ML20129K434
| ML20129K434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1996 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Thompson A SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129K431 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-59FR36026, RULE-PRM-30-61 NUDOCS 9611250097 | |
| Download: ML20129K434 (5) | |
Text
-
/T l <Jg ' i.. // 2 ft bb kb
/,e ; f
_.,, +
E N..(t { t<. i a 4'. h
,d*
- k ii s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (/
/% f, gI p, C f,,,.' '.'
UNITED STATES 7
y
.6 7', ', g'
[b JI'.l T I' wAsHusefoN. D.C. m February 16, 1996 6'
MIW NIi"
,ff,4./Ecu.;, rock 1-l/""
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
fh..Ticg g, (f, q f7c 7-CT W Shaw. Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge x
2300 N Street. N.W.
(qh /// (
'} tt'd /W JI t It -
Washington, DC 20037-1128 7 77
- {;r-7;,,.g
SUBJECT:
TINELINESS IN DEC000HSSIONING RULE
" b.'1 /[g
//[2//t$c '[
~O W N ' Ill D '~
Dear Hr. Thompson:
Mtf 8,1l
/ 71. 't:: < m This letter is in response to your letter of August 25, 1995, to Steven F.
sf:f->py;4 Crockett of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of the General Counse.
Your letter, written in behalf of the National. Mining Association (NNA), set 4 jt /d /~//,
forth the NMA members' understanding of how NRC will apply the Timeliness in Decommissioning rule (59 Eg 36026, July 15,1994) to uranium mills. Based on 7[./ / M N ('
your letter, we believe there needs to be additional clarification of the NRC E'
M, d * (j staff's positions. Therefore, I have attempted to address the conclusions highlighted in your letter by clearly restating the NRC's positions. The. g f fff y g enclosure contains the clarifying information-T- (/)!t u/ W 7'r (O.'
r 4,g gr I hope you find that the information provided clarifie/b'hsikcN. ~ Bec#auY' the 24 month time period for submitting notification (o NRC as required by the rule, expires next August, it is important that licensees begin preparing their requests if they wish to remain in standby status and not begin decomissioning activities.
If you have any questions on the enclosure, please feel free to centact either me or Mike Fliegel of my staff.
I can be reached at (301) 415-7238 and Dr.
Fliegel can be reached at (301) 415-6629.
Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated 1
a
~
9611250097 961104 PDR PRM 30-61 PDR SC/5 3DVd 4.000CS9505*OI S110d NVW1.1. I d MVHS*HOM.3 6p5 E1 96-15-83.3
i i
l i
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Response j
to National Mining Association Comments on Decommissioning Timeliness Rule Comment _1 National Mining Association (ietA) Comment l
It is WiA's understanding that where specific license provisions regarding the completion of decommissioning activities exist, or are e
required in the future, these specific license timetables will be controlling rather than the general requirements of the timeliness rule.
Staff Response The staff agrees with this conclusion.
Comment 2 1914 Comment iiith respect to showing that continued standby status is "not detrimental to the environment" and is "otherwise in the public interest", NM4 assumes that, unless a licensee plainly has failed to fulfill its license requirements or has done so haphazardly (which would presumably result in a pending or contemplated enforcement action), this
~
determination would be a pro forma exercise since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must regulate end oversee licensees whether they are on standby or not, particularly if licensees are being charged for it. And, presumably, NRC would not have granted a license in the first place unless these requirements were going to be met. To the extent there are concerns raised by an extension, additional license conditions could address any such concerns and provide NRC with the necessary comfort level.
Staff Response The staff believes there are a number of clarifications that need to be made in response to this comment.
1.
The standard requires a detemination that continued standby status
"...is not detrimental to the public health and safety [ emphasis added]," not "the environment" as stated in the letA conclusion.
2.
The determination is not a pro forma exercise. The licensee must show that continued standby status will not be detrimental to public health and safety.
In a meeting held on January 10, 1995, and documented in the istC letter to James E. Gilchrist of the American Mining Congress dated February 2,1995, NRC stated that addressing this issue should be relatively simple and straightfo m rd. The licensee can reference the safety requirements already contained in its license and NRC inspections of its facility as the demonstration that it is maintaining an adequate level of protection of public health and safety. We stated that NRC envisions a relatively short statement from the licensee addressing this 1
SC/C SDVd t.9 00 C gg g g g. a t Sil.O d NVH111d MVHS*WOMd 09'El 96-16-834
j i
l 2
aspect of 5 40.42(e). However, as was stated by the staff during the January 10, 1995 meeting.the review would involve at a minimum an evaluation of the license to ensure that all necessary conditions were included and correct. The staff review was not characterized as a pro forma exercise.
i 3.
The determination that continued standby status "...is otherwise in the public interest" is separate from the public health and safety determination. NRC stated at the January 10, 1995, meeting that the licensee util have to discuss why its proposal to delay decommiissioning is in the public interest. IMUs conclusion that unless a licensee is not fulfilling its license requirements, the fact that it was originally granted a license resolves this issue, is clearly incorrect for the follouing reasons:
a.
Proper)y. fulfilling its license requirements is a necessary condition for being in the public interest but not necessarily a sufficient condition. It is not clear how the fact that a facility is complying with its license leads one to conclude that continual standby is in the public interest.
- b. \\hRC originally granted licenses, in most cases many years ago, to these facilities to produce uranium. The public interest now, or in the future, for uranium production may be different than when the original license was granted. Furthermore, the standby request is not to produce uranium but to await changes to market conditions that might (or might not) eventually lead to uranium production.
)
Therefore, a request for an exemption would have to show wh1 i
continuation in a standby status it.in the public interest. ]for more on the public interest showing, see the Staff Response to Cooment 3.
Comment 3 MA Comment With respect to the surety requirement, it is NMA's understanding that the amount of the surety would be based on the amount approved by MRC or, if there is no approved amount, on the.llcensee's estimate of costs for final site reclamation. If there is no approved amount or no estimate, then the amount of the surety required would be subject to discussions between NRC and the licensee.
Staff Response As stated by NRL at the January 10, 1995, meeting, the surety issue is tied to the determination,f whether continued standby status is in the public interest. All lict 1 sees are required by regulation to have in place, financial assurance based on an MRC-approved reclamation plan.
In many cases, the surety based on he approved plan will be the surety that satisfies the public interest. Ilostver, there have been situations in which it was SC/D 3DW
- 40o8C99505'Ol S110d NVH11td MVHS*HOMd 19'51 98-15-833
l.
l e
3 recognized that the approved reclamation plan needed upgrading.
In some of those situations it was also recognized that the cost to implement the revised reclamation plan, and thus the amount of surety needed, would be substantially greater than for the existing, approved plan. However, until the revised reclamation was formally approved by NRC and incorporated in the license, the surety was based on the old reclamation plan.
It can sometimes take several years of review, discussion, and revision to achieve a reclamation plan that is approved by NRC. Although the licensee would have a surety based on an NRC accepted value, the public interest may not be protected because the NRC accepted value m y not result in an adequate surety. Therefore, if a mill operator requests a delay in decosmissioning, under i 40.42(e), and there is a revision to the mill's reclaution plan under g igg,IEtC will not consider it to be in "he pub'ic interest to grant the I
de ay unless the lir7nsee's surety accounts for the reclamattoo plan under review.
Cosenent 4 IWlA Comment 191A assuaes that there is no limit on the number of extensions that a licensee can receive. If the requisite conditions have been met (adequate surety and not detrimental to the environment and otherwise in the public interest), a facility will, if necessary, be granted l
continued extensions. Indeed, given the unique nature of the uraniur-l industry's stand.by situation, licensees could request an exemption 'from the 24 month period f'7 a period of time ranging from 24 months to years. At the end of the agreed upon time, the licensee would havt the option of requesting another exemption / extension. NRC's processing of these requests would be pro forma, unless specific concerns ant identified by the licensee or raised by MRC.
l Staff Response Several aspects of this cosclusion repeat the misunderstandings of previous conclusions (i.e., the test is related to public health and safety, and the l
adequacy of surety is a componest of the test of being in the public interest) l and it again assumes a pre forza processing of request. Please see the clarification provided for those comments. The conclusion that there is no limit to the number of extensions that a licensee can receive, is correct.
Coenent 5 WIA Comment In the alternative, the appropriate timeframe could be established as a license condition which would be controlling over the general requirements of the timeliness rule.
3 SC/S 3DVd 4000CDS505'OI S110d NVH11td MVHS*WOMd IS*El 96-15-833
a l
4 Staff Response The staff does not view a license condition as an alternative approach. We expect that in any instance in which we grant an extension of the time a l
licensee can remain on standby, the extended time period would be established I
in the license. Since that extension would have been granted in conformance with 6 40.42(e), we do not see a conflict between the rule and the license condition.
1 l
I l
l l
6 l
sces 30Vd e.e m ecasce s. a s S110d NVH111d MVHS*HOtid ES*El 96-L5-83J