Final Supporting Statement- 10 CFR Part 60

FINAL SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR
10 CFR PART 60
DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES
(3150-0127)
REVISION
Description of the Information Collection
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations pertaining to the disposal of highlevel waste radioactive wastes in geologic repositories in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 60 require States and affected Indian Tribes to submit information to
the NRC if they: (1) request consultation with the NRC staff with respect to an area that has
been approved by the President for site characterization, as provided in §60.62, or (2) wish to
participate in license reviews, as provided in §60.63. Any person representing a State or
affected Indian Tribe must also submit a statement of the basis of his or her authority to act in
such representative capacity (§60.65).
All the reported burden hours and cost for the information collection requirements for disposal of
high-level radioactive wastes in a geologic repository over the past three years pertained to the
U.S. Department of Energy’s proposed high-level waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and
no other sites. Geologic disposal at Yucca Mountain is regulated under 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR
55792, November 2, 2001). All of the information collection requirements pertaining to Yucca
Mountain were included in 10 CFR Part 63 and were approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 3150-0199 (§63.8).
A. Justification
1.

Need for and Practical Utility of the Collection of Information
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended, and 10 CFR Part 60
contain detailed provisions for the participation of States and affected Indian 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 meeting its
responsibilities under the NWPA and Part 60, as described in its adjudicatory rules in
10 CFR Part 2. The information collections under Part 60 are voluntary. The
information is only required if a State or Tribe wants to participate in the process. The
Director of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards must have the
requested information on State and Indian Tribal plans for participation in order to
accommodate their participation while following mandated procedures and schedules.
Section 60.62 states that whenever an area has been approved by the President for site
characterization, and upon request of a State or an affected Indian Tribe, the Director of
the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) shall make NRC
staff available to consult with representatives of such States and Tribes. Section 60.62
also states that requests for consultation shall be made in writing to the Director. The
States and Tribes would be required to submit information about what services they
need, and for what purpose the services are needed, but only if they wish to obtain the
NRC consultation services.

Making the NRC staff available for consultation with representatives of States and
affected Indian Tribes represents a potentially major commitment of the NRC resources.
The Director must have a sufficient basis for approving this commitment of resources. A
written request for consultation is the minimum requirement, which could provide a
sufficient basis for the commitment of NRC resources.
Section 60.63 states that whenever an area has been approved by the President for site
characterization, a State or an 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, or what services or
activities the State or affected Indian Tribe wishes the NRC to carry out, and how the
services or activities proposed to be carried out by the NRC would contribute to such
participation.
The Director of NMSS shall arrange for a meeting between the representatives of the
State or affected Indian Tribe and the NRC staff to discuss any proposal submitted
under paragraph (b) of this section, with a view to identifying any modifications that may
contribute to the effective participation by such State or Tribe.
Subject to the availability of funds, the Director shall approve all or any part of a
proposal, as it may be modified through the meeting described above, if it is determined
that the proposed activities: (1) are suitable in light of the type and magnitude of impacts,
which the State or affected Indian Tribe may bear and (2) will enhance communications
between the NRC and the State or affected Indian Tribe, make a productive and timely
contribution to the license review; and are authorized by law. The Director will advise
the State or affected Indian Tribe whether its proposal has been accepted or denied, and
if all or any part of proposal is denied, the Director shall state the reason for the denial.
Section 60.65 states that any person who acts under this subpart (Subpart C) as a
representative for a State (or for the Governor or legislature thereof) or for an affected
Indian Tribe shall include in his request or other submission, or at the request of the
Commission, a statement of the basis of his authority to act in such representative
capacity.
Such a statement is necessary to assure the NRC that representatives for the States
and affected Indian Tribes have the authority to represent the States or Indian Tribes in
dealings with the NRC.
2.

Agency Use of Information
The information requested will be reported to the Director of NMSS, who has
programmatic responsibility for the NRC’s high-level radioactive waste program. It will
be used by the Director to implement requirements for States and Indian Tribes to
participate in the siting and development of high-level radioactive waste geologic
repositories. It will also help the Director determine, for example, whether activities
proposed by the State or affected Indian Tribe would enhance communications, would
contribute to the license review in a timely and productive manner and would be
authorized by law. The Director has established a process for State, local government,
and affected Indian Tribe participation. Staff resources are available to assure that
reported information is used in a timely and useful fashion.
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 documents to the NRC.
Electronic transmission and submittal of documents can be accomplished via the
following avenues: the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) process, which is available
from the NRC's “Electronic Submittals” Web page, by Optical Storage Media (OSM) (e.g.
CD-ROM, DVD), by facsimile or by e-mail. It is estimated that approximately 80% of the
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
No small businesses are affected by the information collection requirements, but some
Indian Tribes could be considered small entities. The NRC staff’s established program
to provide information exchange with States and Tribes would provide such Tribes with
assistance in preparation of the requested information.

