information that must be provided in a request for an extension of emergency access, including documentation that the generator of the LLW and the State in which the waste was generated have diligently acted to eliminate the need for emergency access (as is required by the Act). 10 CFR 62.15 specifies that the Commission may require additional information from the requestor on any portion of the request for i emergency access. Such additional information may be needed to l l 2

1 clarify the material provided in the original request or to rectify deficiencies in the information submitted so that NRC staff can make the necessary statutory findings. This section also specifies that NRC will deny a request for emergency access if the information it needs is not provided by the requestor within 10 days. l l 2. Agency Use of Information. The information required by NRC in the i proposed rule will be reviewed by the Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning and other NRC offices and will enable NRC to make the required statutory findings: that there is a serious and immediate threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, i

• that there are no mitigating alternatives available,
• that a grant of emergency access to an operating non-Federal l

or Regional LLW disposal facility is necessary, and which facility / facilities should receive the waste. In case of requests for an extension of emergency access, the information required will also enable the Commission to determine whether the person making the request has diligently pursued { alternatives to emergency access. l The Act directs the Commission to decide on requests for emergency access within 45 days of their receipt. It is important if NRC is to be able to respond within this timeframe that all information j necessary for making the required determinations be submitted as part of the initial request. l l 3. Reduction of Burden Through Information Technology. The proposed regulation does not preclude the t.se of improved technology in information collection and recordkeeping. The approach used for Part 62 was to specify what information must be provided to'NRC by the requestors but not to specify how the information must be maintained or presented. (For example, no application form is specified.) NRC anticipates that much of the information required by the rule would be collected and assembled as a part of the normal conduct of any 8 business resulting in the continuing generation of LLW. Any advanced technology employed by a generator to collect or manipulate such information could likely be applied to the Part 62 collection of information to reduce the associated burden. 4. Effort to Identify Duplication. The Federal Information Locator i System was searched to determine NRC and other Federal Agency j duplication. No duplication was found outside the NRC or with other NRC regulations. j l S. Effort to Use Similar Information. It is quite likely that a person requesting emergency access will have general regulatory / licensing documents relative to their activity on file with the NRC which could contain similar inforetion to that required by the rule. NRC l l s

considered whether such information could be used by NRC in reviewing emergency access requests. However, because emergency situations will be involved, because NRC will have only a very short time to take necessary action (45 days), and because of the waste specific and circumstance specific nature of the information required, NRC has concluded that it is not practical to attempt to search our files to assemble pertinent bits and pieces of information from widespread sources when responding to requests for emergency access. Thus the ususal practice of encouraging an applicant to incorporate information by reference is not suitable for emergency access requests. In establishing the information requirements for requests for extensions of emergency access, NRC has provided requestors with an opportunity to avoid some repetition in filing. Rather than requesting the submittal of all new information, Section 62.14 specifies that requests for extensions of emergency access should include updates of the information provided in the original request. 6. Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden. Since access to LLW disposal may be denied to any generator of LLW, the proposed rule could potentially affect both large and small generators. The generators of LLW are nuclear power plants, medical and academic facilities, radiopharmaceutical manufacturers, fuel fabrication facilities and covernment licensees. Of these categories, all but the power plants, fuel fabrication facilities, and government licensees could potentially include small entities. However, since the generator himself triggers the imposition of the requirements of the proposed rule by requesting emergency access from t.he NRC, since the information requirements are the same for both large and small entities, and since the total number of requests for emergency access is expected to be small, NRC does not believe it is possible to reduce the burden for small businesses either by less frequent, or less complete, recordkeeping procedures. The preamble for the proposed rule specifically requests public comment on ways to reduce the small business burden. 7. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection. NRC is not using Part 62 to impose a schedule for a periodic collection of information. The information requirements set out in the rule will only apply when a LLW generator requests emergency access from NRC. Tnus the frequency of collection will not be controlled by NRC, but will be dictated by the needs of the generators. 8. Circumstances Which Justify Variations from OMB Guidelines. The rule proposes two variations from the OMB guidelines. The first is that the number of copies required for submittal of a request to NRC exceeds the number allowed by the guidelines. The second is that the rule requires a person requesting emergency access to respond to requests for additional information in 10 days, which is less than the 30 days specified by the guidelines. The proposed rule requires that one original and 10 copies of a request for emergency access be submitted to NRC to allow the 4

