ML20154E110

Forwards Two Recommendations for Legislation Re Confiscation of Byproduct Matl & Retention & Use of Surety Funds,Per 880112 Memo.W/O Encls

ML20154E110
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/04/1988
From:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20154E109	List: ML20154E103 ML20154E110
References
FOIA-88-222, FOIA-88-A-38 NUDOCS 8809160217
Download: ML20154E110 (2)

Text

s pg. g y I

MEMORANDUM FOR:

T. A. Rehm Assistant f or Operations, OEDO FROM:

Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Pursuant to your same subject memorandum of January 12, 1988, we have attached

]

two recomendations for legislation. One recomendation, partaining to the confiscation of byproduct material, is a ntw recomendation. The other, pertaining to the retention and uce of surety funds, is a resubmittal of a recommendation made by Region IV in 1986 which we continue to believe is worthwhile. The latter recomendation is being made pursuant to your l

encouragement to resubmit items which we still deem to be worthwhile.

04lGINAC SCMD st WRI D, MARTM Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator Atta ch.nents :

1 As stated I

j cc:

H. L. Thompson, NMSs l

1 I

t l

i A188-020 8809160217 000031

[

PDR FOIA 1

i DREMBEB8-A-38 PDR

{

RIV:RC[

/0RSS 0/0RP JL il,M RA qWlTgrTd: cms LBangart JLCallan can RD rtin

/

8 u /es 7 /ss y ess ypes

. v.:

~,...

.)

,E 5 'o(k i, *]

5 Y f^

l U$ 4 0 s.

{0:<E

?<~.'

y

- - = r w m * = %-

4 s c1 asua.,.

s

.r J

$a

.. 1 1 p.s 6f. f...

.- 4, q,?. *..7

q.*..s.p, p.,q p ($ 3 rey.

.. 4g 1

l 4-)

..v '.

n'

.y er e e d io 0 d i"..,n

".Y j

. }.

4.

n s,, g., c. x, " ' '. '......t.,.

P u20 e

.. % e..;.,% k n.(. ;, 4-

... ~ %

2

,..,...... v.w. ;... ^

pC...F

.c:

e e

... n.v,

&. h l

• ll

h. -

f

. s'

,s..

, ) [h *,, ~

f E.

,~

- f g.

,h

' [ >P.

f,(',g

. k.

P

(

.P.

o

4. l.

7 4>

-.$.mo 4 :

u.,

M o p.

M } g,j,. _

c-

.;f

.b..y s;g

~. s. ;.' n

• ,...L..

.,..f y e,1 4

.. y....p.n*'

a.s p,.

~

_ fr.

_,;. g,.

e S.

g a

u.

=...

ge p

t w

1.

. A * >..,

. g, a%l s..

W,. y,.v.g j'9st'hg[+:k'. 9 3' L

.y A.

... g.

MR;;. g? '

G n

.I, # 1 -,

4 .,; '

.t." i. n.'.' ' ::. 4 j,.

r; L '.

~C

. ~. U +.

a *4 g... i.' E ' C,' US 5 '

• N ' '.k -

L.-.

.. r-

.e. ' '

A,-

3

';.?

n

~ '. '~ d

,e

y. a '.., i (4.,w.,'..* TS :.b

i.'.',.'"a.i.'

4 1

g

'o

n..

t.

L

..a

~_.g.

p..;

\\

y

. &V. f L i

', : x gs n-

. i. n.M.Fjk..,>..

.T,hi,. N i

~. ;: y at,y., ";:Nif W,f..

& &k '

i "

I f

./

w

'1

. 9 &'j..._ A

• y. '-'

g

n..

b

.E n

r, Ag w

.g r.c.

w.,,

. T... J.q., Q.

T d>;pt

.,.39..;. 6.,y i

7 g.s,.. ~ -1g-i..

.a

. n.

u r

4

n 4

=

,5 4'

- '[.

9.g.,,

.n..

3 jg,.h., 'u.

,,(

,,..,,.,..j',.

y L

,'.[

.,9..,, u.. $,. : $

e.g,.

a

. u....

7

. c..

}., &...:3, y

.t 9

a.

y

- s.

, j IL j f 5. i..; 6> %. ~'

3 e *,,.

.,y i

. Ql,

~

li.,

.h y ! n.v.,...g.. /..mf, $ l._Q.

g 7

4..a.:,,. y s

y n

1.

J,, y s.

p $,s.}..,, c v..

~^

i

.. 4,, g. ? - p.)..;

of.

..,.y[yf,

1 s

-lQ Q' ;f. a

.c.

. /. '.

k].,

4.h< r...' g g

L. *^s

.y^

e 4.:

...._ y

4. 7 -p,, <, d' (

4

p.... ].,). <

g 4

. < tt L

- j j

f mm...

4

. a.f.'i

[.;

sg Q.g.

. :yi 9 ;4r.";'

1, h.

c?

a..... '.e

u.

.c..

s ' _. -

..Q.

[

' i k) c 3,

t j

.%^ ! y e 9

. g7.,,.,.

.i;.'.7. 9e; y..

..... % 's >

_hb@L[.:.j,f).{,'.,\\[kM,2

]',fE.

. i f.J. E.If.h j

' ' q:.

.. y2.? -

..L.;. a,... ; *.%. ;

D Y.S. z a w n

n.,.mv..%wm mtt..s a, w m m... %,u.

.-mm.9

.n a

4,h '

r...

• l

",i

- ;. 7

. r.s g'gg.W U. ,

v. !.-

s

,.[3.yY d'.4.y *p.dh2 5 ' 1 j[,tii g:p. s A...

