ML20245F754
| ML20245F754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905020484 | |
| Download: ML20245F754 (65) | |
Text
. - -
l
! *~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION a==========================================================
In the Matter of:
)
)
SEABROOK DECOMMISSION FUNDING
) Docket Nos. 50-443 ASSURANCE PLAN
)
50-444 k'
A Pages:
1 through 61 Place:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
April 20, 1989
==============================================
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
~
OfidelReporten 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 8905020484 890420 PDR ADOCK 05000443 (202) 628-4888 l
P PDC
~
I
1 4-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION In the Matter of:
)
)
Seabrook Decommission Funding
)
Docket Nos.,50-443 Assurance Plan
)
50 444 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room B-15 Rockville Plaza North BuJlding Rockville, Maryland
- Thursday, April 20. 1989 The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, at 1:20 p.m.
PRESENT:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
Vic Nerses, NRR i
l
(
Carrel Nash, NRR James Peterson, NRR Dick Wessman, NRR Cecil Thomas, NRR Robert W6od, NRR Sidney Feld, NRR Joe Scinto, OGC Greg Berry, OGC Ed Reis, OGC Marjorie Nordlinger, OGC Neil Jensen, OGC Myron Karmen, OCM NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE:
Ted Feigenbaum Vincent Wright Penny Neault Irving Canner Robert Sweeney John Kyte Isabelle Anacker Robert Williams Allen Legendre
[k, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
l~.
e n
'? "
'PRESENT:
(Continued) l John A. Ritscher, Ropes & Gray, on behalf of New Hampshire Yankee Richard H.
Bornemann, United. Illuminating Company I
John Traficonte, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General 4-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
x________.________._._____...__
I 3
? ~e 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
MR. NERSES:
Good afternoon.
My name is Vic 3
Nerses, and I am the Seabrook project manager.
This is a 4
meeting between the NRC and the licensee, the New Hampshire 5
Yankee, to discuss the licensee's decommissioning funding 6
assurance package.
7 I want to point out that this meeting is being 8
transcribed, and I think that everybody knows that by now.
9 Please give your name when speaking, so that the Reporter J
1 10 can do his job properly.
There is an attendance sheet being 11 passed around.
I would hope that everybody would be able to 12 sign it and get it back.
We would like to make a copy for 13 the Reporter as well.
(
14 Before we continue on, it would be nice if we just I
15 introduced ourselves and go around the room and do so.
And 16 why do we not begin with'this gentleman.
17 MR. WRIGHT:
My name is Vincent Wright, and I am a O
18 consultant for the New Hampshire Yankee people.
I am an 19 economist, and have been in the field of economics since 1 20 got out of the Navy at the end of World War II.
I have been 21 a professor of economics at Boston College and the 22 University of San Francisco.
And I am currently an employee 23 of Stone & West Engineering Corporation, and do a tremendous 24 amount of consulting in the field of escalation, price 25 escalation of one sort or the other, escalation costs of
(,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4
~,,
1 money and that sort of thing.
That probably should be 2
adequate for my purposes.
I 3
MR. FEIGENBAUM:
I am Ted Feigenbaum, and I am 4
vice president of the New Hampshire Yankee Division 5
responsible for engineering, licensing and quality programs.
j 6
MS. NEAULT:
My name is Penny Neault, and I am the j
7 executive assistant to the president at New Hampshire 8
Yankee.
9 MR. CANNER:
My name is.Irving Canner, and I am 10 the comptroller at New Hampshire Yankee.
11 MR. SWEENEY:
I am Bob Sweeney, and I am the 12 New Hampshire Yankee licensing rep here in Washington.
13 MR.'NASH:
Darrel Nash in the Office of Nuclear 14 Reactor Regulation, section leader.
15 MR. FELD:
Sidney Feld, and I am an economist in 16 the Office of Research for the NRC.~
17 MR. PETERSON:
Jim Peterson, and I with the NRC 18 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
19 MR. WESSMAN:
I am Dick Wessman, the director of 20 PD 1 and 3 which has licensing responsibility for Seabrook.
21 MR. SCINTO:
I am Joe Scinto, and I am Deputy 22 General Counsel at the NRC.
23 MR. NERSES:
And I am Vic Nerses, the Seabrook 24 licensing project manager.
25 MR. BAFRY:
Gregory Barry, and I am a lawyer in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
5 p.,
1 the Office of General Counsel.
2 MR. REIS:
I am Ed Reis, the General Counsel of.
3 the NRC.
4 MR. THOMAS:
Cecil Thomas, Policy Development and 5
Technical Support. Branch, NRC.
6 MR. KARMEN:
Myron Karmen, Office of the 7
Commissioner.
8 MS. NORDLINGER:
I am Marjorie Nordlinger, Office 9
of the' General Counse).
And Neil Jensen also of the. Office 10 of General Counsel will be here shortly.
l 11 MR. KYT3:
I am John Kyte, and I work with 12 Seabrook hereLin Washington.
13 MS. ANACKER:
I am Isabelle Anacker, and I work in.
.(
14
,public communications for New Hampshire Yankee.
I 15 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I am John Traficonte, and I am an 16 Assistant Attorney' Gene'ral in Massachusetts.
~
17.
MR. WILLIAMS:
I am Rob Williams, staff member of 18 New Hampshire Yankee corporate communications.
19 MR..ERICKSON:
I am Pete Erickson, project manager 20 of decommissioning with the NRC.
)
21 MR. BORNEMANN:
I am Richard Bornemann, director 22 of federal affairs for United Illuminating Company, a 23 Seabrook joint owner.
24 MR. LEGENDER:
I am Allen Legender, and I am 25 New Hampshire Yankee's licensing manager at Seabrook
^(~
Heritage Rel?orting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
6
.v 1
station.
s 2
MM. RITSCHER:
I am John Ritscher, Ropes & Gray,
'3 counsel to New Hampshire Yankee.
4 MR. NERSES:
Thank you.
Before we go on with 5
conducting our business as usual, I would like to just 6
mention that at the end of this meeting that I will make an 7
opportunity for any questions or comments by members of the 8
public who are attending this meeting.
9 To continue on, let me just point out just as 10 opening remarks that on March 20, 1989 that the Applicant 11 submitted their decommissioning funding assurance pacaage, 12 and that was in response to CLI 88-10 which is the 13 Commission's order that was issued on December 21st.
The
- /'
14 staff reviewed that package and our review of that package 15 found a need to consider inflation and clarifications of 16 some contingency terms. 'So we commented to t'he' licensee in 17 our letter to you folks on March 31, 1989.
18 This meeting is for the staff to understand how 19 you will be considering inflation and whatever is the 20 licensing funding method.
And for that, I want to turn that 21 over to you, Ted, to begin.
22 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Ted Feigenbaum.
As you said, 23 Vic, the purpose of today's meeting is the forthcoming 24 response to the staff's March 31, 1989 request for 25 additional information regarding the pose five percent
't,.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
{
(202) 628-4888 q
l 1
f I
i l---_--___-___
^
3 I
decommissioning surety bond that we submitted on the 20th of 2
March.
3 In accordance with the Commission's Order 4
CLI 88-10, as you mentioned, New Hampshire Yankee submitted 5
an unconditional guarantee for a $72.1 million post five 6
percent decommissioning fund to provide reasonable assurance 7
that the unit could be properly decommissioned in the remote 8
event that an operating license is not received after low 9
power testing is conducted.
10 Now we recognize that the staff was given the 11 responsibility by tt3 Commission to assure that the 12 requirements of CLI 88-10 have been met.
The staff's recent 13 letter requests clarification with respect to two issues.
g}
14 First, as you indicated, the treatment of inflation over the 15 period of the hypothetical decommissioning; and two, 16 clarification with respect to the language of'the surety.
17 We would like to address both of these issues today, so that 18 the process can move ahead.
19 Regarding the first issue, it is our 20 interpretation of the staff's comment that the staff 21 believes that additional funds beyond the surety's 22
$72.1 million face value will be necessary to carry out the 23 decommissioning and the fuel storage costs to account for
~
24 inflation effects.
25 To show how this can be accomplished, New
(,,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
8
~
1 Hampshire Yankee has a handout which we would like to go 2
over with you.
If you would pass that'around.
Now we are l going to go over this table in detail, but I would just like 1
4 to give you sort of an overview and summarize.
The table 5
shows total cash dispersement to accomplish all 6
decommissioning activities including the 25 percent 7
contingency factor, and an escalation factor applied to 8
decommissioning and fuel storage costs.
9 The escalation factor is based on historical and 10 projected data from the President's Council of Economic 11 Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget.
The table 12 also indicates that the cash available from the surety can 13 be supplemented by an escrow account containing zero coupon (P
14 Treasury notes of varying maturities with an initial value 15 of approximately $4.7 million.
That would generate a total 16 of $29.6 millich over the 28 year period envi~sioned by the 17 Commission in CLI 88-10.
Required amounts for CLI 88-10 are 18 also provided on the table for your information and 19 comparison.
20 At this point, I would like to have Penny Neault 21 and Irving Canner address the specifics of the table that we 22 provided to you.
Also here with us, as he introduced 23 himself, is Dr. Vincent Wright, who is a senior consulting 24 economist with Stone & Webster, and a formsr professor of 25 economics at various universities around the country with Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l s.
l
l 9
1
. c.,
'l 1
over forty years of experience in the field of economics.
Wright will address the escalation factor used in the 2
Mr.
3 calculations.
Penny.
j l
4 MS. NEAULT:
Thank you.
I am Penny Neault.
You l
5 should all have a copy of the table in front of you labeled 6
New Hampshire Yankee Post Five Percent Decommissioning Fund 7
Statement of Application and Source of Funds.
Does 8
everybody have that?
Okay, good.
9 I will be reviewing the top section called I
10 Application of Funds.
The first column lists by line item 11 the title of each item that we are going to be discussing.
12 The second column is a 28 year total of funds as calculated 13 by New Hampshire Yankee.
And the third column are the funds
/-
14 required through the Commission Order CLI 88-10.
15 The first line item, decommissioning costs, was
~
16 derived'from ths N5w Hampshire Yankse rssponse to CLI 88-07, 17 the plan for the return of the site to unrestricted use 18 following low power testing in the remote event that a full 19 power license was not forthcoming.
The $19.7 million value 20 is equal to the total plan value of $21.1 million minus the l
21 contingency of $1.355 million.
This is the same value which 22 was used in CLI 88-10.
23 The next line item, fuel storage, for a total of l
24
$35.76 million is in current year dollars, and is based on 25
$110,370 per month until year 28.
The $110,370 value was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
10 l
th 1
adopted from the plan at the point when fuel storage was the 2
only activity being performed.
In CLI 88-10, the Commission 1
3 present valued the storage costs of $110,000 per month with 1
4 the resultant value of $25 million.
Therefore in the second 1
5 column, what we have done is brought the $25 million back to 6
current year dollars.
)
7 The third line item, fuel disposal, at $13 million 8
was directly obtained from the Commission Order CLI 88-10 i
9 which is the same value in both cases.
The above items 10 summed together result in a total of $68.47 million versus 11 the $57.7 million as was used in CLI 88-10 as indicated in 12 the last column.
You can compare Column 2 and 3.
13 A value of $5.4 million was used as an offset
("
14 through the Commission double counting the fuel storage for 15 a period of 49 months.
The $5.4 million value is equal to 16
$110,370 per month multiplied by 49' months.
17 A contingency factor of 25 percent was applied to 18 the total with the resultant value of $15.76 million.
In 19 CLI 88-10, the Commission's value for contingency was 20
$14.4 million-The contingency value was now higher due to 21 the fact that we had brought the fuel storage costs to 22 current year dollars.
23 Escalation at a rate of 3.5 percent as obtained 24 from the President's Council of Economic Advisors and the 25 Offic4 of Management and Budget was applied to the l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
11 o
-1 decommissioning costs plus fuel storage.
The escalation 2
value of $22.87 million added to.the above items. result in a 3~
tota 1' requirement of $101.69 million versus the 4
$72.1 million that was required in the Commission's order.
5 Dr. Vincent Wright will now discuss --
6 MR. FELD:
Excuse me.
What did you apply the 7
escalation to, you said your decommissioning costs 8
and --
9 MS. NEAULT:
And fuel storage.
10 MR.-FELD:
Yes, okay.
Thank you.
11 MS. NEAULT:
Dr. Wright can discuss the escalation 12 factor used.
13-MR. WRIGHT:
Fine.
Let me just make a statement (1
14 to this effect.
That the United States economy is not an i
l 15 inflation prone economy.
Let me substantiate that by taking l
16 you back a few years and" showing yod whst has happened.
If
~
17 I were to take, for example, an indicator such a fixed 18 weighted price index of the GNP which probably came into 19 existence in the post-World War II period and has been in 20 existence only since about 1959, but it is probably the most i
21 representative of the indices because it takes in not only 1
22 price changes but it keeps constant the compositions of 23 gross national product.
24 This Is in contrast, for example, to the implicit 25 deflator which is more commonly employed and actually is 4
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
Ci_
12 1
employed by the Management and Budget and is actually 2
employed by the Council of Economic Advisors.
That 3
indicator, of course, takes into account price changes but 4
without tying them to a specific period like 1982, so that 5
it changes not only the prices but the compositions, so that 6
the weights will change a bit.
So the better of the two 7
indices to use is the fixed weighted price index for the 8
gross national product, and this is the one that we 9
employed.
10 Now if I take you back to its inception in 11 1959 and take it on down to 1988, a matter of 29 years.
And 12 then let us say this, that you should factor out for example 13 exogenous influences such as what happened by OPEC action in
(
14 1974 and 197,5, and OPEC action in 1979, 1980, and 1981.
15 Because what we are talking about is the actual working 16 economy, and it is only the exogenous factors that we are 17 concerned.with at that time, the free market somewhat 18 unfettered working as it does to distribute the goods and sc 1
f 19 on.
i 20 So now in that period of time, that indicator went j
21 up 3.3 percent, an average of 3.34 percent to be accurate.
22 And it only had a standard deviation of 1.67 percent, which 23 means of course that there was a great deal of stability.
It did "ot exceed 3.5 percent, and it is in line with the 24 n
25 projections, of course, of the Office of Management and IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
13 1
Budget and the Council of Economic Advisors.
As a matter of 2
fact, both of those employing time series and regression 3
techniques for their econometric models came out with 4
1.7 percent in 1994, the Council of Economic Advisors and 5
the Office of Management and Budget.
6 These are the economic assumptions.
And upon 7
these economic assumptions, we predicate our policy.
So 8
using the techniques that I employed, I find that I am not 9
at variance.
And using the techniques that I have employed, 10 I have found that I was able to substantiate the statement 11 that I made earlier, that it is not an inflation prone 12 economy except when exogenous influences are exerted upon 13 us, such as OPEC.
(
14 Now included in this period, in the span of time 15 of 1959 let us say to 1988, we did have of course the 16 Vietnan struggle. ~ But the Vietnam struggle, even though it 17 pushed prices up in the five and six percent range, it did 18 not push them up anything like OPEC action.
OPEC 8ction 19 came upon us unexpectedly.
OPEC action was action of course 20 in which they quadrupled prices in November or 1973, and the 21 impact was in the subsequent two years of 1974 and 1975.
22 And that went up four times, and it went up only twice in l
23 1979, 1980, and 1981, but twice because it was a higher base 24 and it had a greater impact.
25 So that these exogenous influences had a terrible Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
14 r~.
1 effect on the economy, a very destructive one.
But I do not 2
anticipate like that in the future.
Your economy is not 3
inflation prone, and there is every empirical support to 4
. indicate that it probably will duplicate that which we had 5
there in the period of 1959 to 1988.
6 People would say how do you get to 1.7 moving from 7
let's say a 3.5 and so on.
nnd you can get there because 8
any time of course that you a line of escalating equations-9 and it is a straight line, it increases at a decreasing 10 rate, and you must always keep that in mind.
11 So I would leave you with that, and obviously I 12 would be willing to answer any questions if they come along 13 subsequently.
(
14 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Okay.
No questions at this 15 point.
Let's move along.
Irving Canner is going to discuss 16 the bottom half of"this 'first sheet, which is the source of
^
~
17 funds.
Irving.
18 MR. CANNER:
My name is Irving @anner.
And Penny 19 and Vince have just basically got done defining that the 20 total needs of decommissioning would approximate 21
$101.7 million.
I am here to discuss how that obligation 22 will be satisfied through the previously submitted 23
$72.1 million surety bond and the proposed supplemental 24 trust to absorb the excess requirements beyond the 25
$72.1 million cash flow.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
I 15 i
cs 1
On the schedule that was just distributed, I 2
presented four columns.
The first is an annual portrayal of 3
the $101.7 million of decommissioning costs.
These costs 4
were included, this cash flow was included in the previously 5
submitted plan.
And the only distinction that should be 6
made from it is the fact that the excess fuel storage 7
adjustment was backed out from the initial years, the first 8
49 months.
9 With that as an obligatJon to satisfy, column 2 10 portrays the surety bond cash flow in th,e second column as a 11 supplemental trust that we would establisn, and deposit 12 sufficient monies to satisfy the excess obligation beyond 13 the $72.1 million which totals approximately $29.6 million.
(
14 The monies that we would use would be invested 15 strictly in United States Treasury bonds, what are known as 16 zero coupon bonds.' They are referred to as s' trips in the
~~
17 industry.
The reason that we would be using Treasury bonds 18 and zero coupon bonds is one that they are guaranteed by the 19 United States government; two, they are locking in today's 20 current yield; and three, they minimize the reinvestment 21 rate risk that we would incur if we would just roll them 22 over in investments; and more importantly they target an 23 obligation conmencing in as we see here in year 13.
24 These monies of just about $4.7 milllon to be 25 deposited in a separate trust were based on indication rates Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
16 1
as of April 14th.
And that is disclosed in the first 2
schedule that you were handed out recognizing the interest 3
rate could move either way over the next week, the next 4
month, or whatever.
But it is a reasonable portrayal of the 5
monies that would be required today to fund into the 6
supplemental trust, and in effect go out and' buy sixteen 7
individual zero coupon Treasury bills with the first 8
maturing in the year 13 et cetera right through, thus 9
guaranteeing the excess obligation in and about the surety 10 bond cash flow.
11 The rates on April 14th based on this obligation 12
~here were a weighted average of 8.9 percent.
Recognizing 13 the inverted yield curve that we are in, the rates range f.
14 from 9.48 percent in year 13 and drop down to 15 8.65 percent in year 28, but overall, an 8.9 percent yield.
16 Unless there~are any questions, I would turn this 17 back over to Ted.
18 MR. SCINTO:
Questions on what, on either table?
19 MR. CANNER:
On anything.
20 MR. SCINTO:
I just do not understand, on this 21 table.
22 MR. CANNER:
Okay.
23 MR. SCINTO:
I just do not understand the title of l
24 the second column.
25 MR. CANNER:
The surety bond cash flow?
i Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
~
e-17 m
1 MR. SCINTO:
Application of funds.
2 MR. CANNER:
Application of funds.
-3 MR. SCINTO:
And the rest that follows that.
4 MR. CANNER:
Those would be the total requirements 5
over the'28 year period of $101.7 million that were defined l
6 on.the first chart that was given out, including the 7
decommissioning costs, the fuel storage costs, et cetera.
8 MR. SCINTO:
I guess that I do not understand 9
total post five percent.
Is MR. NERSES:
This represents the total costs.
If 11 you get a five percent license, but do not get a full power 12 license.
13 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Do not get a fp.ll power license.
Q, 14 MR. SCINTO:
All right.
Thank you.
I now 15 understand what the five percent means.
16 MR. F5IGENBAUM:
At this point, I would like to 17 summarise what NHY is proposing again.
I am sorry, Darrel.
18 MR. NASH:
If you are going to answer it later on, 19 just tell me, but what is the basis of the $17 million in 20 year 28, what is included in that figure?
21 MS. NEAULT:
Penny Neault.
The question what are 22 the constituents of the S17 million in year 28.
The main 23 constituent of that is the $13 million fuel disposal fee.
24 We also have at the end when you go through the hypothetical 25 scenario where the fuel would be stored on site until the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _
1 18 1
28th year after it was so ordered that you would have a 2
little bit of clean-up after the fuel was shipped off, so 3
there is some clean-up costs in that, but the main 4
constituent is the $13 million.
5 MR. CANNER:
I might add that the contingency of 6
25 percent would be applied to that $13 million, and you are 7
generating approximately another $3 million.
8 MR. FELD:
But since you are not applying 9
escalation to that $13 million figure, I am curious as to 10 why it should be different than what was previously applied 11 in that year 28, unless that small clean-up portion is 12 having escalation applied to it.
13 MS. NEAULT:
Yes, that is right.
The clean-up
(
14 costs in year 28 has been escalated.
We have the 25 percent 15 contingency, and we have the $13 million fuel disposal.
So 16 that is'why there'is a difference.
17 MR. FELD:
Could I also get one clarification on 18 the eaglier years.
The valuts in the first two columns are 19 identical in years 1 through 12 I guess.
And my impression 20 was that you were adjusting the storage costs under 21 Column 1 which was not accounted for under the $72.1 million 22 surety bond cash flow, yet the figures are identical.
I am 23 confused as to why that is the case.
24 MS. NEAULT:
Okay.
The main reason is that we 25 have looked at the fuel storage in current year dollars, so l
Heritage Reportitig Corporation (202) 628-4888
19 1
that would.be the $110,370 per month times 12 which is I
l 2
roughly I think $1.3 million a year.
We have got those 1
3 costs, and we have backed out in the first 49 months.
There 4
was an excess that the Commission has used for fuel storage.
5 In effect in the $72.1 million order or the CLI 88-10 order, 6
there was fuel storage included in two line items in what i
1 7
was called the decommissioning line iteia which was the 8
$19.7 million.
And additionally the Commission has added in 9
until year 28 fuel storage.at the same rate of $1.3 million 10 per year.
11 And so since we have had fuel storage double 12 counted during that same period, we backed that $5.4 million 13 out which gave us excess funds from the surety fund that
[l 14 allowed us to pay for that constant year dollars of the fuel 15 storage escalated until year 12, and that is when the 16 deficiency came:
17 MR. NERSES:
You are saying that you took that 18 excess and spread it over the 13 period of time?
19 MS. NEAULT:
Correct.
20 MR. SCINTO:
Did you spread that excess as a 21 straight fund?
That looks like it is available funds in the 22 front end.
Did you spread that straight or did you take any 23 interest into account in spreading that fund?
24 MS. NEAULT:
We spread what would be allowed by 25 the yearly -- this is Penny Neault speaking.
The way that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_.___m.____
20 1
the surety _ bond works is that there is-a defined cash flow 2
on a yearly basis.
If we do not spend all of the surety 3
bond cash flows for certain years, we can take that excess 4
.and bring it on to the next year.
So that was a cumulative 5
excess, and we kept backing that down.
6 MR. SCINTO:
My questions relates ' m two pieces. I 7
saw that in the surety bond, and I also saw that the trust 8
' agreement arrangement provides that if there are excess 9
payments from the surety that go into the surety portion of 10 the trust that the interest that is accumulated on that fund 11 accrues to the benefit of the surety.
And I was trying to 12 find out how you were treating that as interest.
13 MR. CANNER:
The earnings would go back to the
(._,
14 surety, and they would pay the tax obligations on the 15 surety, or the surety would pay them.
16 MR. SCINTO:
That was the' question'that I was 17 getting at.
18 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Are there any other questions?
.y 19 MR. SCINTO:
I was not sure whose money that was, 20 whether that was your money for which the interest goes to 21 you, or whether that is the surety's money which the 22 interest goes to them.
23 MR. NERSES:
Are there any other questions?
24 MR. SCINTO':
Well, I have got some more questions.
25 MR. NERSES:
Go ahead.
I j Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888
__.____.___._____._________W
21 1
MR. SCINTO:
Would you describe a little bit more 2
about those bonds that we are talking about, not the 3
economic aspects of the bonds so much, as how are the bonds 4
made out, who is ho7. ding them, where they go, who controle 5
them and what is what' 6
MR. CANNER:
These monies in this illustration of 7
$4.7 million would be put in a separate trust account 8
similar to the arrangement that we have with the pre-op 9
trust that you may know.
It would be segregated and managed 10 by the same trustee that we are using or propose to be using 11 in the pre-op and the decommissioning.
12 MR. SCINTO:
Is that going to call for a 13 supplemental' trust arrangement?
14 MR. CANNER:
Yes.
15 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We would establish the 16 supplemental tr6st'as s'oon as we receive NRC's concurrence 17 with our forthcoming submittal.
And we would fund the trust 16 as soon as the Commission has acted.
19 MR. SCINTO:
It would be silly to set up a trust l
l 20 if we are going to come back to you and say for some reason 21 this is not good enough.
It would be silly to set it up 22 beforehand.
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We would set it up as soon as we 24 received your concurrence, but we would fund it upon a 25 favorable ruling on all of the low power issues before the y,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
a t
1 l
22
]
1 Commission.
2 MR. SCINTO:
That is how I understood the other 1
3 one.
J 4
MR. CANNER:
Are there other questione concerning 5
the investment vehicle?
1 d
6 MR. SCINTO:
No.
Mine were those questions, where j
i 7
it was, where it was controlled, and those related things.
8 Maybe somebody else has some other questions.
j 9
MR. WESSMAN:
The moneys earned on that trust ju'st 10 go back into that trust to help accumulate this total.
11 MR. CANNER:
The nature of the zero coupon bond 12 does not allow for any interest earnings to come in.
They 13 are non-interest bearing.
They have a low discount in year 14 one, and they mature to a fixed denomination in year X.
15 There are no earnings coming into the fund, just the
~
16 maturity of those dollars in year 13.
That ls Column 3 17 here.
That is the maturity coming in.
18 MR. NERSES:
Are there any other questions?
19 (No response.)
20 MR. NERSES:
Do you want to continue-21 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Okay.
Just let me recap again.
22 In addition to the surety bond in the sum of $72 million 23 that we have already submitted to the staff, we are 24 proposing to establish the supplemental trust that we
. i 25 discussed in the amount of $4.7 million that would generate Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
.______-__-_a
b.
23 1
an additional $29.6 million over the 28 year period 2
involved.
