ML20125C966
| ML20125C966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000008 |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1992 |
| From: | Toy H Battelle Memorial Institute, COLUMBUS LABORATORIES |
| To: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212140189 | |
| Download: ML20125C966 (3) | |
Text
_
W 41 MBanellet Punkg Th hnolog i6 Mrk
. 505 King Aenue
' Columbus, Ohio 432012693 Telephane (6% 424-6424 -
ruumde (6% 424-s2h3 December 10,1992 Mr. Lhn Ilickey.
f Fuel Cycle Division
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Certification of Financial Assurance for Decommissloutng of Battelle Facilities at Columbus and West Jefferson, Ohio and Acceptance of Current NRC Guldance of Acceptable Cleanup Criteria and -
Practices for D&D (License No. SNM 7) Docket 70-8
Dear Mr. Hickey:
I received your letter to me dated _ October 26,1992, providin~g your comments to my letter to you dated June 19,1992. I rticipate bein5 able to respond to that letter by the end of December,1992. Since your letter requires action to be taken by Battelle's Board of Trustees and by DOE, an additional month is required to obtain all of the information requested.
- However, I am providing information supplementing and modifying my June 19,1992 letter.
On June 19,1990, Battelle sent to the NRC its Certification of Financial Assurance for Decommissioning the Battelle Facilities. Among those documents submitted with the ~
Certification was a Request for Exemption, requesting an exemption from NRC regulations to -
v permit Battelle to use a DOE Statement ofIntent to provide a substantial portion of :he -
financial assurance to complete the decontamination and decommissioning.' On November 19, 1991, the NRC Staff sent its review comments on the referenced Certification.-
In response to the NRC letter and to comments received in subsequent meetings, we V
- submitted a letter to you on June 19,1992, with proposals to. amend the Certification and accompanying docume.,ts. Included in the June,19,1992 submittal _was a modified DOE
- Statement of Intent, which consists of a letter from Donald L. Bray, ~ Assistant Manager for Projects and Energy Programs, DOE: Chicago Operations Office, to Dr. Kenneth Brog of -
Battelle, dated April 3,1992. In that letter, DOE indicates its commitment, subject lto the availability of appropriated funding, to provide 100% of the funding to accomplish ongoing surveillance, maintenance and management oversight, and 90% of the funding necessary toz o
accoinplish th: remaining activities in the schedule and budget baseline for decontamination and decommissioning of the Battelle facilities. In response to an NRC Staff acquest,Battelle -
a also offered to.make certain modifications to the language of the proposed Government and; Industrial Trusts.
J
Mr. John Ilickey i
December 10,1992 Page 2 On September 8 tmd 28,1992, Daniel T. Swanson, an attorney representing Battelle, had phone conversations with David Futoma, NRC Office of the General Counsel, regarding the referenced matter. In the conversations, Mr. Swanson indicated to Mr. Futoma the objection that DOE had to placing restrictions on the Government Trust. In essence, DOE feels that the funda in the Government Trust, which were provided by DOE, should not be further encumbered as originally agreed to by Battelle and DOE. For these reasons, DOE will not authorize Battelle ta restrict DOE's use of funds from the Government Trust. Accordingly, as indicated in the referenced phone conversation, Battelle is withdrawing its proposal to use a Government Trust as part of its Decommissioning Funding Plan. Battelle would continue to rely on the funds currently in tN existing Government Tr.st to partially satisfy the interim financial certification obligations. Once Battelle's exemption is granted, allowing the use of a I)DE Statement of Intent, the Government Trust may or tr.ay not continue to exist as Battelle and DOE elect, but it would no longer be relied on as a component of Battelle's proposed Decommissioning Funding Plan. Battelle would continue to use the private Industrial Trust as part of its satisfaction of the Decommissioning Funding Plan, to handle the funds provided by Battelle. Battelle remains committed to structuring a revised Industrial Trust as proposed in the June 19,1992 otter from Battelle.
Battelle does not consider that this development necessitates an amendment to its Request for Exemption. The Request for Exemption is not dependent on the use of the Government Trust, and merely requests permission for Battelle to.ely on the DOE Statement of Intent and the DOE funding process to cover 90% of Battelle's responsibility for the ultimate Decommissioning Funding Plan, which must be submitted no later than the spring of 1993.
Although the Request for Exemption references the Government Trust as being available to receive DOE funds, it does not represent that DOE is obligated to utilize that instrument in the future. Accordingly, the Request for Exemption can be reviewed independently of the
~
issue of whether or not a Government Trust exists.
The NRC has adequate assurance that withdrawals from the Government Trust will be made in a proper fashion, since all expenditures from that ~und must be made to further the activities which are a part of the technical, schedule, and budget baselines controlled by DOE for the Battelle Decommissioning and Decontamination Project. DOE should be allowed to choose whether or not to use the Government Trust, as it deems appropriate. For exampic, DOE may elect to utilize that Trust to supplement its alkx on of funding for a given year, t
based on fiscal considerations. Finally, there is no statutory nor regulatory requirement for use of a Government Trust fund in a decommissioning and decontamination project.
Although perhaps a trust is appropriate for private functions, it is inappropriate and unnecessary and has far reaching implications, where the funds ar,: provided and managed by another Federal agency. DOE maintains very tight controls over the budgeting, funding, alk> cation, and work activity of the BCLDP, through the use of a DOE controlled technical, cost, and schedule baseline. The NRC acknowledged that DOE would have primary control and oversight over the day-to-day operation of the BCLDP in its letter to Martin Langsam dated December 18,1990. Between the DOE Statement ofIntent and the Battelle private trust, the NRC will have assurance as to the existence of sufficient funds to accomplish the decommissioning and decontamination of the Battelle facilities.
Mr. John Hickey December 10,1992
.Page 3 On a separate matter raised in your October 26,1992 letter related to current NRC cleanup =
criteria, Battelle, for its License SNM-7, hereby accepts current NRC guidance on acceptable cleanup criteria and practices for decontamination and decommissioning as delineated in your letter to Mr. Harley L Toy dated April 17,1992. We propose to re_9~t our acceptance of current NRC guidance by modifying the referenced language referred to in our June 19,190' -
letter to read as follows: " released for use without any radiological restrictions, including released for unrestricted use as defined by NRC regulations, as described in the John W. N. Hickey letter dated April 17,1992 to Harley L Toy."
I stand ready to respond to any questions that you have regarding this submittal.
- Smccrely,
'Cd Harley L Toy License Coordinator Battelle Columbus Laboratories Decommissioning Project IILT:lat ec:
Tin Mo, NRC Dsid J. Futoma, NRC OGC Jerry Swift, NRC Jefferen O. Neff, DOE-Columbus
_4 I %j
,_