,.4 7.%,..

' t'

$. ' ' d - N t

r ~),;, y

,, -gf

. l'"

Gj:,..., 4.y

f..

g. t.

r. s w 3

k.

j(:....'

P e

p w..,

a u

a.

.. a

. : :.a. m.. -

m u.

/

ii 3

b?,

1 September 15, 1987 Note to Dick Bangart Bill 3rown Attached is a desft staff paper that we received yesterday for coment.

Also attached are our cements on the paper.

Since the issues being addressed by the paper were raised in Mr. Martin's letter to NHSS, I wanted you to have the opportunity to review the draft and offer any further coments that you think appropriate.

You can either send l

cenents to us and we will forward them or you can send ther directly to i

Paul t.oh6us or Mike Fliegel in hMSS.

Dale 1

I 1

1 l

In pedw&

49'

Z 2

Septerber 15, 1987 URF0 COMMENTS ON THE 9/14/87 ORAFT COMMISSION PAPER "URANillM REC 0VERY !SSUES" General i

This draf t paper suffers from a suparficial effort to dispose of a comitrent rade to the Comission to submit a paper, The issues are raised and dismissed with a wave of the hand.

The result is to give the Comission a warm feeling that all is well.

As the organization responsible for raising these questions, we feel that we have heer. given short shrif t 'uy this treatrent.

From the specific ccerents below, you will see that we feel that there are indeed issues to be addresse If the problers of resources and schedules have prevented you frem dealing with these questions in a rore corprehensive way, then why not The cemitrent you made in SECY 87-158 was to "address these and say so.

other ancillary issues in a forthecming Comission paper..."

In this paper, "addressing" the issues could rean setting a schecule for future evaluation, or it could mean stating why setting a senedule is not feasible, considering avai)able resources and other comitrents i

in the ir erest of meeting your schedule, we are sending URF0 coments directly to you.

In addition, we are sending your draft paper 'and tur coments to Region IV for their review and possible corrents.

Let's talk about this.

I i

.a 3

1.

This response fails to recognize several realities:

There is no p*ovision in our regulations to require the establishrent of a standby trust.

There are unresolved questions 45 to the legality of standby trusts.

Our regulations identify the fGC as beneficiary of surety forfeiture.-the possible ccnfilet of interest envisioned in the restense already exists.

Assumptions regarding the willingness (or legal authority) of a State to take over a reclaration effort may be in error.

The only I

St6te with which we share surety responsibilities (Wyoming) is preparing to implement rew laws which could rerove them frer any involvennt with uranium mill tailings oversight.

The response seers to ignore the ccwents rade by URF0 and Region IV on I

the several past occasions when the idea of a standby trust was presented.

While a standby trust ray be a Scod way to deal with the problem of receiving and disbursing funds from a forfeited surety, such a scheee i

}

will require substantial staf f ef fort to develop and irplerent. Starting with rulecaking to give the staff the regulatory basis for requiring the establishrent of such trusts.

It is not fair to the Comission to toply that such a solutten is in hand ard that the problem has been solved I

t I

informatien in this recctd w:s deleted in accordance edth the freedom ct informati i

.ut, te;"9 M[O W F0iA.D-E l

.- _... _ - =_.

l -

4

. i

- i 4

!I 4

j l

4 i

l

]

I J

i i

i r

a 3

r

)

L

,l l

4 ll 5

1 l

j l

1 l

4 1

t i

i t

i J

l

.i

}

a 1

4 Information in this record was delelt'd in accordance with t'e Fredom of Int:rmatia A:t, : : ;:. ; Ma% 'N h

' <gwf F01A N' D i

)

i I

l f

4 i

t I

I I

j t

4 1

3 y

4 I

i i

f I,

l l

t j

i l

d 4

}

}

4 s-~,-w-m---

e-ar,-,

,mnew,-~rre n e m rw a--

-- e w v.

m-, mem msw r e m w, w, v ~em-~e, wmwe*-w-sww--

i 5

f

'Efor.mtion in this record was da'cted ir::cc :daacs with tit F.redom o..mormatip N ftgw t.ct. er...,.....; f Vn de & N m n r--

F0: A ? ~>

a 3.

The staff conclusien t, hat no changes in current NRC policies and regulations with respect to sureties are warranted could stand more substantiation.

To say that the state of the industry is not our problem and that it is tco bad that sore corpanies ray have trouble reeting our requinerents is hardly the argument for no change to our rules or i

policies.

The points enurerated above under coment 1 are examples of possible changes in legisittiia, regulations, or policies that are in reed of consideration.

Perhaps scre rention should be given to the ongoing technical assistance contract, (tykoski's) that is studying the whole question of financial sureties, in view of our experience (and core significantly, other Federal agencies') with bonding ccepary failure, should our regulations encourage this form of surety?

l 4.

While we obviously support the setting asWe of the parent corpany guarantee policy set forth in Decerber 1985, we were not aware that such action had cccurred,

}

1 l

3

',. J SEP l 71987

[.s.v., :,

F-MEPORANDUM FOR: Hugh R. Thompson, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards FRCM:

Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator SUEJECT:

ORAFT SECY PAPER IN REFERENCE TO URAN!UM RECOVERY !$5UES We have reviewed the subject draf t paper which your staff sent to the Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) for comment.

Region IVs response will be in two coordinated parts, this memorandum and a separate memorandum from URFO.

