ML20203G181

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re Proposed rule,10CFR63,disposal of high-level Radioactive Wastes at Yucca Mountain,Nevada.Estimated Respondent Burden 1 Hour

ML20203G181
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/04/1999
From:	Shelton B NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20203G187	List: ML20203G181 ML20203G189
References
FRN-64FR8640 AG04-1-013, AG4-1-13, OMB, NUDOCS 9902190170
Download: ML20203G181 (8)

Text

s S

PAPERWORKREDUCTIONICT Pla:s2 r:ad tha instructions befora compl; tin SUBMi~ SIONjy]f gg , Pg

~

1. l gour cgincy's P;perwork Cl;rrence Offic;r.g this form. For tdditionil forms or tssistince in coriT6liting this forri( contIct SInd two copirs of this form, th3 collection instrum:nt to ba reviewid, ths supporting Stit3 ment, tnd any tddition 1 documintation to:

Managem2nt cnd Cudget Dock t Ubrary, Ro m 10102,72517th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.Offico of Inf:r

1. Agency /Sutagency onginating request 2, OMB control numtier U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3150-0

a. g b.None 1 Type of irformation collection (check one) 4. Type of review requested (Check one) g a. New collection y a. Regu!ar

- c. Delegated

b. Revision of a currently approved collection

- b. Emergency - Approval requested by (date):

c. Erzension of a currently approved collection 5. Will thip .aformation collection have a sign % ant economic impact on a a.Yes

d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved seistantial number of small entities?

collection for which approval has expired b.No

e. Reinstatement, with change of a previously approved collection for which approvat has, expired

6. Requested -

J a. Three years from approval date

f. Existing collection in use without an OMB control number expiration date b Other(Specify):

7. Tita Proposed Rule,10 CFR 63, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

8. Agency form number (s) (if applicable)

N/A

0. K;ywords N: clear Waste, Radioactive, Yucca Mountain

10. Abstract .-

10 CFR 63 requires the State of Nevada and Indian Tribes to submit certain information to the NRC if they request consultation with the NRC staff concerning the review of the potential repository site, or wish to pirticipate in a license application review.

11. Atf:cted public cuark onmary mm *P*aM an amers met apply mm *X*) 12. ODligation to respond (Mark pnmary wm *P* and a0 omers that at@y wm 'X*)

a. Individuals or households d. Farms T a. Voluntary

b. Business or other for-profit e. Federal Govemment b. Required to obtain or retain benefits

c. Not-for. profit institutions T f. Statt.r. Local or Tribal Govemment c. Mandatory

13. Annual reporting and recorckeeping hour burden 14. Annual reporting and recorokeeping cost burden (m mousands of actiers)

a. Number of respondents 2 a. Total annualized capital /startup costs 0

b. Total annual responses 2 b. Total annual costs (O&M)

1. Percentage of these responses c. Total annualized cost requested 0 collected electronically 0.0 % d. Current OMB inventory

c. Total annual hours requested 1 e Difference O

d. Current OMB inventory 0

o. Difference f. Explanation of difference I

f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change

1. Program change 1 2 Adjustment

2. Adjustment

15. Purpose of information collection 16. Frequency of recorokeeping or reporting (ChecA allthat apply)

(Mark pninary with *P' and all others that apply with T*)

a. Recordkeeping b, Third-party dnsclosure

a. Application for benefits

e. Program planning or management 7 c. Reponing

b. Program evaluation f. Research ~7 1. On occasion 2. Weekly 3. Montt)ty

c. General purpose statistics T g. Regulatory or compliance

4. Quarterly 5. Semi-annually 6. Annually

d. Audit 7. Biennially 8. Other (describe)

17. Statistncal methods 16. Agency contact (person who can best answer questions rv,7aramp the Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Name: Clark Prichard

]Yes No Phone: 301-415-6203 OMB 83-1 Tms form was oessned uses inrarms 10/95 9902190170 990204 PDR ORG EUSOMB PDR

- . - - - - ~ - - - - - -

.( ,-

'k OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR  !

PROPOSED 10 CFR PART 63 {

DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA NEW COLLECTION Descriotion of the Information Collection Part 63 requires the State of Nevada and Indian Tribes to submit certain information to the  !

NRC if they (1) request consultation with the NRC staff regarding review of the potential l repository site (63.62), or (2) wish to participate in a license review for the potential repository  !

(63.63). Any person representing the State or Indian Tribe must also submit a statement of the basis of his or her authority to act in such representative capacity (63.65).

A. Justification

1. Need for and Practical Utility of the Collection of Information The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) anc',10 CFR Part 63 contain detailed provisions for the participation of the State and Irv;ian Tribes in the process of siting and developing a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository. The NRC must follow many formal procedures and detailed schedules in nMeting its responsibilities under the NWPA and i 10 CFR Part 63.10 CFR Part 63 does not require the State and 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 Materials [', ,

Safety and Safeguards must have complete information on State and Indian Tribal Plans for I participation in order to accommodate State and Tribal desires for participation while at the i same time following mandated procedures and schedules. In addition, where State and Tribal proposals for participation involve requests for funding, the justification for such requests must )7j.

be documented in order to assure productive uses of NRC funds. \/

Section 63.62 states that the Director shall make NRC staff available to consult with j representatives of the State and affected Tribes regarding site review. Section 63.62 also states that requests for consultation shall be made in writing to the Director. Only if the State and Tribes wish to obtain these services would they be required to submit information about  ;

what services they need, and what purpose the services would be used for.