3 The combination c
'he surety bond cash flow and 4
the supplemental trust cash flow would yield a total of 5
S101.7 million that would cover all of the decommissioning 6
costs stated in CLI 88-10 and would adequately provide for 7
inflation effects.
So if there are no other questions.
8 MR. SCINTO:
I have got a couple more questions.
l 9
MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Okay.
10 MR. WESSMAN:
Let me ask a hypothetical question 11 on this supplemental trust fund.
12 What if for some reason you need that money prior 13 to year 28, are you able to get at those bonds let's say at c-14 year 20 for example, and how much are you able to get at 15 that point in time?
16 MR. CNNNER:
The nature of a zero coupon bond is a
[
17 liquid market.
It has also has a high degree of volatility 18 towards interest rate swings.
But the thing here with this 19 illustration would be to buy sixteen individual bonds 20 targeted to the particular need in years 13 through 28.
If 21 we had to have funds prematurely, the possibility of loss 22 and/or gain exists, if you had to get to that instrument 23 early premature to the target date.
In this illustration,
' 24 maturity target dates, we are pointing to November 15th of a 25 particular year.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202} 628-4888
)
.-_-o
24 1
MR..FEIGENBAUM: 'When you say get-at early, this 12 is the cash flow.
The first column is the cash flow 3'
required to achieve'the decommissioning plan.
So I just 4
want to understand what you are saying et at early.
5 MR. CANNER:
What we would set up is a cach flow 6l that:would generate the funds to meet the required outflow
.7 of cash.
8 MR. WESSMAN:
I understand.
Suppose the 9
opportunity or the requirement presented itself that at year 10 22 for example you elected at that point to dispose of the 11 fuel or do something.else rather than wait until year 28.
12 And really what I was looking at was your ability to have 13 the monies to do that at some time earlier than year 28.
.(-
14-And I'think that what you are saying is that with some
.15 market risk that you sell those zero coupon bonds and
~
16 recognize hopefully the estimated valua corrected-for the 17 market conditionsoat that point in time.
18 19 20 a
21 22 23 24 25 l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l*
25 i
~
1 Certainly the closer you approach the maturity 2
date of the particular tertiary bond you are selling the 3
potential loss or gain is mintmized on principle.
l 4
MR. RITSCHER:
This is John Ritscher.
I think you 5
should also keep in mind that these columns that you are 6
looking at here are the backup sources of funds, that the 7
primary obligation remains with the 12 owners to play these 8
expenscs first and if there is going to be an economic move 9-that can be made in advance of that, we can assume that they 10 are going to put the money in and take advantage of that and 11 not be relying on this backup.
12 MR. PETERSEN:
no these total -- I am James 13 Petersen -- do these total, the total cash flow, does that 14 assume hypothetically that all of the owners default 1,5 completely on their obligation for decommissioning after --
16 MR. RITSCHER:
That is what these columns 17 represent.
18 MR. PETERSEN:
That's what these columns 19 represent.
20 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
Jim.
'l MR. SCINTO:
My turn again?
22 MR. NERSES:
Go ahead.
Your turn.
23 MR. SCINTO:
Okay.
24 I guess I noticed that there is'no escalation 25 applied to the disposal cost.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
^
f 26 1
Is that correct?
2 MS. NEAULT:
That is correct.
3 MR. SCINTO:
Would you explain that one?
l 4
MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Yes.
I think I am going to ask 5
Al Legender to pull up to the table here and address that.
6 MR. LEGENDER:
Al Legender.
7 You are right, Joe. We did not escalate fuel 8
disposal costs.
9 We think that the Commission could not reasonably 10 have intended an escalation on that extremely conservative 11 fuel disposal number which they utilized in CLI 88.10.
12 As you recall, they used the $13 million number 1
13 which is, as I say, extremely conservative and then in i
14 addition they have a 25 percent contingency to that which i's 15 another $3.25 million for a total of $16.25 million.
16 We have read the order backwards, forwards, upside 17 down.
There is nothing in that order that hints that the 18 Commis.sion wanted escalation applied to those numbers.
i 19 In fact, there are passages in the order that say 20 to us that the Commission recognizes that the low power 21 testing represents a very low burnup and that these numbers l
22 are extremely conservative.
23 In fact _ on Page 9 of the order, the Commission 24 says the words the minimum amount specified in the rule --
25 They are talking about the decommissioning rule -- has no
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62R-4888 S
i 27 f
1 1
relevance to a very limited low power testing, quote 2
unquote. They recognize that this is a very limited low 3
power testing and they also apply the.75 effective full 4
power hours.
j i
5 What the Commission did to derive the $13 million 6
was they adopted an estimate which was put forward by Gail 7
Breidenbaur and Peter Strauss, witnesses for the Mass 8
Attorney General's Office.
9 And they did that really for lack of a better 10 estimate.
New Hampshire Yankee had hypothesized that the 11 fuel was going to be transported to Europe and reprocessed.
12 The Commission chose not to accept that hypothesis, so they 13 14 MR. SCINTO:
They didn't accept ours either.
15 MR. LEGENDER:
Correct.
16 (Laughter) 17 MR. LEGENDER:
So for lack of a better estimate 18 they used Mr. Breidenaur's estimate which we. feel is 19 extremely conservative.
20 The basis of his estimate is the 20,000 megawatt 21 days per metric ton.
He assumes that burnup and he applies 22 the DOE's 1 mil per kilowatt hour disposal fee to that 23 burnup.
