ML20150F934
| ML20150F934 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/17/1987 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F870 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-222 NUDOCS 8807190141 | |
| Download: ML20150F934 (2) | |
Text
3 N lIE fu
,t MEMORANDUM FO:i:
Hugh R. Thompson, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards FROM:
Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
DRAFT SECY PAPER IN REFERENCE TO URANIUM RECOVERY ISSUES We have reviewed the subject draft paper which your staff sent to the Uranium Recovery Field Office (URF0) for comment.
Region Its response will be in two coordinated parts, this memorandum and a separate remorandum from URF0.
We are generally conr.erned about holding out the standby trust approach as a solution to solve all problems. We do not agree that it is a viable alternative financial assurance mechanism, especially since it has not seen made a regulatory requirementI
.)
Our specific concerns about the efficacy of a standby trust approach are as follows:
1.
It is not clear to us how tne establishment of a standby trust avoids the i
requireeents of 31 U.S.C. 3302 pertaining to the deposit of public monies to the Treasury. Exercising control over the surety funds, by the very fact of giving directions to the surety on how such funds are to be transferred and used, may well be a sufficient enough nexus to bring Section 3302 into play.
In light of the recent controversy over the diversion of profits from the tran Arms sale, certain rough parallels can be made which should give the staff pause before it opts for such an alternative financial assurance mechanism. We suggest that the matter be clearly settled first.
2.
Assuming that it is determined that a standby trust is r.ot inconsistent with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3302, we believe the approach still has seriousdraAacks. For example, there is no certainty as to how the trust i
will work
$Nn NS V
W 3 n/87 cf /n /87(via 5520) p/87
/
5 800 In{0tmation in this rec 0f B
in a;terd3 C9 c !iCUS I
Act.O, boo--
F01A-8807190141 880630 PDR FOIA
/ /
BREt1BER88-222 PDR
e Memo to Hugh R. Thompson ae doubt if a bank would do it or ever. a state as suggested by the draf C. :~.Y paper.
It is our inforrred opinion that such a responsibility is the verf thing that the states would v: ant to avoid.
Also, if trust funds should prove insdequate for reclamation, tnere would be no clearly known ent'tf responsible for completion of the job creating a plausible, yet untenable situation.
We coat,inue to believe that a legislative remedy, pursued now before a problem exists, would be the preferab'e approach.
Such a leoislative remed provide authority for the Comrission or its designee (such as 00E) y should to hold forfeited surety funds in escrew and for the Comission or its desigt.ee to have f
authorization to use such funds for decomission, decontamination, and reclamation. We suggested such an approach a year ago. We fail to see how such a remedy would be a conflict of interest situation as the draf t SECY paper suggests.
We will be happy to work with SMSS in resolving this matter in the best manner l
possible.
i Ori(:n!T.mntby l'.aul S. Check Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
)
cc:
M. Knapp, NMSS bec:
P. Lohaus, NMSS M. Fliegel, NMSS R. Bangart, RIV [
R. Fonner, OGC
.