ML20210C128
| ML20210C128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/21/1986 |
| From: | Speis T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Arlotto G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210C089 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-51FR22531, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-72 AC16-1-08, AC16-1-8, NUDOCS 8603050516 | |
| Download: ML20210C128 (2) | |
Text
\3
.A,.
- "%'og
- ' UNITED STATES N
~8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
5 #
Y WASHINGTON. D. C. 20065 FEB 211986 iDk '
l
%,...../ l MEMORANDUM FOR: Guy Arlotto, Director ! -
Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Review & Oversight Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 61, 70, AND 72, REQUIRING LICENSEES TO NOTIFY NRC OF BANKRUPTCY FILINGS In accordance with your request dated February 6, 1986, we have reviewed the proposed 10 CFR Amendments,-and the supporting Regulatory Analysis.
In principle we are in agreement with the need for the proposed Amendments.
However, we believe the Regulatory Analysis should provide better support.
" As a minimum, some of the costs and risks incurred as a result of the absence of the proposed bankruptcy notification requirements, should be provided as examples.
We noted that you referred qualitatively to four specific cases where financial situations jeopardized cleanup, resulting in costs, and perhaps risks, either directly or indirectly to the public. We recognize that a generic quantification of the probabilistic risks and costs may be difficult, andsubjecttolargeuncertainties(largevariations). However, based on a brief discussion with M. J. Seeman (WMPC/NMSS), examples of costs ($300,000 for the J. C. Haynes case, and up to $2,000,000 for a Tritium cleanup event at a company located in Tucson, Arizona) puts the potential cost savings of the proposed requirement into better perspective. Because of the short time alloted to our review, we did not obtain information on the magnitude, or range, of the risks reduction potential associated with this rulemaking.
We recognize that the bankruptcy notification requirement may not eliminate all such costs and risk, and that perhaps broader scope requirements being developed in related rulemakings (as identified in paragraph However, 2, page 3,in the Regulatory Analysis), might be more effective instruments.
interim, until broader or more specific requirements related to licensee obligations prior to, during, and subsequent to termination of a license, the relatively simple bankruptcy notification rulemaking appears to be a step in l
the right direction. Also absent any potential legal complications, it is not clear why'more advanced notice of bankruptcy filing is not proposed in the amendments. ,
i.
h g$d F
, A. o .
G. Arlotto In summary, without some quantification, or evidence, of the potential risks, and costs, resulting from the absence of a requirement for, bankruptcy notification, the necessity, potential health and safety implications and.
potential severe financial problems, alluded to in the Regulatory Analysis
' could easily be construed as unsupported qualitative justification for this
}
rulemaking.
UN Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Review & Oversight Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
, cc: H. Denton D. Eisenhut F. Cardile, CEBR/
R. Wood, SP B. Pineles, ELD R. O'Conrell, HMSS
- M. Seemann, NMSS K. Kniel R. Emrit R. Riggs i
.