ML20138F044

Partially Deleted Secy,Informing Commission of Staff Intent to Forbear from Instituting Enforcement Action Against General Atomics

ML20138F044
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/10/1996
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136A735	List: ML20136A730 ML20136A766 ML20136A824 ML20138F044
References
FOIA-96-336, FOIA-96-A-14 SECY-96-124, SECY-96-124-C, NUDOCS 9606180615
Download: ML20138F044 (19)

Text

_

amur,- - - - O 4 ;g L-/W

-;. wo e na f uq%

POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT)

June 10, 1996 SECY-96-124 fDB: The Comissioners fHQM: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR GEN:"AL ATOMICS FACILITIES PURPOSE:

! I To inform the Comission of the staff's intent to forbear from institutin enforcement action against General Atomics for financial assurance regulations for so long as aenera om'cs implements itsi proposed alternative method of providing financial assurance for j decomissioning its San Diego facilities.

SUMMARY

/

i I

/ Because of a revised increased cost estimate of decomissioning its licensed facilities, its current financial condition, and tentative voluntary contribution of a significant amount of cash to a trust fund to settle

Contact:

tl Robert Pierson, NMSS e 415-7190 Seymour Weiss, NRR 415-2170

[l NOTE: SENSITIVE PREDECISIONAL DELIBERATIVE INFORMATION LIMITED TO THE COPMISSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE

\

8-/M7 kam%s p3) 9l  ;

l i

I  !

i I

litigation with the staff regarding financial assurance for decommissionin the Sequoyah Fuels facility in Gore, Oklahoma, General Atomics (GA) is M the financial assurance regulations with respect to .

the decomissioning of its San Diego facilities,  !

6 GA has offered an alternative financia assurance p an a ,

combines a partial parent company guarantee with contributions to a sinking fund, on dhe condition that the staff forbear from taking enforcement action against GA to require strict compliance with the financial assurance regulations. iven the practical limitations on '

the letter of he regulations on financial assurance and the benefits o he proposed alternative, the staff is prepared to forbear from instituting iV1 enforcement action to require strict compliance with the financial assurance regulations for so long as GA complies with its proposed alternative and until such time as GA can provide a full parent company guarantee meeting the criteria under the regulations]

BACKGROUND:

I GA is the holder of NRC licenses SNH-696, R-38, and R-67 under 10 C.F.R. Parts j 50 and 70 for its two TRIGA research reactors, hot cell facility, fuel l fabrication facility, and other related facilities in San Diego, California.

Since the relevant regulations requiring financial assurance for decomissioning at 10 C.F.R. f 5 50.75 and 70.25 became effective, GA has opted to provide a parent company guarantee from General Atomics Technologies l Corporation (GATC) to provide financial assurance. In 1995, the amount of W financi assurance provided by the parert guarantee was approximatel { M , (. '

million. ,

/ . l DISCUSSION:

Government contract work from the Departnent d Energy and Department of Defense has historically provided GA wit' . Srge portion of its revenues and income. ecent reductions by Congress ia funding various research programs g' have h a significant impact on GA's finances. At the same time, GA's @a estimate of its costs to decomiss!on it; San D facilities has increased to approximatel million. Conse ue iti ,

for A's most recent estimate cos s or ecom ssioning. In addition, G other method of financial assurance specified in the regu ations particularly in light of a tentative se emen on is now involved in on another unrelated matter involving the decomissioning of the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (SFC) facility in Ge e, Oklahoma. Under that tentative settlement, GA would contribute cash to a decomissioning trust fund not earmarked for GA's San Die o facilities, to provi.e nanc ura .- . e San a

SENSITIVE PREDECISIONAL DELIBERATIVE INFORMATION LIMITED TO NRC UNLESS NOTE:

THE COMMISSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE

i

) -

4

' 1 GA is the third-tier parent of SFC, which operated a uranium conversion i

facility in Gore until 1992. Through subsidiary corporations, GA acquired SFC from Xerr McGee Corporation in 1988. GA did not then become nor has it since l

l been a named licensee for the SFC facility. In Octcher 1993, the staff issued l

an order, based on facts alleged therein, which asserted that SFC and un were jointly and severally liable for decommissioning funding and financial assurance for the SFC facility. The order specifically directed GA to provide financial assurance in the amount of $86 million for cleanup of the SFC site.

