ML041670192
| ML041670192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 06/14/2004 |
| From: | Huffman W NRC/NMSS/DWMEP/DD |
| To: | Rueger G Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
| References | |
| +sisprbs20051109, -RFPFR | |
| Download: ML041670192 (7) | |
Text
June 14, 2004 Mr. Gregory M. Rueger Senior Vice President - Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 3 Avila Beach, CA 94177
SUBJECT:
HUMBOLDT BAY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (TAC L52613)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(bb), reactor licensees that have permanently shutdown are required to submit for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval a program for the long-term management and funding of spent fuel storage. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the owner and licensee of the permanently shutdown Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant, submitted a letter to the NRC dated September 26, 2000, addressing Humboldt Bays spent fuel management program. Additional information was provided by PG&E in a letter to the NRC dated January 6, 2004. The NRC also considered information contained in PG&Es annual decommissioning funding report for Humboldt Bay dated March 31, 2004, supplemented by a documented e-mail clarification from your staff dated May 20, 2004.
Based on the attached review, the NRC finds that PG&E, the owner and licensee of Humboldt Bay, has an adequate program for long-term management and funding of its spent fuel storage until such time that title and possession of the fuel is transferred to the Department of Energy for its ultimate disposal in a repository as specified in 10 CFR 50.54(bb). This letter represents a preliminary approval of the spent fuel management program. Final NRC review of the spent fuel management plan will be undertaken as part of Humboldt Bays application for licensing a dry cask storage independent spent fuel storage installation under 10 CFR Part 72.
Sincerely,
/RA/
William C. Huffman, Project Manager Decommissioning Directorate Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket No.: 50-133 Docket No.: 72-27
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page
June 14, 2004 Mr. Gregory M. Rueger Senior Vice President - Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 3 Avila Beach, CA 94177
SUBJECT:
HUMBOLDT BAY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (TAC L52613)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(bb), reactor licensees that have permanently shutdown are required to submit for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval a program for the long-term management and funding of spent fuel storage. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the owner and licensee of the permanently shutdown Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant, submitted a letter to the NRC dated September 26, 2000, addressing Humboldt Bays spent fuel management program. Additional information was provided by PG&E in a letter to the NRC dated January 6, 2004. The NRC also considered information contained in PG&Es annual decommissioning funding report for Humboldt Bay dated March 31, 2004, supplemented by a documented e-mail clarification from your staff dated May 20, 2004.
Based on the attached review, the NRC finds that PG&E, the owner and licensee of Humboldt Bay, has an adequate program for long-term management and funding of its spent fuel storage until such time that title and possession of the fuel is transferred to the Department of Energy for its ultimate disposal in a repository as specified in 10 CFR 50.54(bb). This letter represents a preliminary approval of the spent fuel management program. Final NRC review of the spent fuel management plan will be undertaken as part of Humboldt Bays application for licensing a dry cask storage independent spent fuel storage installation under 10 CFR Part 72.
Sincerely,
/RA/
William C. Huffman, Project Manager Decommissioning Directorate Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket No.: 50-133 Docket No.: 72-27
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION DCD r/f JGreeves DGillen CCraig CBurhkhalter BThomas CPittiglio STreby EGarcia BSpitzberg JMonninger ML041670192
- See Previous Concurrence OFC DECD DECD/LA NRR/DRIP/RPRP OGC DECD/SC NAME WHuffman*
CBurkhalter*
CPittiglio*
STreby (NLO)*
CCraig*
DATE 05/26/04 05/26/04 06/01/04 06/09/04 06/14/04 OFFICIAL RECORD
cc:
Mr. Lawrence F. Womack, Vice Presiden, Power Generation & Nuclear Services Diablo Canyon Power Plant P. O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Mr. Roy Willis, Plant Manager Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1000 King Salmon Avenue Eureka, CA 95503 R. Terry Nelson, Director Fossil Generation Mail Code N11E Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177-0001 Christopher J. Warner, Esq.