24 That burnup, that really represents a region of a 25 core that has been burned for a full power fuel cycle and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o
.__________A
28
~3
'l comes out of the core.at the end of the fuel cycle and goes.
2 to the fuel pool.
3 It is really only'one third of the core typically 4
that sees that burnup.
J i
5 And if you accept Breidenbaur's assumptions here 6
you would really have to run the plant through'the three
]
7-full cycles to get.what would equate to a full core at 8
20,000 megawatt days per-metric ton.
9 Just to give you an idea, Seabrook's first full 10 power fuel cycle is expected to yield an average burnup on 11 the fuel of 12,650 megawatt days per metric ton as opposed 12 to the 20,000.
.13 The region we take out first might have 20,000 but
(
14 the average for the full core is 12,650 megawatt days per 15-metric ton.
And during low power testing, the fuel is only 16
' going to be burned'to about 1 megawatt day pe'r metric ton of 17 uranium.
18 So Mr. Breidenbaur is approximately 20,000 times 19 higher in his burnup than what we are going to have during 20 low power testing at Seabrook.
21 MR. SCINTO:
I understand that.
And the question 22 i have basically is the only place in the -- well, the 13 Commission decision is not based on staff's position or 24 yours.
It was based on its review of the record, the only 25 place on the record -- the place in the record that they Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
______-___-____ _ _ L
1 a-29 1
selected the number for Mr. Breidenbaur's-and Mr. Strauss's
)
i 2
)
i 3
That number came up to $13 million.
J 4
MR. LEGENDER:
Correct.
l 5
MR. SCINTO:
On a set of assumptions that the cost 6
to dispose of partially burned. fuel was gong to be the same 7-as, or almost the same as -- the other arrangement, you 8
know, the fuel is going to go to DOE.
9 MR. LEGENDER:
Correct.
10 MR. SCINTO:
Because nobody else is in that 11 business.
12 MR. LEGENDER:
I was just getting to that point.
13 What I am trying_to point out here is that Mr.
14 Breidenbaur is extremely conservative. We have a contract y
15 with DOE, the joint owners of Seabrook Station do, and that 16 contract was exscuted in~1986 and what that s'ays is that DOE 17 is obligated to take Seabrook's spent fuel and dispose of it 18 in the Federal repository.
19 Seabrook's, the joint owners' obligation under the 20 contract is to pay DOE a disposal fee of 1 mil per kilowatt 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />.
And that 1 mil per kilowatt hour is based on the 22 electrical output at the generator, at the plant.
23 Well, during low power testing we are not going to 24 have ahy electrical output at the generator.
25 So what I am saying is under the DOE contract they l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
p 30 as
< dlT 1
are obligated to take our fuel, we are obligated to pay them 2
monies, but in this low power testing sequence it is going L
3 to be zero or minimal.
4 MR. SCINTO:
Have you had any discussions with DOE 5
along the lines of whether they do that contract as having a 6
zero cost for this kind of fuel in the hypothesized case, 7
which is what CLI 88.10 goes for, and that is the plant is 8
run very limited and then never run thereafter.
9 Have you discussed that with DOE 7 10 MR. LEGENDER:
I haven't personally.
I don't know 11 if any other representatives have.
12 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
No, but we have reviewed the 13 contract with our attorneys and they indicate it's pretty 14 solid.
If you want, we can give you a copy of that if you 7
15 would like to have it, if you don't already have it.
16; MR. SdINTO:
Yes, I would appreciat'e the contract.
~
17 I assume it is a standard DOE contract that is in --
18
)Ut. RITSCHER:
It is the standard DOE contract.
19 The only other experience we have is with some of the other 20 New England utilities who have disposed of fuel that was 21 only partially consumed early in their life and DOE has 22 applied the $80 figure that is in the statute.
23 MR. SCINTO:
Yes.
I am familiar with the $80 24' figure, which is in the regulations, for partially burned 25 fuel, for fuel partially burned prior to 1983.
tj Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
c r
' ^
31
~
.1.
The subsequent to 1983 provision doesn't seen to
- I specifically have such a provision in the regulations.
)
3 And the post-83-86 provisions called for payment 4
to: DOE in the year of burning, not in the year of' disposal.
5 And so I recognize, if you had a standard contract
/
6 I~think I understand what it says.- Its application to a 7
case of fuel burned for.75 effective full hour hours would 8
seem a little strange and I was wondering whether you will 9
be talking.to DOE about it.
10 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Joe, even if you use the $80 11 figure that we have experience with with some of the older 12 plants in New England, that figure for our burnup would be a 13 much lower number than $13 million.
14 MR. SCINTO:
Everyone of these I understand.
15 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
If you count the $13 million plus 16 the 25 percent contingency what you would get with the $80 17 number would be something in the order of $7 million.
18
. MR. SCINTO:
Yes.
19 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
So it's less than half of wh'at
+
20 monies would be available in year 28.
21 MR. SCINTO:
Yes, I'm trying to remember, I think 22 that is the number I came up with.
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
So what we are saying is there is
-:24 a lot of excess in that number.
25 MR. SCINTO:
I understand.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
32 1
On the other hand, the staff, as I said, I hate to 2
repeat it, the staff did not propose to the Commission that 3
they treat the financial qualification this way.
4 The staff is not now making its own independent 5
judgment as to whether or not your proposal is a good idea.