We are generally concerned 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 rade a regulatory requirementf, mechanism, especially since it has not been J

I l

Our specific concerns about the efficacy of a standby trust approach are as follows:

4 1.

It is not clear to us now the establishment of a standby trust avoids the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3302 pertaining to the deposit of public monies to the Treasury, inercising 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 s

diversion ?f profits from the tran Arms sale, certain rough parallels can be made which should give the staff pause before it opts for such an i

alternative financial assurance mechanism. We suggest that the matter be clearly settled first.

2.

Assuming that it is determined that a standby trust is not inconsistent with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3302, we believe the approach still has seriousdraAacks. For exarple, there is no certainty as to how the trust will work j

RIV:RC h 0:VRF0 e

i W1. Brown /:jg DSmith V

.C 3 11/F/

f//1/87(via5520)

}/87

/

l Wrrentien in this reeerd was deleted 7-in a:cerdarte wa e Freedom o, ei:rma on

t, txt.- !di 1

F04-

}Tf'O Y l

\\

ij

Me o to Hugh R. Thompson 2

)Wedoubtifabankwoulddoitorevenastateas suggested by the drafr YECY paper, it is our informed opinion that such a responsibility is the very thing that the states would want to avoid.

Also, if trust funds should prove inadequate for reclamation, there would be no clearly known entity responsi' ale for completion of the job creating a plausible, yet untenable situation.

We continue to believe that a legislative remedy, pursued now before a problem exists, would be the preferable approach. Such a legislative remed provide authority for the Consnission or its designee (such as 00E) y should to hold forfeited surety funds in escrew and for the Connission or its designee to have 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 NM55 in resolving this matter in *,he best manner possible.

oric.-M.*::w'\\ b1 19 ut 8 Ctiu k Robert D. Martin RegicN 1 Administrator Cc:

M. Knapp, NMSS bec:

P. Lohaus, NMS$

M. Fliegel, hM55 R. Fenr.er, OGC /

R. Bangart, RIV

e

"&.d.,2

'/

UNITSD STAf ts

,d h NVCLE AR REGULATORY COMMi&SION utmotow.o c.:::::

2,

/

/

1 SEP 131965 i

j pFycRA W M FOR:

John G. Cav's, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safe;uards FRCH:

Guy H. Cunnirgham, !!1 Executhe Legal Director i

ggjECT:

USE OF PARENT-CCMPANY GUARANTEE N!R 10 CFR MRT 40, APPENDIX A, CRITER!ON 9 in your re orandum of July 30. 1985, you requested a leaal opinion en the use j

of a :arent. company guarantee, with acceptable financiaI test, as a rieans of providing financial assurance for a mill operator's respcesibility for deccata'nination, decomisticning, and reclamation of tne stil and lite under 10 CFR Part at, Appendix A, Criterion 9.

Specifically, you asked whether the staff ray, for reasons of policy, pemit the use of a parent-company guaren' ee t

based on a financial test wMie prohibiting a licenset from demnstrating firancial assurance directly by Jeans of the same financial test. You stated that, in your judgment, a third party should participate in any financial arrang; tant considered satisf actory for tM purposes of Criterion 9.

In support of this position, the draf t guidance doe, rent acceepanying your re crandum cited the need for sdattional financial backing teyond the licensei's assets, the depressed State of the uranium industry, and the i

inherent difficulty in alligning value to the assets of a sining cperatico.

Finally, you asked whether a rule changa would be needed in the event that you deemd it necessary *4 make this re4utrement a Ntter of colpatibility fe" Agree?4nt $tates.

We bave concluded that there is legaTYupperi, for the approach you.have cuttined. We have identifted two possible constructions of Criterion 9 trat i

=culd provide a basis for ycur proposal. The answer to the question whether a rule change would be needed to make the requiregnt a Ntter of c:rpatMtility 1s dependent t,n the rationale that is used.

Section 703 of the Uranium Mill Tatlings and Radiation Control Act of'1978 (UMTRCA), which added section 161 x. to the Attsic Energy Act, gives the Comission breed discretion to establish financial surety requirements for d1 contamination, decomissioning, and reclamation of mill sites. It provides, in pertinent 54rt, th;t the Comission may establish such standards and instructions'as the Comissicn may det r.ecessary or destratie to ensure -

(?.) that an adequate bond, surety or other final arrangeeent (as ditemined of tre Comission) will be trovided, before j

timination of any licenst for typrcduct raterial as defited in j

f O

SEP 13 1585.

sectio.11 e. (2), by a licensee to permit the corpletion of all requirements established by the Comission for the decontamination, decomissioning. and reclaration of sites, structures, and ecuipeedt used in conjunction with byproduct material as 50 defintd....

Pursuant to this suthority. the Comission promulgated 10 CFR Part 40 J

Appendix A. Criterion 9.

That criterion requires mill operators to establish financial strety arrangteents 'tb assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the decontar.ination and ce:omis.ioning of the mill and site and for the reclaration of any tailings or waste dispcsal areas.* It states that the following financial surety arrangeatnts are ' generally acceptable to the G. mission": surety bonds, cash deposits, certificates of deposit. deposits of government securittss, irrevecable letters :r lines of credit, and co.tcinations of these arrangeetnts. It also 411ews.for 'such 2

other types of arrante"+nts as may be approved by the Coernission." Self insurance is not permitted. Bowever, because it 'prevides no additional assurar.ce other than that which already exists through license requireeents."

l Self insurance it, in esser.ce, a mear.s of guaranteeing against risk or of fcnoing regulatory cr other liabilities based solely en the assets and financial strength of the guarantor, it can take different ferns, depending l

cn the centext in which it is used.