Law Department Pacific Gas & Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Chairman, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors County Courthouse 825 Fifth Street Eureka, CA 95501 Mr. Steve Hsu Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services P.O. Box 997414 (MS 7610)
Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Room 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102 Redwood Alliance P.O. Box 293 Arcana, CA 95521 Dr. Rich Ferguson, Energy Chair Sierra Club California 1100 11th Street, Suite 311 Sacramento, CA 94814 Mr. Ed Bailey, Radiation Program Director Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services P.O. Box 997414 (MS 7610)
Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 Commissioner California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Deputy Attorney General State of California 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS OF THE SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING PROGRAM FOR HUMBOLDT BAY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(bb), nuclear power reactors that have permanently ceased operation must submit a spent fuel management and funding program to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and preliminary approval. The program must describe how the licensee intends to manage and provide funding for the management of spent fuel until such time that title and possession of the fuel is transferred to the Department of Energy for its ultimate disposal in a repository.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant was permanently shutdown in July 1976, and has been in SAFSTOR ever since. Spent fuel has been and continues to be stored in the facilitys spent fuel pool. A decommissioning plan was approved in July 1988. Subsequent to the 1996 decommissioning rule, the licensee converted the decommissioning plan into its Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) which is now updated every two years. A Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) was issued by the licensee in February 1998. At the time the PSDAR was issued, the licensees primary decommissioning scenario was that spent fuel would remained stored in the spent fuel pool until 2015 at which time it would be transferred to DOE. Active decommissioning of the facility would not commence until after 2015.
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) letter HBL-85-005 dated February 28, 1985, explained that the operating budget for maintaining the SAFSTOR condition for the permanently shutdown Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant is authorized by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to be included in the utilitys base rates. The costs of maintaining Humboldt Bay in SAFSTOR, including costs associated with storage of the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, are therefore funded on an annual basis from the utilitys operating budget.
In PG&E letter HBL-00-016 dated September 26, 2000, the licensee reaffirmed that the current costs associated with storage of the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool continue to be funded annually from the utilitys operating budget. However, PG&E noted that it was pursuing the licensing and (depending on the licensing outcome) construction of a spent fuel dry cask storage independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for long-term storage of spent fuel.
In 2003, PG&E was committing significant financial resources towards the licensing of a dry cask storage ISFSI. Because the Humboldt Bay decommissioning trust fund was not previously identified as a source of monies for long-term spent fuel management, it was unclear as to how the monies in the decommissioning trust fund were allocated in support of the ISFSI-related expenditures (i.e., engineering, licensing, construction, and operation). Furthermore, the NRC staff also needed to understand how ISFSI expenditures from the decommissioning trust fund would impact the ability to complete radiological decommissioning of the facility since the trust currently is not fully funded. NRC letter dated October 6, 2003, requested additional information from PG&E concerning funding of the ISFSI licensing effort and how the spent fuel management and funding plan was affected.
PG&E responded to the request for additional information in a letter dated January 6, 2004 (HBL-04-001). The NRC also considered information contained in PG&Es annual decommissioning funding report for Humboldt Bay dated March 31, 2004, supplemented by a documented e-mail clarification dated May 20, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041470095).
3.0 DISCUSSION Based on the most recent request for funding to the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) via the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding, PG&E has revised the primary decommissioning scenario for the Humboldt Bay facility. In December 2003, PG&E formally submitted a license application to the NRC for approval of a dry cask ISFSI at the Humboldt Bay site. If the NRC approves the Humboldt ISFSI license application, PG&E will likely decide to construct the ISFSI and begin active decommissioning of the facility in 2006.
For long-term spent fuel storage cost calculations, PG&E still assumes that the fuel will be removed from the Humboldt Bay site by the Department of Energy in 2015.
The licensee estimates that the total costs associated with the long-term management of spent fuel in dry cask storage from the ISFSI licensing to decommissioning will be $68 million (2004 Dollars) of which approximately $5.5 million has been disbursed through the end of 2003.