6.

Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection is Not Conducted
or is Conducted Less Frequently
If the collection is not conducted, the NRC will not have information that will enable the
Director to carry out requirements for States and affected Indian Tribes to participate in
the siting and development of high-level radioactive waste geologic repositories.

7.

Circumstances Which Justify Variations from OMB Guidelines
There are no variations from OMB guidelines.

8.

Consultations outside NRC
Opportunity for public comment on the information collection requirements for this
clearance package was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2019 (84 FR
821). The NRC received no public comments in response to the Federal Register
Notice. The NRC was unable to seek comment outside of the Federal Register notice
for the following reasons: (a) the current national policy, consistent with statute, is
geological disposal of high-level waste in a potential repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada: (b) 10 CFR Part 60, the subject of regulation for this information collection
notice, is not applicable to a potential repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; (c) NRC is
not aware of sites being considered or identified for geological disposal of high-level
waste in the United States other than Yucca Mountain; and (d) NRC, as an independent
regulatory agency, is not involved with potential repository site selection.

9.

Payment or Gift to Respondents
Not applicable.

`
3

10. Confidentiality of Information
Confidential and proprietary information is protected in accordance with NRC regulations
at 10 CFR 9.17(a) and 10 CFR 2.390(b). However, no information considered
confidential or proprietary is requested.
11. Justification for Sensitive Questions
None.
12. Estimated Burden and Burden Hour Cost
The $275 hourly rate used in the burden estimates is based on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s fee for hourly rates as noted in 10 CFR 170.20 “Average 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 2018 (83 FR 29622, June 25, 2018).
The likelihood that a licensing action pertaining to high-level radioactive waste repository
sites under 10 CFR Part 60 during the next three years is low. However, if the one
estimated request was submitted, the total anticipated burden and costs to one
respondent is estimated at 121 hours, or $33,275 (121 x $275 per hour). Burden and
costs are broken out as follows:

Section

No. of
Respondents

Frequency of
Responses

Annual
Responses

Burden Per
Response

Annual
Burden

Annual
Cost $275

60.62

6

Once only

6

40

240

$ 66,000

60.63

6

Once only

6

80

480

$ 132,000

60.65

6

Once only

6

1

6

$ 1,650

6

121

726

$ 199,650

Total

13. Estimate of Other Additional Costs
There are no additional costs.
14. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government
The staff has developed estimates of annualized costs to the Federal Government
related to the conduct of this collection of information. These estimates are based on
staff experience and subject matter expertise and include the burden needed to review,
analyze, and process the collected information and any relevant operational expenses.
Currently, the likelihood that a licensing action pertaining to high-level radioactive waste
repository sites under 10 CFR Part 60 during the next three years is low. However, if
requests were submitted, the following costs are anticipated:

4

Section 60.62 involves NRC staff review of requests for consultation. This should
require no more than 40 hours of staff time per response. At $275 per hour for staff
time, this would be $11,000 per respondent. The total for six responses is $66,000.
Section 60.63 involves NRC staff review of proposals for participation in site review and
licensing procedures. This should require no more than 80 hours of staff time per
response. At $275 per hour, this would be $22,000 per respondent. The total for six
responses is $132,000.
Section 60.65 involves NRC staff review of the statement of representation. This should
require no more than one hour of staff time per response. At $275 per hour, this would
be $275 per response. The total for six responses is $1,650.
Total cost to the government is $199,650 (726 hours x $275 per hour). Costs are not
anticipated to be recurrent and thus cannot reasonably be annualized. Rather, all costs
are likely to be incurred within a year or two following selection of a repository site or
submittal of a license application. These costs are fully recovered by the NRC through
appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Department of Energy
pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
15. Reasons for Change in Burden or Cost
The number of respondents was increased from one to six to be generally more
consistent with the number of respondents anticipated for a similar licensing action
associated with 10 CFR Part 63. However, there is no current licensing action under
10 CFR Part 60 and the likelihood of any licensing action in the next three years is low.
Additionally, the hourly fee rate has changed since the last clearance from $279 to $275.
Thus, the overall cost has changed from $33,759 to $199,650 primarily due to the
increase in respondents and the associated increase in the total hours of burden from
121 to 726 hours.
16. Publication for Statistical Use
None.
17. Reason for Not Displaying the Expiration 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.
18. Exceptions to the Certification Statement
There are no exceptions.
B.

Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods
Statistical methods are not used in this collection of information.

5