1 Commission to complete the review mandated by Section 6(c)(1) of the Act in the short time provided. Requests for eme rgency access are 3 likely to contain considerable amounts of detailed technical 1 information. In order to make the various determinations required of NRC within the 45 days provided in the Act, it will be necessary for-several technical reviewers in LLWM to review requests concurrently with the reviewers in other NRC offices. The combi nation of the short review period, the many considerations involved in the 1 evaluation of a request, the necessary complexity of NRC's review and 1 decisionmaking process, and the need for concurrent review, dictate. the requirements for filing multiple copies by requestors. The following NRC staff and organizations would require copies of a I request: 1 The Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (NMSS) (total of 5) i ) LLWM Division Director 1 Project Manager Coordinating the Review 1 Each of three Branches in the Division 3 l The Office of General Counsel (total of 2) ) i Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel l Cycle 1 I Counsel for Hearings 1 ) i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1 Office of State, Local, and Indiart Tribe Programs 1 I NRC Regional Administrator l 1 Total 10 I As previously discussed, Section 62.15 of the proposed rule allows a person requesting emergency access only 10 days to provide th'e NRC with any additional information identified by NRC as necessary for its review. This period of time is significantly shorter than the 30 days normally required for such information collection under the OMB guidelines. However, given that the request will be for an emergency situation, that NRC will have only 45 days total to review requests for emergency access and arrive at its decisions, and given the complexity of the review and decisionmaking process, NRC staff'c oncluded that it would likely be impossible to accommodate a 30 day response time. As such, NRC staff decided that it would be necessary to reduce the response time for providing additional information to 10 days as proposed in the rule. 5 L

4 i 9. Consultations Outside of NRC. The collection of information was developed by NRC using the guidance provided in Section 6 of the Act i but without outside consultations.

10. Confidentiality of Information.

Information collected will be a i part of the legal file for each request and will be available to the public. The Commission has rules in place in 10 CFR 2.790 for processing and protecting information impacting the nattunal security. These rules would be applied to any information submitted to NRC by the requestor, by the Department of Defense (00D), or the Department of Energy (DOE) in support of a claim of a serious and I immediate threat to the common defense and security. Proprietary information will 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. Because Congress intended that requests for emergency access be made only { under rare and unusual circumstances, NRC may never receive a request { for emergency access. However, for the purposes of this clearance ( request, NRC estimates that we will receive one request every three Under this scenario, NRC has estimated the cost of responding years. to a single request for emergency access, and from that has estimated the annualized cost to the Federal Government associated with the j implementation of the information collection required by Part 62. The following discusses the costs to the Federal Government when only '1 NRC resources are involved (a request based on a threat to the public health and safety) and then discusses the costs where it will be necessary to involve other agencies (a request based on the threat to j the common defense and security). 'j a) Cost of responding to an individual request for emergency access submitted to NRC on the basis of threat to the public health and safety: l As provided by Section 6 of the Act, NRC will only have 45 days to respond to each request for emergency access. NRC estimates that there will be approximately 30 working days available to conduct the review (45 calendar days = approximately 6 and 1/2 weeks = approximately 30 working days). NRC estimates that it 1 l will take 6 NRC staff to analyze the information submitted in a request for emergency access for a total of 1440 hours per request. At an average cost of $60 per hour, the cost for NRC to review a request for emergency access is projected tc be $86,700. Thus, if one request is received every third year, the annualized cost to NRC will be approximately $29,000. b) Cost of responding to a request for emergency access based on a threat to the common defense and security: The cost to the Federal government for the review of requests for emergency access based on the threat to the common defense and security would likely be higher than the above. For such 6

\\ requests, NRC intends to involve the Department of Energy (DOE) and/or the Department of Defense (D00) in the decision. making process. The rule proposes that the person requesting emergency access would submit a statment of support from D00 and/or DOE, as appropriate, as part of the overall request package. The statement would certify that there would be serious implications for the common defense and security if the requestor was not provided disposal capacity for his LLW. This arrangement will not be formalized until after the public comment period for the rule so it is difficult to determine what resources would be required by the two agencies to complete a statment of support. NRC estimates that approximately five staff weeks would be required for each emergency access request processed by DOE or D00 at a cost of $12,000 (5 staff weeks = 200 hours x $60 per hour.) For each one submitted, NRC estimates that the total cost to the Federal government could be approximately $100,000. NRC cannot project how many requests for emergency access will require D00 and/or DOE involvement. However, if for the purposes of this analysis we assume that one out of every two requests would be based on the threat to the common defense and security, that would mean DOE and/or D0D would be involved in reviewing a request once every six years. The annualized cost to the Federal Government for reviewing requests based on the threat posed to the common defense and security would be about $31,000. 13. Estimate of Burden, a) As previously explained, NRC is not actually imposing an annual burden on generators of LLW as a direct' result of the proposed rule. Congress intended emergency access to be used only under rare and unususal circumstances. A generator will only have to develop the necessary information when submitting a request to NRC for emergency access. As a result, NRC expects that most LLW generators will not be burdened at all by the information collection proposed in Part 62. For those generators who must request emergency access, NRC estimates j it will take 5 professional staff approximately 3 weeks (for a total of 600 hours) to collect the information and perform the analyses necessary to support a request for emergency access. An additional 2 weeks of professional staff and clerical time (80 hours) will be required to process the paperwork necessary to complete a request for emergency access pursuant to the requirements set out in the proposed rule. Thus the total burden to submit a request would be 680 hours once every three years, or approximately 2N hours per year on an annualized basis. At $60 per hour, this would result in a cost of $14,220 per year. These numbers will vary depending on which kind of generators require emergency access and the circumstances involved. 7 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}