ML20235A068
| ML20235A068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/07/1987 |
| From: | Pettengill H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Kearney M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801120054 | |
| Download: ML20235A068 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _
e DISTRIBUTION
. Docket File No. URL 1.8 PDR/DCS DBangart, RIV URL 1.8/HDR/87/10/28/0 HRose i WDEQ (2)
URF0 r/f LLW Branch, WMLU DEC 0 71987 URF0:HDR URL 1.8 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Michael S. Kearney, Acting Chief Regulatory Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning FROM:
Harry J. Pettengill, Chief Licensing Branch 2 Uranium Recovery Field Office, Region IV
SUBJECT:
ICF FINANCIAL SURETY REPORTS In response to your September 15, 1987 and October 6, 1987 requests, we have reviewed the draft ICF Incorporated contractor reports on financial assurance.
Any significant comments have already been telephonically provided to Mr. Bykoski by Mr. Rose of my staff.
The reports adequately discuss current NMSS policy, regulatory authority, weaknesses in the system and recommendations for solutions.
Additional minor suggestions include:
l Under section 3.12 the contractor discusses transfer of beneficiary i
status from Agreement States to the NRC if the program is reverted.
It may not be necessary to identify the NRC as the beneficiary if the State still possesses authority to hold bonds and agrees to carry out reclamation activities at default.
l Throughout the reports, there are several references to imposing a program for handling sureties similar to ours on Agreement States.
For the record, we have approved the surety program used by the State of Wyoming which is not an Agreement State.
NMSS reviewes te program in detail and authorized uranium recovery licenses in Wyoming to satisfy 10 CFR 40 Appendix A surety requirements through I
8801120054 871207 REG 4 LIC40 0FC :
POR; NAME :
DATE :87/11/25 1
a
URL 1.8/HDR/87/10/28/0,
DEC 0 71987 their agreements with Wyoming DEQ.
As for Agreement States, it seems to me the commission tends to allow a lot of latitude to the Agreement States in regard to regulatory interpretations and implementation.
Perhaps the tasks to provide suggested formats of surety instruments and the record keeping format'or software should be accelerated given current needs.
However, licensees tend to be resistant to using " canned wording" unless we are able to require it.
The reports do not address the procedure of turning over the long-term surveillance fee to the Treasury.
Should we assume future reports will?
If the NRC can not require the standby trust, licensees will avoid i t.
It represents one more expense and time consuming effort for their limited resources and staff.
I would predict that less than half of the uranium recovery licensees will participate in the recommendation to include a standby trust agreement.
The standby trust is not an acceptable solution unless it is mandatory.
We will l
continue to be faced with the current problems of NRC being the beneficiary at default and possibly directing the reclamation function over which we are responsible as the regulator.
l No one really knows who the federal custodian will be for these properties at termination.
If the state decides to retain title to l
the property they will expect to also keep the long-term' surveillance fee.
At what point will these issues be clarified?
Page 4-3 item 3 in the Draft report for Task 1 discusses groundwater monitoring, routine maintenance of cover and fencing as part of long-term care and surveillance.
Application of EPA requirements for a 1000 year cover and in no case less than 200 years should eliminate the argument for consideration of cover maintenance.
A licensee should not be expected to design for this period and then assume it is not effective.
Ground-water monitoring and fencing should be included in (2) Closure, site reclamation, etc. before the site is released to the custodian.
A final comment relates to the similarity between the EPA's and NRC's policy on financial tests.
Why assume it is proper just because EPA has chosen a methodology and documented it? We should ask ICF to evaluate the policy, not simply inform us that it is identical to EPA.
0FC :
NAME :
DATE :87/11/25
)
URL 1.8/ HOR /87/10/28/0 ' E0 0 71987 0
Overall, the reports represent a thorough understanding of the surety process and emphasize the majority of the problem areas experienced with uraniuin recovery licenses.
5 Harry J. Pettengill, Chief Licensing Branch 2 Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV
_ _ _ _ _ !. _ _ _.11RF _ _ _ _ !. _ _ _ _ _U R
_UR 2
2.
NAME -
_@.. _ _ _ _P_J.G a_r.c_i_ _
HJPettengil1
- DATE$8711/25 jd[;
- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ -