ML112280060
| ML112280060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 08/01/2011 |
| From: | Kristina Banovac NRC/NMSS/SFST/LID/LB |
| To: | Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co, Northeast Utilities, Nstar Electric, Yankee Atomic Electric Co |
| Banovac K, NMSS/SFST 492-3571 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML112280060 (2) | |
Text
Page 1 NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATE (9-2003 )
08/01 /2011 CONVERSATION RECORD TI ME 2:00pm NAME OF PERSON (S) CONTACTED OR IN CO NTACT VVl TH YO U T ELEPHONE NO . TYPE O F CONV ERSATION See below. D V ISIT ORGANIZATIO N
[;l] CONFERENCE Representatives of Yankee Companies. Northeast Utilities (NUl. NSTAR SUBJECT D TELEPHONE Discuss NRC draft RAI #3 re o indirect license transfer request D INCOMING D OUTGOING
SUMMARY
(Continue on Page 2)
NRC attendees: Kristina Banovac, Anneliese Simmons, JoAnn Simpson, Larry Pittiglio, Beth Mizuno Yankee CompanieslNUINSTAR attendees: Joe Fay, Wayne Norton, Carla Pizzella, Da vid Repka, Tim Matthews, Larry Chandler, Gerald Garfield The purpose of the call was to discuss: (I) the draft requests for additional information (RAIs) related to the request for indirect license transfer related to the pending merger of NU and NSTAR, to make sure the questions are clear and to ensure a common understanding of the RAIs; and (2) establish a date in which the Yankees will respond to the RAJ.
The draft RAIs were emailed to the meeting participants before the call to faci litate the discussion.
Background
On May 27, 2011 , NRC sent RAI 2, Part 2, related to the application for NRC con sent to indirect license transfer, related to the Northeast Utilities and NSTAR merger. This RAI addressed questions on decommissioning funding.
The Yankees responded to the RAI on June 8, 2011. The staff has reviewed the R AI response and has additional questions, including needed clarifications of information included in the June 8, 2011, response.
This information is required for staff to complete its review of the license transfer request. Specifically, staff needs to understand the current status or baseline of decommissioning funding to be able to determine whether the proposed transfer will have an adverse impact on the licensees' decommissioning financial assurance.
Continue on Page 2 ACTION REQ UIRED NRC will clarify RAIs #1 and 2.
The licensees will respond to the RAIs within 30 days.
NAME O F PERSON DOCUM ENTING CONVERSATIO N [ SIGNATURE DATE Kristina Banovac ?L- 7' ~ 08/ 15/2011 AC TION TAKE N TITLE OF PE RSON TAKING ACT ION [ SIGNATURE O F PERSON TAKING ACTION DATE NRC FO RM 699 (9-2003) PRINTED O N RECYC LED PAPER
Page 2 CONVERSATION RECORD (Continued)
SUMMARY
(Continue on Page 3)
Discussion NRC staff discussed the draft RAJs related to decommissioning funding.
RAJ #1 - Staff is requesting whether funds for spent fuel management and operations are maintained in a fund that is separate from the decommissioning trust fund . Staff will clarify the RAI.
RAJ #2 - Staff is requesting clarification on whether the actual and projected expenditures from the decommissioning trust fund (that are included in the June 8, 2011 , response) are for legitimate decom missioning expenses. Staff will clarify the RAJ, so it is clear that we are generally asking about the actual and projected expe nditures reported throughout the June 8, 2011, response, for all three of the Yankee licensees (Connecticut Yankee, Yankee Rowe, and Maine Yankee).
RAt #3 - Staff is requesting clarification for the numbers in the table in Enclosure 1 of the June 8, 2011, response, as we are unable to follow the numbers. There is no reported end-of-year 2010 balance in the table. We need to understand the 2010 end-of-year balance, as our calculations using the balance reported in a separa te March 15,2011, submittal (decommissioning funding assurance status report) do not coincide with the beginning 2011 balance in Enclosure 1. Staff noted that ifthere are differences in the information in the FERC filing and the March 15,2011, submittal, it would be helpful if the licensees could provide a narrative explanation of any differences.
RAJ #4 - Staff needs to understand any decommissioning funding shortfall that may currently exist. Note that the licensee could discuss any options they have for pursing rate relief to collect additio nal monies to fund the shortfall.
RAJ #5 - Same as RAJ #3, except RAJ #5 is specific to Yankee Rowe.
The Yankees representative questioned how they should address potential settlements from a lawsuit with DOE, in their response. NRC staff mentioned that we don't need details on the potential sett lements. Staff just needs to understand whether spent fuel management costs are coming or have come out of the decommissioning trust fund.
It was mentioned that a future meeting before the applicant responded to the RA Is could be beneficial. INote: This would need to be an open and noticed meeting. I The attorneys for NU and NSTAR asked about the linkage between these RAJs and the indirect license transfer request.
They claimed that the RAJs seem to be involved more with compliance with 10 CFR 50.75, rather than a reasonable assurance finding that the transfer won't impact decommissioning funding; therefore, they feel there is no link between these questions and the indirect license transfer.
NRC staff noted that the information is needed for staff to understand the baseline or current status of decommissioning financial assurance. Staff must have an understanding of the baseline/current status of decommissioning funding, before staff can determine whether the transfer would have an impact on decommissioning funding.
The Yankees representative noted that they will respond to the RAJs within 30 days.
Continue on Page 3