ML20129K438

Responds to on Behalf of Natl Mining Assoc Concerns Re Final Timeliness in Decommissioning Rule

ML20129K438
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/03/1996
From:	Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Thompson A SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
Shared Package
ML20129K431	List: ML20129K434 ML20129K438
References
RULE-PRM-30-61 NUDOCS 9611250108
Download: ML20129K438 (2)

Text

p?**% QCn w (M b 'YO

. p- 4 UNITED STATES l

s  ; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20656-0001 f $ t l  %

! **..+ June 3, 1996 l

l Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037-1128

SUBJECT:

TIELINESS IN DECOMMISSIONING RULE

Dear Mr. Thompson:

l l

I am responding to your March 25, 1996, letter on behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA). I hope that, by clarifying the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's position on one matter, I can move us closer to resolution of what appears to be the only issue remaining between us.

In your letter you ask us to clarify what we mean by "otherwise in the public interest." You are particularly concerned that paragraph 3.b of my response to comment 2 in my February 16, 1996, letter to you may mean that the NRC intends to judge the best economic interests of licensees.

We have no such intention. Paragraph 3 was meant to make two chief points, l both of which are ultimately tied to the agency's safety mission, and not to l any desire by the NRC to exercise judgement about private economic interests.

First, compliance with safety standards is necessary for a time extension, but t

not sufficient. Second, the time extension must also be "otherwise in the

public interest," and while adequate surety, of the sort discussed in the l attachment to my Febretry letter, is an important part of being "otherwise in l the public interest," it is not the whole. Our chief concern here remains, as always, health and safety. We want to know that there are gcod reasons for believing that it is in the public interest to allow an inactive facility to .

remain undecommissioned.

In reaching a determination about the public interest, the NRC does not intend to judge whether continuation of standby status is in the aoolicant's best economic interests. Those interests might, or might not, coincide with the public interest. A public interest argument might be based, for example, on Federal concern for the domestic uranium mining industry. Existing statutes oblige the Secretary of Energy to gather information on the uranium mining l

industry and to have a " continuing responsibility" for the domestic industry,

! "to encourage use of domestic uranium." See 42 U.S.C. ss 220lb and 2296b-3.

Although this responsibility is not the NRC's, the NRC recognizes that the viability of the industry is a Federal concern. Paragraph 3.b in the enclosure to my February letter permits an applicant to argue that the

policies behind the cited provisions support the application for time extension.

There may be other, similar, arguments that could be made, e.g., a public interest argument based on possible future needs of the electric utility industry or on national defense. Some of these arguments may depend on 9611250108 961104 PDR PRM gM01 PDR

A. Thompson 2 circumstances unique to a given applicant. Therefore, we have avoided attempting to define exhaustively "the public interest " The NRC's rule permits each applicant for a time extension to make the arguments most relevant to its . '

circumstances.

I hope that this clarification removes NMA's remaining concern, and that this letter, together with your March 25, 1996, letter, my February 16, 1996, letter, i and your August 25, 1995, letter, constitute a sufficient record to guide members of the NMA who want to file for time extensions. I would hope also that the same L letters can serve as the basis for filing a motion for voluntary dismissal in the O.C. Circuit. I look forward to your response, i Sincerely, t

a oy Joseph J. Holonich, Chief

/

Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards r

l l

l 4

i

,_ _ -- _