It may involve setting asice a fund to i

cover losses. executing an indeanity agreement payable to a regulatory i

authority, or deconstrating sufficient assets to be granted pemissicn to i

provide no additienal surety. Throughcut the U.S. Ccce in a variety of contents. Congress has expressly authortred the use of sel' insurance as an 1

alternats etans of financik1 surety, when totaled with a fina~ial tualification requireevnt. For example, under section 509 of the Surface j

Pining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.1259(c)), an applica9t for a surface coal aining and reclamation permit is required to file a t

perforvance bond co,ering its obligations under the law anC the Mrmit. An 1

applicant say provide its own bond wM%ut separate surety based on 'a histcry of financial solvency ans continuous opration suf ficient for authorizatica to self insure." Fursuant to this authority, the Office of Surface Mining has preeulgated regulations authorizing selfdending based on a financial test for nine operators. See 30 CTR Part 800 (1944). jf similarly, the Environevntal Protecticn Agency permits self insurance by owners er operators of hazardous waste management facilities. IPA uses a* financial test to icentify.whiih i

owners or operators will be permitted to self inf urel 1.

. to provide j

financial assurance for e,losure and post closure care emcastrating that their assets are sufficient to meet those respcalibilities.

1

^

• l I

I 1/

See aise 30 U.S.C. 933 (se:urity for the Hy ent cf black lung i

It'EeTIII); 43 U.S.C.1615 (offshore oti spill pollutten cypensation).

$LP 131H5 3

See 40 CFR Part 264. Subpart H. 2/ According to the draft guidance docutent, t5is is the financial test that the staff would use. ir conjunction with a parent.coe;any guarantec. as a means of financial assurance for aill operaters.

As noted atewe,10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. e.rtterion 9 prohibits self insurance. Tne staff could use this prohibition to preclude the use of n atI) finarcial test by a licensee while permitting use of the same test by a licensee's parent carpeny if coupled with an appropriate cor; crate guaraette.

V Under this construction of Criterion 9. tne financiel test as a means c!

1 financict surety for a licensed afll cperator, without more, would constitute i

i self irsurance. Acccedingly. it could not te used for a licensee under the tr. mission's regulsticns. (!? should be noted, however, that the statutcry language is broader Erd would not prchibit the use of self insurancri tases en a financial test if the Comission were to find it adequate as a rears of financial surety.)

{

As sentioned above. Criterien ) pernits 'such other types of arrange'ents ?5 say te approved by the Cceriissian.' This would inclubs a finarcial test ssed as a mesns of detersining whether to accept a corporate guarantee by the mill opereter's prent cor;oretion. A cor: orate guarantee is a proatse to answer i

for the debt or def ault of another.

In the contest of Criterion 9 if the l

aill operator defaulted on its obligation to perform decentamination, decomissiontr$. end reclamation work, the parent corporation as guaranter

'rculd te retuired either to provide the necessary funcs for that purpose or to perform the cbligatun itself. As long as the guarantee were prov:ded by a

'i legal entity other than the licensee, the prchtbiticn against sdif insurar.:e 1

wnu'.6 nut be violated. TMs appreer.h would ensure that assets other than l

those of the licensee would stard behind the licensee's obligation.

Wi'.h regard to Agreement *tates, section 2*,4(e)(1) of the LMTRCA acced sectich 274 e. to the Atomic Enwrgy Act. ThM-$ection provides, among other things, that

!H the licensing)and regulation of byproduct material, as defined inof (the Ates 1

section11e.(2 l

results in the production of typroduct material 41 to defined under an agreement entered tato putWant to subsection b. (of section 174), a State 19411 require..

i e

2/

5ection 3004(6) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) does not specify the means of finant.tal assurance that say'te used.

i Rather, it authorites the f.PA to establish such financial responsibility staMards for owners cr operators of hatardous waste managment facilities 45 may be necessary or desirable to prettet hWNn health and the envircrLtent. Thus. [PA's authcrity under that statute is sistlar t:

)

the MC's authcrity unter tection 161 s. of the Atenic Entr$y Act.

.m_

4-SEP a 315E5

[ii'ecepliarce with standards which shall be adopted by the

$ tate fcr the pro'ection of the public he61*h. safety, and the envircerent fren hatards associated with SLch ::aterial which are tcuivalent, to 9,Pe extent practica41e or more stringent tnan, standards adopted and enforced by the Comission for the same purpose....

Because this sectic, requires $ tate st&ndards in ce "equivalent, to the extent practicable, or scre stringent than' the Connissten's standards, the comission has mde Criterton 9 a utter cf ccepttibility.

See,$tetetent of e

Policy. ' Criteria for 3uidance of $ tater and NRC in Discontinuance Cf NRC t

I l

Regulatery Authority and Assuartion Thereof by 5tates Through Agre: rent.' 46 FR 7540, 7543-44 (January 23. D81). As the prohtbition against self I

insurance is already a part of Criterien 9. a rule ceange would not be needet.

Thus, under this int:1pretatien of Criterien 9. Agreteent $tates would be required te restrict the use of a finar.cial test to instances in which it was

'i cer. bines w'ith an acceptacle corporate guarantet by a corporation other than the licensee. 3/

An alternata approach would be to c3nt' rue the financial test as falling 6(ti- *d j

within the provision for 'such other artangecents as say be approved by tho Cemissien* in Criterien 9.

Self insurance is not defined in Criterion 9.

1 Withcut a ofinition of self insura9ce, it it unclear exactly what the Cemissien seent by this prehlbition. In the conte:t of the rule, it appears that the Cosutission meant to prohibit only those finsecial assurance j

arrangements that provide 'no !dditional assuranc2 cther than that which I

already entsts thrcugh license C:nditiens'; 1.e., a situation in which no examination is ude of a ittensee's financial condition and the licensee dces 1

nothing sore than proatse te comply with the regulations and the teres of its

• license. This interpretation is supported by tta Final Generic Environmental Ircact $tatement on Uranim Milling.-afa It is also supported by,th staff's i

acceptance of Colorado's policy of permitting its licensees to satisfy tne firancial surety requirement by went of a financial test. Under this J

interpretation, a financist test, whether used by a licensee or a parent corperation, would not violate the prohibitten against self tesurance because l

it would provide ' additional assurance other than that which already exti,ts through license requirertents.' The additional assurance would tierite. frta the company's demonstration of assets sufficient 4 provide reasu.a,els issu,'ance

• /

We understand that Agreetat $ tate regulations are coecatibie with 3

Criterion 9.

However, for at least :,ne Agreement Sme (Colorado), the staff has not objected to De state's dolicy of straitting its licensees to satisfy the financial surety requirement by mans of a itaancia) i test.

l af kWLE3 07C5. Volu'e 1. tt 14 9 ($epte-ter 1980).

1

l i

-s-mow 1

of teing able to eest the esperises of decontaination. #comissice.ing. anct i

rec 1 station. Fer the policy reasons you cite, the staff coulti decide to permit tre use of the financial test only when coupled with the ccrporate guartstee of a third party, locause this approach would be a matter of policy rather than a legal reevirerent, however, Agreement States muli be fret to j

establish a different policy. #ccordingly g under this inteipretation, the i

only way to Nke the hkC poli p a Nttbr of compatibility fbr Agreement $1ates i

w0uld te to prom 1 gate it as a rule, There are difficulties associated with either approach. The first is consistent with the meaning of self insurance as comenly understood and as 4

i used in negrous statutes and tigulations. 1;owever, it is inconsistent with tae staff's existing interpretation of the regulations and its corresponding policy regarding the use of *inancial tests in Agreement States, The second apornach preserves n.re options for the states. But it might be '.hallenged as arbitrary because it would establism a different, more striegent Consnission i

policy than that for Agreement States. Consequently, it may be preferable for

'he sisff to conduct a ruleNking proCeedir.9 to explore these issues BCre fully tefore deciding on a regulatory approach.

In senary, the 'taff could prchibit the use of a financial i.ast by a licensee l

under either of 4 interpretations outlined above. The approach that is chosen w111 deteWre the eflect or. Agreement 5tates and the need to conduct a I

ruleeaking to mske the requirement a Ntter of compatibility. Once you have dete.nnines eow you wish to proceed, we will review any necessa,'y revisions to j

the preposed staff guidance document.

i.

hsI.--

1

f Guy H. Cunningham,!!!

Executive Legal 01 ctor i

I e

1 1

F i

I i

V $ NUCLE A2 RtGULATOhv COMMISSION w. *...e w i s ww.. v FOIA 88 222

/,,

a mw,...

f

).

• ~

RESPONSE TO FREEOOM OF I I '** * **

i

%...../

. NFORM ATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST JUN 3 01958 I

m. iv u,.i. t a.e s e GvstJ f.'s Blair P. Bremberg PAmf 8.8IComet Alltasto on Not toc Afte :Sa. cae..es e.e.c N3.g.acy,ee.vos M ct e tb.

w..t m.v. t.ea l.w 8 N.w

..,re,,=.,a a u,i.c...

....e.e w..

J r

4 u-, i. *..

. ec.

a.w. a tree.

....:..u...u.m...~,... w.

. ia. 8 a C e 4= on. e a.

'717 *t 5.m % W. w..har.a. oC I

Letaci.co,as uwet v. the,me.i t*.t c. reat..s. App.as a C

.>. be.ag

... m f e e.H.rww.e ar.s..ev g. e. N e P t4 Caw. e i

e a

XX Cs.m.17t?

• S em N W. W

%a.t.a. DC... 'wo., v oe th. 8 O* A a n.,.9.

we.i., a.*.

a w

f ts. w m. e

.v.a s.iec,

.r i.u..e..

. m

.a.c.c.e a.~ n.,u..m*.~.i.e.

=.....m..,,,w u.se j

en.

. e. %ac

• w em-.ai au.. mi e. :". s *. w.~e.a. oc..a e i.ee -c e. s o's ve., re e ~~.

e aci.

.. ~e

. w,,,. a.... ~ r. er.

. u.

. c.

o ~.

. m r s,.

. ~ w. w..-. + ec t

g4,.m e-u.i

• r....... rei u,.o.i w. <* ve.... e r.,uce.,,

.e.

.,-ei ww m.... av.e

e..r.>e

.uie i

I an u, i.

a..

1... ~ ui, - i.,.,,

J ia...

. :.. w i. n.

t a. e-., u.e..

c r e.,- ec..i.4 PAPT st A-i%somvatic% wtTMMELO enou pust:C ciscL9svet I

(

.a.

., e,e.

% i.4

...i.m.rri.seeea~euw

.,o..ii.e.eo<a... w.

....es e....

rr.a-een..=

XX *e*.**s ' ' C "* *:w"' "= ". $ m"'a o i. = w'"#" ** ** ** ' " ".* '.*..*, *+* *s*o", a *.',"~"' d '. e'.'.* '.c"., "e..' ** '*' *** " *" " *

• ac e.