2 Both GA and SFC requested a hearing on the order, and the matter is now before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Docket 40-8027-EA. In August 1995, SFC entered into a settlement agreement with the staff, which was approved by l

l the Licensing Board and is now being reviewed by the Comission. GA and the staff entered into good faith settlement negotiations beginning in September l 1995, and have arrived at a tentative settlement, notwithstanding GA's legal

{

j position that the NRC lacks jurisdiction over GA to be able to sustain the i order against it. In general terms, the tentative settlement with GA involves paymen years.p of a significant amount of cash to a trust fund over a pe o

Confidential information concerning GA's finances has been made ava t the f. Such information supports the conclusion that l

l ncial assurance requirements for its San Diego acilities contributing a significant amount of cash to settle the '

- rf[

i SFC litigation, or a method of financial l

' assurance provided by the regu a ions o . er an a parent company guarantee), '

~

I on top of the cash contribution to se:tls tne SFC litigation, it would be at the f _

the r risks Given the limited resources of GA, the s;af f has f

{

,pf the various GA facilities and the SFC site.

f ,

In recognition of its M~ the letter of the financial assurancen  !

l

regulations with respect to its San Ofego facilities, and of the f .[;

contribution of fun settle the SFC liti ation will >

finan:.it.1 assurance GA has prJposed an alternative I Mfinanc a assurance an for its San Diego' acilitiesLthat reflects its Because it does not wish to be exposed to further l l

( l i

' By presenting this paper to the Comission, the staff is not seeking l

any prejudgment of any matters in litigation, including any proposed settlement agreement that may be offered, concerning the Sequoyah Fuels Gore i facility.

j NOTE: SENSITIVE PREDECISIONAL DELIBERATIVE INFORMATION LIMITED TO N

THE COMMISSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE

)

l l _ _

~

i i

l litigation, however, GA seeks assurance from the staff prior to implementation j of the alternative plan that an enforcement action seeking compliance with the j financial assurance regulations will not be brought by the staff against GA.

I, The alternative pla rovides for a limited parent com uarantee of -

approximately (Aq con up es men a sin would i contribut illi per year. Contributions to the sinking fund would no -

} . longer be re ired once the sum [of the aggregate amount in the fund plus the

parent company guarantee reached the total amount of the cost of l decomissioning the San Diego facilities that GA estimates it would eventually payTI Should such estimate increase, GA's obligation to contribute to the sinling fund would increase accordingly. Withdrawals from the sinking fund to directly pay for d commissioning activities would be allowed up to a certain i

j amount annually. 's estimated costs of decommissioning would not include j amounts reasonabl expected to be paid by the Department of Energy based on j the DOE's historical practice of paying for a pro rata share of decommissioning GA's facilities which performed DOE work. However, should DOE l

j refuse in the future to contribute a certain amount of funds to decommission 4

the San Diego facilities, GA would be obli ated to contribute additional funds to the sinking fund to offset such amount.

GA is currently enga e in decomissioning its hot cell facility, to which the ,f of the costs. The research reactor licenses are l

DOE is contributing GAT j s:heduled to expire in two and four years; by such time,fcontributions to the l

proposed sinking fund would be suffi ient to ensure that7he fuel, which poses the greatest risk, is safeguarded in the event that GA ceases operations of both reactors, and that decommissioning efforts can be initiated. One distinct advantage to GA's alternative plan is that actual cash is placed in a

' sinking fund, as opposed to having to "ely solely on a parent company In addition, ongoing cleanup activities would not be disr ed . -

/

Mguarantee that r -

In sum, the staff believes that declining to bring an enforcement action in these circumstances for so long as GA implements its proposed alternative ,'

method of providing financial assurance for the San Diego facilities is consistent with the protection of public health and safety, is authorized by law, and is in the public interest. Existing case law is consistent with the v staff's exercise of enforcement discretion. See, e.g., Unfon of Concerned Scientists v. #RC, 711 F.2d 370 (D.C. Cir. 1983). In addition, the public ,

interest would be served because GA's alternative plan would facilitate timely _

NOTE: SENSITIVE PREDECISIONAL DELIBERATIVE INFORMATION LIMITED TO NRC UNLES THE COMMISSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE

i 1

i 1

i l

. )

! i i

decommissioningoftheSanDiegosite,and"ouldprovidecashupfronttobe l l

deposited into a sinking fund.

l -

} CONCLUSION:

i GA's proposed alternative plan to provide financial assurance for the i

decommitsioning of its San Di o faciliti ven all of the facts and l W and the tentative , l circumstances regarding at'on, is an acc table solution

~

l l equoya l

settlement to resolve th until such time as GA '

.f '

ere ore, un ess irec

total estimated costs o .. . ..