Making NRC staff available for consultation with representatives of the State and affected Indian Tribes represents potentially a major commitment of NRC resources. The Director must have a firm basis for approving this commitment of resources. A written request for l consultation is the minimum requirement which could provide a firm basis for the commitment l of NRC resources.

e && 1 w

10 M 7 h

y

.* a 2

Section 63.63 states that the State or affected Indian Tribe may submit to the Director a proposal to facilitate its participation in the review of a site characterization plan and/or license application.

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

Section 63.65 states that any person who acts under this subpart (Subpart C) as a representative for the State (or for the Governor or legislature thereof) or for an affected Indian Tribe shallinclude in his or her request or other submission, or at the request of the Commission, a statement of the basis of his or her authority to act in such representative capacity.

Such a statement is necessary to assure NRC of the status of representatives. NRC must provide the State and Indian Tribes numerous opportunities for participation in the site review and licensing procedures. It is a common practice for the State and Indian Tribes to be represented by legal counselin dealing with Federal agencies. NRC must be assured of the authority of persons it deals with to represent the State or Indian Tribes to avoid potential duplication and/or failure to transmit information to appropriate parties.

2. Agency Use of Information The information requested will be reported to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, who has programmatic responsibility for NRC's high-level radioactive waste program, it will be used by him to carry out requirements for the State and indian Tribes to participate in the siting and development of the high-level radioactive waste geologic repository. The Director has established a mechanism in the Division of High-Level Waste Management within his or her office to deal with State and Indian Tribe participation. Staff resources are available to assure that reported information is used in a timely and useful fashion. NRC usually sets a time limit for review and action on funding requests of 60 days.

3. Reduction of Burden Through Information Technology The NRC foresees no opportunity to reduce the burden of information submittal through use of information technology. Each submittal is unique, is made only once, and is unlikely to be developed from other compiled information sources.

4. Effort to identify Duolication and Use Similar Information The Information Requirements Control Automated System (IRCAS) was searched to determine duplication. None was found. No other sources of similar information are available.

l i

- 5. Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden No small businesses are affected by the information collection requirements, but some Indian Tribes might be considered small entities. The NRC staff's established program to provide information exchange with States and Tribes could provide such Tribes with assistance in preparation of the requested information.

6. Consecuences to Federal Proaram or Poliev Activities if the Collection is Not Conducted or is Conducted Less Freauent Collection if the collection is not conducted, the Director will not have information that will enable him or i her to provide opportunities for the State and Indian Tribes to participate in the siting and  ;

development of a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository. The information collection - l requirements only , apply to a single submittal.

)

7. Circumstances Which Justifv Variation From OMB Guidelines There are no variations from OMB guidelines.

8. Consultations Outside NRC ,

I An invitation to comment on the information collection requirements in 10 CFR Part 63 will i occur when published in the Federal Reaister.

9. Payments or Gifts to Resoondents l

Not applicable.

10. Confidentiality NRC provides no pledge of confidentiality for this collection of information.

11. Sensitive Questions j None.

j l 1 i

l

, . . - . . ~ - -- .-_ - . - - - - - . - -

i p-

12. Estimated Burden and Burden Hour Costs Number of Frequency of Annual Annual Public Cost Section Resoondents Resoonse Responses Hrs /Resoonse Burden ($121/Hr) 63.62 2 Once only 2 40 80 $9,680 63.63' 2 Once only 2 80 160 $19,360 i 63.65 2 Once only 2 2 $242 1

l Total 6- 242 $29,282 i 13. Estimate of Additional Costs l

l None. For licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 63, it is most likely that purchases of equipment i and services were made (1) prior to October 1,1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance l with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

14. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government Section 63.62 involves NRC staff review of requests for consultation. 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 $121 per hour for staff time, this would be

$4,840 per respondent. The total for two responses is $9,680.

Section 63.63 involves NRC staff review of proposals for participation in site review and licensing procedures. 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 time per response.  !

At $121 per hour, this would be $9,680 per respondent. The total for two responses is  !

$19,360.

Section 63.65 involves NRC staff review of the statement of representation. This should require no more than one hour of staff time per response. At $121 per hour, this would be

$121 per response. The total for two responses would be $242.

4

Total cost to the government is $29,282 (242 hours0.0028 days <br />0.0672 hours <br />4.001323e-4 weeks <br />9.2081e-5 months <br /> x $121/hr). Costs are not anticipated to l be recurrent and tnus cannot reasonably be annualized. Rather, all costs are likely to be

incurred within a year or two following characterization of a repository site or submittal of a license application. 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.

e

• s

15. Reasons for Chance in Burden Part 63 is new, no burden currently exists.

16. Publication for Statistical Use None.

17. Reason for Not Disotavina Exoiration Date The requirement is contained in a regulation. Amending the Code of Federal Regulations to display information that, in an annual publication, could become obsolete would be unduly ,

burdensome and too difficult to keep current. j

18. Exceotions to the Certification Statemenj l

There are no exceptions.

B. Collection of Information Emolovina Statistical Methods i

Statistical methods are not used in this collection of information.

l l

I

.,3-.-... -

. e. ;,

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer by (insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register): )

Erik Godwin Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-)

NEOB-10202 Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503 Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 415-7233.

I 1

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1998.

l For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. l i

Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer Office of the Chief Information Officer i

DOCUMENT NAME:

Ts receive e copy of th6e document. Indicate in the box: 'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure 'N' = No copy J

OFFICE RGS;l )NS: l RGB:IMNSf/,l N g OCIO % l i- NAME C/ripard PHolahan[7at' W BShe#7ti l DATE 107e/98 10/7/98 ._/ N 10/@/98 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY s

)

l

_ _