ML23339A074

2023 Final OMB Collection Supporting Statement Part 63

ML23339A074
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/24/2024
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
References
OMB 3150-0199
Download: ML23339A074 (6)

Text

FINAL SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR PART 63 DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA (3150-0199)

EXTENSION

Description of Information Collection

Part 63 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) requires the State of Nevada, affected units of local government, or affected Indian Tribes o r their representatives to submit information describing the purpose and services needed associat ed with a (1) request for consultation with the NRC staff regarding the status of site ch aracterization and related NRC activities regarding the potential repository site (§63.62) or (2) facilitation of its participation in a license review for the potential repository (§63.63). The infor mation submitted is used by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguard s as a basis for decisions about the commitment of the NRC staff resources to the consultation and p articipation efforts. Part 63 does not require the State, local governments, and affected Indian T ribes to submit any request. This is strictly voluntary on their part, and only if they desire to do so would the information in question be required of them.

Additionally, any person representing the State, local governme nt, or affected Indian Tribe in submitting a request must also submit a statement of the basis of their authority to act in such representative capacity (§63.65). Such a statement is necessary to assure NRC that representatives for the State, local governments, and affected Indian Tribes have the authority to represent the State, local governments, or Indian Tribes in dea lings with the NRC.

A. Justification

1. Need for the Collection of Information

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and 10 CFR Part 63 contain detailed provisions for the participation of the State, affected units o f local government, and affected Indian Tribes in the process of site characterization and licensing activities of a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository. The NRC must follow many formal procedures and detailed schedules in meeting its responsibiliti es under the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 63 (See 10 CFR Part 2). 10 CFR Part 63 does not req uire the State, local governments, and affected Indian Tribes to submit any proposals. This is strictly voluntary on their part, and only if they desire to do so would the information in question be required of them. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Mate rials Safety and Safeguards must have complete information on State, local gover nment, and Indian Tribal plans for participation in order to accommodate State, l ocal government, and Tribal desires for participation while at the same time followi ng mandated procedures

1 and schedules. In addition, where State, local government, and affected Tribal proposals for participation involve requests for funding the justification for such requests must be documented in order to assure appropriate uses of NRC f unds.

Section 63.62 states that the Director shall make NRC staff ava ilable to consult with representatives of the State, affected units of local governmen t, and affected Indian Tribes regarding the status of site characterization and relate d NRC regulatory activities. Section 63.62 also states that requests for consult ation shall be made in writing to the Director. The State, local governments, and affe cted Tribes would be required to submit information about what services they need, a nd for what purpose the services are needed, only if they wish to obtain NRC consul tation services.

Making NRC staff available for consultation with representative s of the State, local governments, and affected Indian Tribes represents potentially a major commitment of NRC resources. The Director must have a firm basis for approvin g this commitment of resources. A written request for consultation is the minimum re quirement which could provide a firm basis for the commitment of NRC resources.

Section 63.63(b) states that the State, local government, or af fected Indian Tribe may submit to the Director a proposal to facilitate its participati on in the review of the license application.

The proposal shall contain a description and schedule of how th e State, local government, or affected Indian Tribe wishes to participate in t he review, or what services or activities the State, affected unit of local government, or affected Indian Tribe wishes NRC to carry out, and how the services or activities proposed t o be carried out by NRC would contribute to such participation.

Section 63.65 states that any person who acts under this subpar t (Subpart C) as a representative for the State (or for the Governor or legislatur e thereof), local government, or for an affected Indian Tribe shall include in th eir request or other submission, or at the request of the Commission, a statement of the basis of their authority to act in such representative capacity.

Such a statement is necessary to assure NRC that representative s for the State, local governments, and affected Indian Tribes have the authority to r epresent the State, local governments, or Indian Tribes in dealings with the NRC.

2. Agency Use and Practical Utility of Information

The information requested will be reported to the Director of t he Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, who has programmatic responsibi lity for NRC's high-level radioactive waste program. It will be used to provide opp ortunities for the State, local government, and affected Indian Tribes to participate in the site characterization and licensing activities of the high-level radioactive waste ge ologic repository. It will also help the Director determine, for example, whether activities pr oposed by the State, local government, or affected Indian Tribe would enhance communicatio ns, would contribute to the license review in a timely and productive manner and wou ld be authorized by law.

2

3. Reduction of Burden Through Information Technology

The NRC has issued Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC which provides direction for the electronic transmission and submittal of docu ments to the NRC.

Electronic transmission and submittal of documents can be accom plished via the following avenues: the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) pr ocess, which is available from the NRC's Electronic Submittals Web page, by Optical Sto rage Media (OSM) (e.g.

CD-ROM, DVD), or by e-mail. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the potential responses are filed electronically.