. w..s.a.iwi. oc....

Ceawmat.

i i

No agency records were located in response to the following citegories af your request:

1(a)(ti). 2(b). 2(c) and 3(c).

4 The staff notes that with regard to category 2(d). the following public documents were the major documents considered in the development of the Branch Technical Position:

1.

NUREG-0706. Vols.1. !!. and !!!, the FGE!S on Uranium Milling.

l 2.

The EPA standards in 40 CFR 264 Subpart F.

j 3.

10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A Criteria 9 ar.d 10.

l l

You will be billed in the a ount of $136.70 by NRC Division of Accounting and finance.

i 1

1 i

j i

1

. p. ~ <.

...y..-.

%.a 4 ) w,h =,

l 1

.i n e e. u

-a,-nM 4

jy

t.

1 u

w t

JUN 3 0 Ga F^t40044 07 IN Fo^.M ATION ACT RISPONst scia Nuvetis' Ffi t d. D A.M 04T8 p;my si s.4P,tice ett e ia sus ri Ns Recores swtwt to tre tesvest test are c!eser ted e the to'ksed At reed ces - O!. E_

e e..g,, m e,o,n t,

,,,,e,,,, e,,,, u,,, e,

tiemptue ass foe tre reasons set forth telon ov nwet to 5 V $ C. S'Jbi and 10 CFR $ Fat of NRC R*g/st+ep e

1 The se*e+c ef emat.ne e s'oc+'y c1*u '*4 Dw'l 8" 'e l'E <*

• Or-see 1D'A 'Eu(Vef 4N 11 2 The swe'eewt Wormaten r**'** tois*v 'e W eie'a88 8*'e**8 vet sof p+oc es res of h4C. sta tVetCN 21 3 The ines,4 eformence e oc+chee e.e+siH bem r.thc e+cie4<e tv statute edicatH ttalVPTCN 3!

r

$xte, tot 145 et ti6 a!cN tvsv att **** prek4.te t*e d Ewe e' 8me<ted Dats es Forme *v 8esusine Cats 442 U $ C 214121t41

$wne 14? of we Attwas twry act w.ch rebente the ocios. e e Unc'aue+d Sves eds tafor-ei+a 142 V $ C lith.

a 4 The an,+

stormanca e a one sweet er commecal ** 'eenc as c'w*4t+a eet e tees =&+id toe P4 eu.arev enegree itxtu'TCN 4 T>@ et'gr**Jtom e Somede'ed le t4 toeheeetel W 198tG'4tFyl c'0**d14 4 T*, e e 4 tem e sees 4e w to te ecswev ewe *4 wa t.-s.e,t ta 10 Cf m 2 ?locitt) s

?>e c yme'en mee s.tanw swa rece ves e cordesesce Fo* 4 4ega so rce tw s eat to to C88t 2 7%er2i e

e

& The swa.1 <1orvea scanets 08 ete o;es) er ensegeace >eceres v*st e e ret e. east..e thra,34 escosos e,.rq bega'en CaN.<e of p,ooweea4i Mematon XX woes *ere is ee t t t%e e<+a a4 tv4 e..kese of one eswte' te N ee <t+etw pro <ess s'. tee reco<os 6-, m *e e en t*ee ve<er,. ye tects s e reatncaeq e

eeec+one etee'om T%es eso e, e ne re.soastit 8 i V P i @t ase.rwi r.e.an ene rite *wr.

i+3reastee tect.as poneae two.no the reee.e of the facts me.d p.rma en peaweear pawesa e' Pe om a rv are i

$ TP4 nrHeat e'oreason e one gied f*em p.444 esoc.co tece.se its Os?v4. e nW4 retst e e c'ee9,4mmeaeMet e=464A et so acmel praec). atIV'ICN &#

I The esteens etFmetem 44r4** ei eve $t g4' Cry *,Cerfle te*'TO's Iof IG4 e**0 rte ***t Bygotes omd g Deq mat

• tee fer $5, teeowsl meca'ed ett(MPTCN h e.e. d...e e e=.e se e.

%,c.te, e.~.

e,-

e

e. e.o,e e-.m am r.w o.

e.se,m ~ um..a r,., e,ery,. rc.wt e e,.

. e is... u

.e te.e.a.a io r.wr e,s : n...-es.4,,

a.iuet.c u.a C wwe n$se seasta.te ** rev et enebee of Pe W4' pesa:, !!t(V7TCN TsCH b-j T. e,-..a. <. o.

e,..~.e e e,, en.,,-. e.wme e, ~..ea.,e

- e,e..e~ e, a. i v,v en e,,

P A Af et C.Ct%vlNQ Cf f'Clatt m,.,.e,u Cao e e ** e. e is e.e. v s

.c e. a e.v. C-a,0.s-. e m. s.e,.e..- me ni n.e

-...a

~....e-e

.e., du~e.

e e

v.e - et.e.i t r. ee,w. e-.e..o.i v r,es w s n ~, 4e, - w ie e4t..co,. o.on.,io, a.ro.e.

e.o. w e...,r4 e. o en,.

,, w e - e e m e. - c..

e.e. oe..<

.e o, e. e

• • o.see. c <. e. a e.e

.e-Ct%v AS C68 CAL fif LI NM t___

4tCCal504410 1

APPitLatt C86C AL g

.i77....,

.x Hugh L. Thoepson Director. NMSS

)/1 E/l - 3. E/6 - 9 XX Regional reiTntstraTor, Robert D. Kartin Region IV E/4, E/S xx 1

P A AT 14 0- APPI AL RIGMTS The cen.as t y each denies cer e asentf d e PM tt C may te e ces e4 to the Acs*#ete Of*c et maecrA+a e that outc9, Any se.A acceal % t te n c

vwntasg emd must t4 reece nAtum 33 6ay1 Of roce F4 Of th 6 f tssomte Apg46's %31 to tatessed at a;cacgnatt to @4 Enet wtve Director for Qgeratut94 or to t>e $wra v et tre Commss.ca. V $ N c*, P*Fetcry Commsson. W segts, C: W.65, asd those ready state ce t*e omvekse and m tme ione tnt et s e

• A: 4ai' rom as N a FC:A Dec sea

^

ecc scena ** 'e*

• U $ NVCt! AR RIGULATORY CCYYi$$rON 4o TOiA RESPONSE CONTINUATION

e p

Re: F0!A-88-222 APPEN0!X C i

DOCUMENTS BEING RELEASED 1.

9/15/87 Note to Dick Bangart and Bill Brown from Dale. (1 page) 2.

9/15/87 URF0 Connents on the 9/14/87 Draft Conmission Paper, are outside the scope of the request)[.

"Uranium Recovery Issues", (2 pages) Deleted portions l

3.

9/13/87 Memo from Guy Cunningham to John Davis, subject: Use of Parent-Company Guarantee Under 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix i

A. Criterion 9.

l

[0ccuments 1 and 2 are subject to catepory 3(b), and document 3 is subject to categories 1(a)(1) and 1(b),

l l

l i

)

i l

l l

I L

t I

i l

i l

Re: F0!A 88 222 APPENCII D DOCUMENTS 8tTK'UIT15ED IN PART 1.

9/17/87 Nemo from Robert Martin to Hugh Thompson, subject: Draft SECY P.pe.- in Reference to Uranium Recovery issues. (2 pages) Exemption 5, (Subjecttocategory3(b))

4

Re: F0! A-80.?,t2 APPINDIX 0 00 CUM.(NTS BEING RELEASED IN PART 1.

9/17/87 Memo from Robert Hartin to Hu;h Thompson, subject: Draft LECY Paper in Reference to 'rantun Recovery Issas. (2 J

pages)Exem,; tion 5.

(subject to category 3(b))

1 I

.i l

i l

9 i

1 i

i l

^

Re: F0!A-88-222 APPEN0!X E DOCUMENTSBEINGWITHHELOjNTHEIRENTIRETYPUR$UANTTOEXEMPT!0NJ 1.

1/12/88 Memo from T. A. Rehm to Office Directors and Reg (ional Administrators, subject: Legislative Proposals. 2pages) 2.

1/29/B8 Note for Will Brown fr;m Mike Kearney, sub.iect:

Legislativ: Proposals.(9pages)

[

3.

2/10/88 Memo from Hugh Thoepson to T. A, Rehm, subject:

LegislativeProposals.(?pages) 4 2/4/88 Hewa from Robert D. Martin to T. A. Rehm. :ubjact:

l Legislative Proposals. (6 pages) l 1

l b.

8/27/86 Memo fror> Robcrt 0. Martin to T. A. Rehm, subjxt:

Lagislative Fropnsah. (4 pages)

L t

6.

9/33/87 Contfactor Report: Assessment of hM$5 Financid Assurance t

l Regulatory Framework. Anlysis of NMSS's Financial r

l Assurance Cost Estimating Methodologies. (47 pages) l 7

10/30/07 Contractor Aaport: Assessment cf NMS$ Fimncial Assurance I

Regulatory framework - Analys.is of NM55's Financial i

l Assurance Financial Mechanisrs and Recorting and

)

Recon' keeping Requirements.

(Final)(49pages) i i

8, 12/11/87 Contractor Report: Evaluttion of NMS$ Firencial Assurance l

l Regulatory Framework - Ai.alysis of Existing and Proposed NRC Regulatory Frantwork fc:' Financial Assurance for NM$5 l

i l

Licensees. (Final Report). (24 psges) 9.

5/27/87 Contractor Report: Assesu.ent of HM$S Financial Assurance Regulatory Fra.;ework - Review of Oraft Technical Position i

i i

on Financial Assurances for Reclaattien $tabilization Decontamination, and Long Term Care of Urdnium Recovery Factitties.(47pages) f)TE:

Documents 1 through 5 cre subject to categories 1(a)(1) and 1(b)ofyourre categories 1(c) quest, documents 6 through 8 are subject toand 3 l

1(c),2(a)and3(a).

i

\\

1 i

1 Re: F0!A 88 222 l

APPEN0!I E i

DOCUMENTS BEING WITHHELD IN THE!R ENT!RETY PUR$UANT TO EXEMPTION 5 i

1.

1/12/88 Memo from T. A. Rehm to Office Directors and Regional Administrators, subject: LegislativeProposals.(2pages) 2.

1/29/88 Note for Will Brown from Mike (earney.

Subject:

)

Legislative Proposals. (g pages) 3.

2/10/88 Memo from Hugh Thompson to T. A. Rehm, subject:

Legislative Proposals. (g pages) l 4,

2/4/F 1emo from Robert D. Martin to T. A. Rehm, subject:

(

legislativeProposals.(6pages) i 5,

8/27/86 Memo from Robert D. Martin to T. A. Rehm, subject i

i I

Legislative Proposals. (4 paget) l

)

i 6.

g/23/87 Contractor Report: A. inent of *$$ Financial Assurance i

1 Regulatory Freaework b lysis of NM55's Financial

]

Assurance Cost Estime A Aethodologies.(47pages) 1 7.