24, 1996, otherwise by the Commission, the staff intends to inform GA on June  ;

! that subject to certain terms and conditions as specified in the attached l l proposed staff response, the staff will forbear fromthe instituting enforcement j applicable financial

! action against GA ego fa lities for so long as GA assurance regulations regar ng an sed alternati and for so long as GA's parent )

implements its under l

> company 10 C.F.R. . an . .

i l I

i l .

I i

l i

i

• With the exercise of discretion to forbear from enforcing the

/

i  ! pertinent regulations, there would be no need for the staff to consider orl i issue exemptions, which GA has not requested. l discretion, as opposed to granting exemptions, is preferable in that it does '

not alter the status quo, f.e., GA is not affirmatively re'ieved from the j / ;

y '

existing regulatory re irements o ensure

! exibility to ta e act ons as it may deem appropriaIssuance of exemptions l compliance with the regulations. Parts 50 and 70 is, however, a viable alter -)

j .

_..of action outlined in this paper.  ;

d l

- NOTE: SENSITIVE PREDECISIONAL DEllBERATIVE INFORMATION L '

1 THE COMMI.SSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE l

C0 ORDINATION

The Office of the General Counsel worked closely with staff in developing this paper and the attached proposed staff response and concurs in the planned 1 -

approach.

s j/

i g -

imes M. T lor xecutive Director for Operations Attachments:

1. Letter from K. Asmussen to Document Control Desk (May 20,1996) with enclosures .

(contains proprietary information)

2. Proposed staff response SECY NOTE: In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on June 24, 1996 that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.  !

l I

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA 1 oCA EDO SECY NOTE: SENSITIVE PREDECISIONAL DELIBERATIVE INFORMATION LIMITED TO NRC UNLESS THE COMMISSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE

f+ CENERAL ATOMICS L

May 20,1996 696-2581 /M Document Control Desk U.S. Nuefear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. l Attention: Mr. Alexander Adams, Jr. .

Mr. Charles E. Gaskin i Docket Nos. 70-0734,50-89 and 50-163; Decommissioning Financial  !

Subject:

Assurance

Reference:

Dr. Keith E. Asmussen Lette. to Mr. Alexander Adams, Jr., ' Additional information on Review of Financial Assurance Documents (TAC No.

M92040); Docket Nos. 50-89 and 50-163, (Letter No. 38/67-2528) dated January 22,1996 ,

1 1

l Gentlemen:

As you know, General Atomics (GA) har a regulatory obligation to provide assurance that funds in the amount of the estinuted costs of decommissioning will be available at the time of the decommissioning o its SNM-696 licensed facilities and its R-38 and R-67 licensed non-power reactors' facilitie: . Until recently, GA had been meeting the financial assurance requirement by providin;; a guarantee by its narent company, General Atomic Technologies Corporation (GATC) f f iat rtion of the estimated decommission- r.[

ing costs for which GA will be responsibt he amount of the GATC yf '

guarantee has been based on an assumed ax credit for the payment of decom-missioning costs. 1 in determining the portion of the total c ecommissioning costs for which it will be responsible, GA has reasonably assumed that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will pay a share of the total costs. It is undisputed that a substantial amount of the work at the above referenced facilities was performed at the request or on behalf of, DOE.

Historically, DOE has not denied its obligation to pay a share of decommissioning costs which is proportionate to its share of the work performed at a facility. A fuller explanation of the basis for GA's belief that DOE has an obligation to share in the costs of decommissioning is set forth in Enclosure 2 to the January 22,1996 letter of GA's Director of Licensing, Safety and Nuclear Compliance, Dr. Keith E. Asmussen, to the Senior Project Manager, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Projects Directorate, Mr. Alexander Adams, Jr. (Reference).

PO 80x 85606 SAN D' EGO CA 92t86 9784 t619: 455 3000 3?S0 GENERAL ATOWC$ COpf SAN C' EGO CA 92121 1994

I .