Because these anticipated ISFSI costs are not covered by the annual operating budget, PG&E recently recognized that a 10 CFR 50.54(bb) fund needed to be established to clearly enumerate how monies are collected, reserved and expended for ISFSI related expenses. As a consequence, PG&E has developed an accounting spreadsheet to partition their decommissioning trust fund into three areas1) radiological decommissioning costs; 2) non-radiological decommissioning costs and; 3) ISFSI and spent fuel management related costs.
At the end of 2003, the Humboldt decommissioning trust fund balance was $213.9 million. The following table summarizes the information provided by PG&E on the allocation of funds within the decommissioning trust for each cost area including the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) spent fuel management funding for dry cask ISFSI storage of spent fuel. The table also includes known future additions to the funds authorized by the CPUC and current unfunded balances.
Humboldt Bay Decommissioning Funding Status as of December 31, 2003
($ in Millions)
Radiological Non-Radiological ISFSI
- Decommissioning Decommissioning Related Total Trust Account Balance
$172.9
$1.1
$39.9
$213.9 Additional Funds to be Collected
$41
$0.2 0.3
$41.5 Fund Shortfall (Estimated Remaining
$53.8
$2.1
$22.3
$78.2 Funds Needed to Complete Each Activity)
Total Estimated Costs
$267.7
$3.4
$62.5
$333.6
- The ISFSI related costs include engineering, licensing, construction, operation, and decommissioning costs and for the purpose of this review, are lumped together as the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) costs.
PG&E believes that a significant portion of the funding shortfalls will be obtained from investment growth of the decommissioning trust and tax-savings related to the way the trust is set up. PG&E also notes that any future shortfalls caused by poor investment returns or unforseen expenses would necessitate requests for additional rate recovery from the CPUC to fully fund the decommissioning activities in each trust sector. The information in the above table are based on a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate prepared by TLG Services (as adjusted by certain factors dictated during the most recent CPUC Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding).
The staff notes that the Humboldt Bay decommissioning trust fund contains monies for spent fuel management in support of 10 CFR 50.54 (bb) and non-radiological decommissioning activities, in addition to the radiological decommissioning funds in support of 10 CFR 50.82 activities. Consistent with regulatory Statements of Consideration concerning the spent fuel management program (e.g., 67 FR 78332, 78340 (December 24, 2002); 61 FR 39278, 39285 (July 29, 1996)), the decommissioning regulations do not prohibit commingling of decommissioning funds with spent fuel management (ISFSI) funds and other non-radiological decommissioning funds, provided the licensee ensures that separate sub-accounts are established so funds for each type of activity are appropriately identified. PG&E states in its January 6, 2004 letter, to the staff that a decommissioning spreadsheet has been established as an accounting mechanism to maintain this segregation of funds. It is the staffs understanding that PG&E will adhere to the intent of this funding segregation and does not intend on moving monies between funds to address funding shortfalls for accounting convenience.
The NRC staff finds the spent fuel management cost estimates to be reasonable based on a cost comparison with a similar decommissioning reactor (Big Rock Point) while acknowledging the large uncertainties and site specific variances. The staff recognizes the current funding shortfalls. However, the licensees plan to cover the shortfall is reasonable. In addition, the annual decommissioning funding status report submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) will provide information to assess the licensees performance with regard to funding the shortfalls, and can serve as the basis for staff action, if necessary. The staff finds that the licensees proposed plan for the transfer of spent fuel to an ISFSI and associated funding mechanism does not result in a loss of reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available when needed to complete radiological decommissioning of the site.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The NRC staff finds that the revised PG&E plan for the long-term storage of spent fuel is adequate and provides sufficient details on associated funding mechanisms. Therefore, the staff concludes that the PG&E spent fuel management program for Humboldt Bay complies with 10 CFR 50.54(bb) and approves the program on a preliminary basis. Final Commission review of the spent fuel management program will be undertaken as part of the current dry cask storage licensing application review for the Humboldt Bay 10 CFR Part 72.
Principal contributor: William Huffman Dated: May 25, 2004