10/30/87 Contractor Report: Assessment of NMS$ Financial Assurance I

Regulatory Framework - Analysis of 255's Financiel r

i Assurance Financial Mechanisms and Reporting and Recordkeeping Reqvirements.

(Final) (4g pages) j j

8.

12/11/87 Contractor Report: Evaluation of NM55 Financial Assurance 1

Re vlatory Framework - Analysis of Entsting and Proposed j

NR Regulatory Framework for Financial Assurance for NM55 i

i Licensees. (Final Report). (24 pages)

)

9.

5/27/87 Contractor Report: Assessment of *$$ Financial Assurance Regulatory Framework - Reviec of Draft Technical Position i

1 on Firtecial Assurances for Reclamatten Stabiltration

)

Decentastnation, and long Term Care of Uranium Recovery t

Factittles.(47pages) l i

1 NOTE:

Documents 1 through 5 are subject to categories 1(a)(1) and 1(b) of your re categories 1(c) quest, documents 6 through 8 are subject toan i

1(c).2(a)and3(a).

l i

I m

k April 6, 1988 Director Office of Administration FRES0M 0F WFORMATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AM RQUEST hashington, D.C.

20555 f~eZ4-//-3 3 L Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Sir or Madam:

This letter is a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Please. respond within the mandated ten working days (a day telephone number is listed for your convenience).

INTRODUCTION This request relates to a FOIA exchange which we have had, starting in late 1986. This process has culminated thus far in Mr. Ste'lo's denial of an appeal concerning certain documents, NRC Staffs' production of several documents (regarding the transfer of Agret.9ent State jurisdiction in New Mexico), and two visits by me to the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Lakewood, Colorado for the purposes of reviewing files, making copies of files, and meetir<g with NRC Staff.

Earlier this spring I requested the documents listed in item 1 (below) from Mr. William Brown, Regional Counsel. This week Mr. Howard Rose of the URFO advised me that these documents were being witheid becauo? they were "pre-decisional."

In item 2 I have requested documents that relate to the subject matter of the earlier appeal. The cequested materials fall outside of t!.s possibly protected categurv of documents.

In item 3 I have requested documents which are related to Mr. Stello's UMTRCA Policy Issue I am making this FOIA request in connection with my LL.M. Thesis project. NRC staff persons have been most helpful to date with respect to this project. I look forward to continued cooperation.

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

1. Regarding NRC authority over forfeited UMTRCA financial surety funds and over reclamation of sites in default:

(a) Staf f s ' recommendations for new legislation that would address: (i) the lack of NRC authority over forfeited UMTRCA Title II financial surety funds, and (ii) the lack of NRC authority to implement on-site reclamation; (b) Staffs' memoranda and other written records concerning alternatives to new legislation, including the standby-trust plan identified in Mr. Stello's Policy Issue of October, 1987; and 2 ;'

y G n

)~ DO

_,ma-_ _ _ _ _

4

'4 w

(c) _ Contractor-prepared reports or other written records on this subject, including the studies identified'O Mr.

Stello's Policy Issue of October, 1987.

2. Regarding the proposed Branch' Technical Position paper on the UMTRCA program:

(a) Outside-originated or directed correspondence, memoranda, or other written records,.e.g. correspondence with members of the public or other agencies of government; (b) Copies of the Commission's determination, if any, that this policy process was exempt from rulemaking; (c) Copies of the Branch Technical Eosition paper sections (or draft sections) already implemented by the-Commission staff; and,

(d) Identification of all public documents considered in the Branch Technical Position paper, e.g., the EPA Guid611nes concerning the RCRA financial surety program, etc.

3. Regarding the Policy Issue (by Mr. Stello) which identified on-going studies of the IRfrRCA financial surety program, etc.:

(a) Drafto and final reports by the contractor or contractors that are mentioned in the Policy Issue as having been retained to ' study the UMTRCA financial surety program; (b) Staffs' memoranda or written records concerning alternatives identified in the Policy Issue; and (c) Cormission or staff directives regarding the Policy issue.

FEE WAIVER REQUEST The materials provided will be incorporated into an LL.M. Thesis to be published by the University of Utah. In addition, a substantial portion of the thesis will appear as a law journal article covering the key developing issues of standby-trusts and other alternatives to the existing program. The public that will be reached with this work includes the scholarly community concerned with mill tailings issues and, because of the ease of retreiving thesis or law journal materials, practitioners who have occasion to research the UMTRCA program. Copies will be provided to certain members of NRC staff and to licensees who have expressed an interest in the work.

The tangible benefit realized is that I may analyze these issues differently than some others. This added "spin"'

on the understanding of these problems should help as the Commission continues to consider program revisions.

There is r.o financial benefit whatsoever to myself as a result of this project.

I expect that the thesis will further the debate about the UMTRCA program. Because of the seriousness of these issues, from both environmental and economic perspectives, I

j c

expect that the work may have a direct impact on furthering the Commission's goals in the areas of health, safety, environment, improved regulatory processes, reduced cost of government, and public debate.

i To date, neither NRC nor any other agencies have exacted any FOIA fees in connection with this project.

Sincerely, Blair P. Brember 2381 River Plaza Drive No. 114 Sacramento, California 95833 (home) 916-923-5319 (office) 916-444-3900 i

i

_