May 20,1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 6 % 2581 l

Last year, GA updated its estimate of the s ofthe 1missioning costs for C which it u be res sible. The new esti eic Jthis amount does nol r the non-power reactor reflect thel ax credit), including j facilitiesen r the other of GA's NRC-licensed facilities. The DOE has already committed in writing to pay approximately $13,132,000.00 for the l decommissioning of GA's Hot Cell facility. Based upon information currently available to l it, GA believes that the DOE will also pay the following approximate amounts for the g%-

i

! decommissioning of each of the facilities identified:

l

- Fuel Process Development Buildi.1g . . . . . . . . . . . . . $

l TRIGA Reactor Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c j

- TRIGA Fuel Fabrication Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g.

l

- Experimental Area and Bunker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- Waste Processing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l 1,

- Laboratory Building .................. .......

GA canno provide financial assurance by any of the other me,ttpds permitted by lAccordingly, GA

'[

j NRC regulation j has been hopeful that it could once again provide a parent company guarantee. In addition to the substantially increased new estimate of the decommissioning costs, l however, a new development has occurred.

j i

After substantial negotiation with the NRC staff, and subject only to the final l negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement, GA has voluntarily agreed to l pay to the NRC a substantial sum in settlement of the NRC Staff's October 15,1993 Order (in Docket No. 40-8027 EA, Source Material License No. SUB 1010). Taken together, this settlement with the NRC and the increase in the estimate of the decommissioning costs o illustrate the impact upon GATC of GA's settlement with the NRC, I have enclose <Tfor your review, a pro form Consolidated Balance Sheet which is based upon adjustments (for the settlement) to GATC's December 31,1995 audited financial statement. (Annex A).

(k consequence, GA proposes that an alternative method of compliance, with certain terms and conditions, be approved by the NRC. The document which is attached as Annex B describes the alternative method with such terms and conditions. It is set forth in the style of an agreement in order that it can be evaluated in the context of all of the present circumstances.

. _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ - . . . - - . .= _..m.._- _ . _ _ _ .__._. _ . . - . .-

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 20,1996 Page 3 696-2581 As set forth in the enclosed Affidavit of Mr. John E. Jones, Senior Vice President of j

General Atomics, GA requests that certain information contained in this letter and in the

- enclosures (Annexes A and B) be treated as proprietary information under the provisions of i - 10 CFR 2790. GA is a privately-held company and this letter and its enclosures contain sensitive information. A version of this letter and of the two enclosures to the letter, suitable for the Public Document Room, is enclosed and is marked "PDR Copy".

4 Please let us know at the earliest possible date whether this alternative method is

acceptable. j i

Sincerely,

. ,e

.# .%% ba Dr. Keith E. Asmussen, Director i Licensing, Safety & Nuclear Compliance l

Annexes as above I

a 4

a

~,

1

' ..tachment to General Atomics Letter No. 696-2581 STATE OF CAllFORNIA )

)ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )

d AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN E. JONES 1, John E. Jones, Senior Vice President of General Atomics, do hereby affirm and state:

1. I am an officer of General Atomics and I am authorized to execute this affidavit on behalf of General Atomics.

2. The affidavit is submitted under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 in order to withhold certain parts of the attached letter (and the annexes attached thereto) containing cost and financialinformation of General Atomics from public disclosure or publication.

3. The subject letter contains confidential cost and financial information of a privately-held corporation which has been held in confidence by the owner, is customarily held in such confidence, and is not available in public sources. Public '

disclosure would c:eate substantial harm to the owner by providing detailed financial information to its competitors and other parties whose interest may be adverse to the owner.

4. The information contained in the accon panying letter (and the annexes attached thereto) is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

General Ato nics

[ )

41i E-%

John . Jor es (; I Se r Vice Presidb6t SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of May,1996.

-- ^^^^^^^^^^" '

WITNESS my hand and official seal. '

i casedbeen#NMP i

@,,peess,

,,aissam,.sea Feas-ceA88888 a 1

3pg .....

