web analytics

Information Directory

Reference Directory

HPPOS-269 PDR-9306090321

Technical Assistance Request, Yuma Proving Ground, Department of the Army, Statement of Intent for a Government Licensee

See the memorandum from J. E. Glenn to R. J. Pate dated August 12, 1991, and the memorandum from J. H. Austin to J. E. Glenn dated August 6, 1992. These memos respond to the TAR from Region V, dated July 15, 1991, regarding the Department of the Army Statement of Intent related to the YUMA Proving Ground. NMSS has reviewed the financial assurance and revised cost estimate documents in a Statement of Intent as cited in NUREG-1337, Rev. 1, page A-6. The cost estimate and the assumptions used in the cost details are reasonable. As a matter of information to the Regional licensing staff, we are enclosing a November 21, 1990 memorandum sent to the Regions which included recommended wording for a statement of intent for a government licensee which may be used by Regions in future cases.

Government licensees required to submit financial assurance under the decommissioning rule may use a statement of intent as their financial assurance mechanism. Most government licensees required to make submittals are expected to use this option. However, no recommended wording for a statement of intent was provided in the standard format and content guidance originally published as NUREG-1336 and later issued as Regulatory Guide 3.66. We are enclosing recommended wording to provide an example of an acceptable statement of intent. This recommended wording will be incorporated into the standard review plan for license applications (FC 90-2) until it can be added to Regulatory Guide 3.66.

In addition to the wording for a statement of intent, questions have been raised concerning what financial assurance is required from the Navy and Air Force master materials licensees. The Navy and Air Force have made preliminary financial assurance submittals to comply with the July 27, 1990 submittal deadline. However, the decommissioning regulations also require that the Navy and Air Force each submit a decommissioning funding plan with site-specific cost estimates at renewal. However, the lack of a renewal date leaves the due date for submittal of a complete funding plan in question.

The intent of the rule is that the Navy and Air Force should submit plans within the next five years which assure a specified level of funding for decommissioning their facilities. A reasonable approach would be for them to systematically review the activities authorized at each site, and perform a site-specific cost estimate for each site which would require decommissioning financial assurance if licensed separately. For the other activities and sites which do not reach this threshold, a general combined cost estimate would be acceptable. A total cost should be determined and a statement of intent or other mechanism for that dollar amount should be provided.

This is an especially opportune time for the military to be considering decommissioning plans because they recently received the GAO report issued in March 1990 entitled, “The Military Would Benefit From a Comprehensive Waste Disposal Program,” which was circulated to the regions in May 1990. We request that Regions II and IV approach the Navy and the Air Force, respectively, to discuss our expectations that they submit decommissioning funding plans with site-specific cost estimates within the next five years.

Regulatory references: 10 CFR 30.35, 10 CFR 40.36, 10 CFR 70.25, Regulatory Guide 3.66

Subject codes: 5.8, 11.2, 12.13

Applicability: Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Materials