4. Effort to Identify Duplication and Use Similar Information

No sources of similar information are available. There is no duplication of requirements.

5. Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden

While some of the local and tribal governments that may respond to this information collection may be considered small entities, it is not possible to reduce the burden on these entities and still fulfil the requirements of the rule. T he NRC staff's established program to provide information exchange with States, affected u nits of local government, and affected Indian Tribes could provide them with assistance i n preparation of the requested information.

6. Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Col lection is Not Conducted or is Conducted Less Frequent Collection

If the collection is not conducted, the Director will not have information that will enable them to provide opportunities for the State, local government, and affected Indian Tribes to participate in the site characterization and licensin g activities of a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository. The information collecti on requirements only apply to a single submittal per respondent.

7. Circumstances Which Justify Variation From OMB Guidelines

There are no variations from OMB guidelines.

8. Consultations Outside NRC

Opportunity for public comment on the information collection re quirements for this clearance package was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2023 (88 FR 68159). NRC also contacted representatives of the Timbisha Shos one Tribe; The State of Nevadas Nuclear Waste Project Office; and Clark County Neva da. NRC did not receive any comments.

9. Payments or Gifts to Respondents

Not applicable.

3

10. Confidentiality of the Information

Confidential and proprietary information is protected in accord ance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR §2.390(b) and 10 CFR §9.17(a). However, no informatio n normally considered confidential or proprietary is requested.

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions

None.

12. Estimated Burden and Burden Hour Costs

Section Number of Frequency Annual Hours per Annual Public Cost Respondents of Response Responses Response Burden ($300/Hr)

63.62 12 onc e only 12 40 480 $144,000 (Requests for consultation with NRC staff)

63.63 12 onc e only 12 80 960 $288,000 (Requests for NRC facilitation of participation in a license review)

63.65 12 once only 12 1 12 $3,600 (Basis of authority to represent the State, local governments, or, affected Indian Tribes)

Totals 36 1,452 $435,600

The $300 hourly rate used in the burden estimates is based on t he Nuclear Regulatory Commissions fee for hourly rates as noted in 10 CFR 170.20 Av erage cost per professional staff-hour. For more information on the basis of this rate, see the Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2023 ( 88 FR 39120, June 15, 2023).

13. Estimate of Other Additional Costs

There are no additional costs.

14. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

Section 63.62 involves NRC staff review of requests for consult ation regarding the status of site characterization and certain regulatory activiti es. This should require no more than 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of staff time per response. At $300 per hour for staff time, this would be $12,000 per respondent. The total for 12 responses is $144,0 00.

4 Section 63.63 involves NRC staff review of proposals for partic ipation in license reviews. This should require no more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of staff tim e per response. At

$300 per hour, this would be $24,000 per respondent. The total for 12 responses is

$288,000.

Section 63.65 involves NRC staff review of the statement of rep resentation. This should require no more than one hour of staff time per response. At $300 per hour, this would be $300 per response. The total for 12 responses would be $3,600.

Total cost to the government is $435,600 (1,452 hours0.00523 days <br />0.126 hours <br />7.473545e-4 weeks <br />1.71986e-4 months <br /> x $300). Costs are not anticipated to be recurrent and thus cannot reasonably be annualized. These costs are fully recovered by NRC through appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund which was established by the Department of Energy pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

The staff has developed estimates of annualized costs to the Fe deral Government related to the conduct of this collection of information. These estimates are based on staff experience and subject matter expertise and include the b urden needed to review, analyze, and process the collected information and any relevant operational expenses.

15. Reasons for Change in Burden or Cost

There are no changes in the burden. The cost per hour increased slightly from $290 to $300 causing an increase in the cost. Additionally, the staff changed the total number of responses in the Table under Item 12 from 12 to 32. The increase from 12 to 36 total responses also did not result in any change to the burden. The previous value of 12 responses was based on the 12 respondents grouping the three requested responses into a single submittal containing all three responses rather than separate submittals for each of the three requests by the 12 respondents for a total of 36 responses. The burden for each requested response is unchanged whether it submitted separately or combined, thus, the overall burden is not changed by the revision to 36 total respondents. The total of 36 respondents is done to provide improved clarity for what is being requested - 12 respondents to 3 specific requests would result in 36 specific responses.

16. Publication for Statistical Use

N/A

17. Reason for Not Displaying Expiration Date

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for this informati on collection are associated with regulations and are not submitted on instrument s such as forms or surveys. For this reason, there are no data instruments on whic h to display an OMB expiration date. Further, amending the regulatory text of the C FR to display information that, in an annual publication, could become obsole te would be unduly burdensome and too difficult to keep current.

18. Exceptions to the Certification Statement

None

5 B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

Statistical methods are not used in this collection of information.

6