Notary Pub

s - ,-, -A,- - ,,_ _ _

e i

l l

tN Pa Kin Avio d ,

OtoP2ieTA KV LAJI T H H E c h

ALTERNATIVE METIOD OF COMPLIANCE M

For the reasons set forth herein and in the letter to which thi:: Annex B is attached, General Atomics (the " Company") proposes that the alternative method of compliance (with applicable NRC financial assurance regulations) which is described below, be approved by the NRC.

l WHEREAS, the Company is the holder of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-696, Facility License No. R-38 and Facility License No. R-67 issued by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1963, May 1958 and July 1,

("NRC" or " Commission") on May 3, 3, 1960 respectively (the " Licenses"); and WHEREAS, the Licenses authorize the Company to operate its Mark I and Mark F TRIGA nuclear reactors at a site within San Diego County, California, to possess special nuclear material, and to perform fuel manufacturing activities; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 1994 and September 26, 1995 the company requested that the Cormission issue " possession only" license amendments to Licenses R-67 and SNM-696 respectively, as the result of the Company's business decision that the continued operation of its Mark F TRIGA Reactor Facility (R-67) and fuel manufacturing facilities (SNM-696) is no longer commercially viable; and WHEREAS, the company estimated in a study conducted in 1995 that the total decommissioning (including remediation) costs for the TRIGA Reactor Facility (R-67 and R-38), fuel manufacturing facilities (SNM-696) and other buildings within the Company's San ANNEX B

r m

Mb 5 and Diego complex (the " San Diego site") will be WHEREAS, work on the decommissio;.ing of the San Diego's'ite is ongoing at the present time and significant progress is being made;

- and NEREAS, it is the judgment of the Company that the United States Department of Energy (" DOE") is legally responsible for paying a share of the costs incurred by the Company in the decommissioning of the San Diego site, and that share is equal to the ratio of the amount of U.S. Government-funded work performed at

-each building at the San Diego si+a to the total of all work performed at each building; and o

WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Company that its pro rata share of the estimated costs of decommissioning the San Diego site is approximately and WHEREAS, the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.33 (for R-67 and R-38) and 10 C.F.R. 70.25 (for SNM-696) require the Company to provide financial assurance for the estimated costs of the decommissioning for which it is responsible; and provisions of 10 C.F.R.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the 50.7 d (e) (2) (iii) the Company has previously elected to meet the financial assurance requirements by providing a guarantee by its parent company General Atomics Technologies Corporation ("GATC") of the funding of the estimated costs to be incurred by the Company in the decommissioning of the San Diego site; and WHEREAS, the GATC guarantee is limited to a maximum of i

and 2

I

• - h WHEREAS, GATC has since September, 1992, demonstrated its ability to meet the financial tests set forth in l 7

f

~

Appendix A of 10 C.F.R. 30 (Alternative I) for a parent company guarantee of and the NRC Staff and the Company have separately, but l WHEREAS, simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, entered into an agreement (the " Settlement Agreement") which amicably resolves  !

issues raised by the NRC Staff's October 15, 1993 Order to the (58 Fed. Reg.

Company and to Sequoyah Fuels Corporation ("SFC")

55087, October 15, 1993) relating to the funding of the site decontamination and decommissioning of the facilities located in Gore, Oklahoma that are licensed under NRC License No. SUB-1010, Docket No. 40-8027 (the "SFC Facility"); and WHEREAS, the inclusion of SFC and the funds required for the J

(

Settlement Agreement in the Compar v's Consolidated Financial Report ,;

f

}

and

! WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, denial that it has any and despite the Company's vicorous obligation to do so, the Company has agreed to voluntarily pay to the NRC substantial funds to the NRC in settlement of the NRC's i

claims against the Company; and negotiation of the WHEREAS, during the course of the Settlement Agreement relating to the SFC Facility the Company i

disclosed detailed, private and proprietary information regarding its financial condition to the NRC Staff; and d

3

l l

• 0 i WHEREAS, b,oth parties to this Agreement recognize and agree t

that General Atomics has sustained significant financial impairment since the NRC Staff issued its October 15, 1993 Order and it is the judgment of the Company that the mere existeace of the October 15, 1993 OIder has adversely and significantly affected both the credit j rating of General Atomics and its ability to engage in its regular i

business activities, irrespective of the lawfulness or the merits f

of the Order; and WHEREAS, the NRC Staff nas consistently sought substantial l

financial assurance from the Company for the funding of the decommissioning costs of the SFC Facility site with the knowledge j that funds applied to the decommissioning of that site cannot be i

, applied to the decommissioning of the San Diego site; and

! F mms WHEREAS l ~

y m

and l

WHEREAS, it is the judgment cf the Company that any attempt to I.

meet the above-referenced financial assurance requirements through .

the use of another of the methods set forth in 10 C.F.R. 70.25(

l l (e.g., prepayment, surety bond, external sinking fund, letter of l

credit, etc.) would l

j and to contribute to the decommissioning of the San l

i 4

I i

/g 91 l Diego site; and WHEREAS, the Company has proposed an alternative form of financial assurance for the decommissioning of the San Diego site; and W'H E R E A S , the difference between the strict terms of the financial assurance regulations and the alternative form of financial assurance proposed by the Comp'any below is minimal; and WHEREAS, the NRC Staff and the Company agreed in the Settlement Agreement for the SFC Facility site that any funds paid by the Company to the NRC may be used by the NRC for any lawful purpose; NOW THEREFORE, the Company proposes the following alternative method of compliance with the NRC's financial assurance regulations: i

1. In addition to providing a parent company guaranty of l the Company will create an external Sinking Fund with a recognized financial institution, as contemplated by the NRC financial assurance regulations, into which it will make payments L of er year. During the first two years after,the establishment of the Sinking Fund, no less tha per year of the payments made by the Company shall remain in the Sinking Fund until the Commission authorizes it to be spent. The Company shall be free during that two year period to use up to af the monies contributed each year, plus interest, for the decommissioning of the San Diego site. Each year after the first two years, the Company shall be free to use up t 5

/

of the monies contributed each year, plus interest, to the Sinking Fund for the decommissioning of the San Diego site. At least er year shall remain in the Sinking Fund until the NRC authorizes it to be spent.

2". The monies which are deposited in the Sinking Fund and which may be spent by the Company on the decommissioning of the San f

Diego site, shall be and shall be referred to as the " Current l Account." The monies which remain in the Sinking Fund and l l

accumulate year to year shall be and shall be referred to as the l

" Permanent Account." The balancer of both accounts shall earn interest. All interest earned shall be allocated to the Current Account.

P d 6 '\

1 such time as the Permanent Account exceeds

4. At J .,

. - 7 .'t g no further contributions to the Sinking Fund by the Company will be required, except as described below.

5. In the event that the Company's PI2 rata share of the remaining decommissioning costs for the San Diego site should be greater than the 1995 estimate, whether due to increased estimated costs, or as a result of negotiations with DOE, or otherwise, the deposits and expenditures from the Sinking Fund will continue on 6

i = .

9 i

• the basis described in paragraph 1 above until the amount in the Permanent Account equals the then current difference between the

- Company's share of the remaining costs and the amount of the GATC guarantee. In the same manner, if the company's pl_Q rata share of the remaining costs should be less than its pig rata share of the 1995 estimate (e.g., because the estimate is reduced in the future), then the amount necessary to be accumulated in the Permanent Account will be reduced accordingly. l l

6. It is anticipated that as the work of decommissioning the San Diego site continues, a point will be reached at which the estimated costs of the remaining work will be less than the sum of Permanent Account, and (b) the GATC (a) the amount in the guarantee. The parties hereto agree that when such point is reached, and as the amount of decommissioning work which remains diminishes, the amount of the G1TC guarantee will be reduced on a reasonable and mutually acceptalile basis End a reasonable part of the balance of the Permanent Acc aunt may be applied by. the Company decommission..ng in accordance with mutually i to the costs of )

i acceptable criteria, l

7. The NRC Staf f will ag ree not to require General Atomics ,

l l

or its parent, GATC,.to post cash or any other collateral as a result of any present or future failure of GATC to meet the financial tests for the parent company guarantee as set forth in Appendix A of 10 C.F.R. 30 (Alternative I). The NRC Staff will further agree to forebear from taking any enforcement or other similar action against General Atomics or its current, former, or 7

1 future of ficers, directors, or employees, based upon the financial assurance requirements for the San Diego site, whether such requirements arise under any current NRC regulations or under any future NRC ' regulation that might alter, redefine or clar #" the d

^

currently applicable financial assurance requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.33 and 10 C.F.R. 70.?5.

8. No'part of the alternative method of compliance will limit the NRC Staff's ability to take appropriate enforcement action to enforce General Atomics' compliance with it.

l 1

8

- - -- . _ _ - _ .