6 What we are now is carrying out the duty the Commission 7
imposed upon us to make sure that you did what they said to 8
do.
9 So we are looking at 88.10 and trying to make that 10 judgment against the standards of 88.10.
We may have and 11 did come out with a different argument and a different 12 position. But that wasn't the one that the Commission put on 13 it.
14 So w<e are looking at 88.10.
15 MR. FFIGENBAUM:
And so have we, and as Al said, 16 we have' looked at the order and we can only assume that the
~
17 Commission when they took that number of $13 million 18 recognized that it was a very conservative number and they 19 did not say anything about applying any u.
- lation or 20 inflation to it.
21 MR. SCINTO:
I understand.
22 MR. FELD:
Could you explain your basis for not 23 applying any escalation or inflation to the contingency 24 factor of 25 percent?
25 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Well, again, essentially for the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
+
33 1
same reason, Sid.
That-is, the Commission did not say 4
l 2
anything about inflating the contingency factor.
25 percent 3
is a relatively large number for contingency.
We gave a i
I 4
detailed plan with a very definite scope.
5 We feel we have a very good handle on it.
There 6
wasn't very much comment about the cost.
They seemed 7
' reasonable and the Commission as you know adopted the i
8 decommissioning costs and the fuel storage costs and 9
applying a 25 percent contingency on that number is I think 10 conservative and to apply any further escalation without the 11 Commission directly requiring it we thought would be onerous 12 and unreasonable.
13 MR. SCINTO:
I hope you are not suggesting that it 14' is onerous and unreasonable to have done so in some of those 15 P&L reports.
It's done on the basis of decommissioning.
16 MR. F5IG5NBAUM' I have my own opin' ion.
17-MR. SCINTO:
All right.
18 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
Any more questions on this?
19-(No response) 20 MR. NERSES:
If not, then we are completed on this 21 and maybe we can go to the language of the surety bond in
.22 terms of the terms?
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Yes, the second issue.
Thank you, 24 A1.
25 I want to ask John Ritscher to come forward here Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
4
34 1
to the table and~ discuss the second issue.
' )
2 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
The provisions of the surety bond 3
were carefully negotiated between the surety and the joint 1
4 owners in an attempt to meet what we felt was the meaning of 5-CLI 88.10 and at the same time to meet the commercial 6
surety's need of precisely delineating the obligation that l
7 it was undertaking at the end of that contract.
8 We feel that when you read 88.10 in the context in 9
which it was issued that it is clear that the Commission was 10 looking at the situation where they ultimately had to deny 11 an operating license for the Seabrook facility.
12
.The context was that we had had a prolonged 13 adjudicatorial proceeding and that once again an effort was 14 being made by. interveners to obtain a waiver of the 15' financial qualifications rule in the context of a pending 16 request'for a low power' operating license and^the 17 allegations by the interveners that ultimately the 18 Commission was going to have to decide on the merits that a 19 license could not issue because there were deficiencies in 20 the emergency plan for the plant.
21 In that context the Commission attempted to cut 22 through all of the financial qualifications argument and 23 said that it found a clear path that would obviate the need 24 of pursuing that further and that path was for it to come up i
25 with an estimate of what the dollars were going to be if the i
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
e
~
J
.I' 35 o
1-plant had to be decommissioned after low' power testing had 2.
been completed and a full power license quote "was not 3
granted."
4 We believe that by "was not granted" they viewed 5
the outcome of the proceeding would be what the interveners 6
were projecting, that indeed there were deficiencies that 7
could not be cured.
8-I think the subsequent memorand.:m that the 9
Commission issued the following February 3 in which it 10 indicated that it expected the entire proceeding to be 11 completed by September 30 and a final initial decision.to be 12 issued indicates that that indeed is the mindset of the 13 Commission at this point.
' (~
14 In negotiating with the commercial surety you have 15 to come up with an expression of the contractual liability 16 that they are assuming, that is clear and in controvertible 17 in case a claim is ultimately going to have to be put on 18 there.
19 Is not granted is an open-ended non-event type of 20 language.
And the Commercial Sureties Council insisted that 21 we have some precision in the trigger that was going to key 22 their liability and therefore since we believed that the "is 23 not granted" language meant a denial of the license, the l
24 definitions were written in that context.
25 The staff comment raises two hypothetical that
^
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
L l
V
.i b,c-36 1
they, feel denial of the license does not cover.
2 Our position on that is that the Commission has 3
more than ample power to deal with either one of those 4
contingencies if they should arise.
1 5
We do have an ongoing adjudicatory proceeding.
If 6
the applicants for some unexplained reason were to at this 7
late date come in and say we want to withdraw the 1
8 application, the Commission has ample powers under Section l
l l
9 2107A or 5082 of the regulations to impose whatever it wants l
10.
to in connection with such a withdrawal including making it 11 with prejudice, which would permit them to put any controls 12 on it they want.
13 The other alternative is the suggestion that there 14 might be some added interim operation at a level higher than 15 5 percent.
The surety bond explicitly does not cover that.
16 And indeed if a6 applic~ation were made for that kind of an 17 operation that requires further licensing action by the 18 Commission and it could impose the same type of surety bond 19 requirement that it is imposing tod'ay on the 5 percent 20 level.
21 So that we believe that in either one of the I
22 contingencies that you have expressed concern for tnere are 23 adequate ways of dealing with that.
24 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We are limited per the order as i
25 you know to.75 effective full power hours; though above 5
'\\
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
?
37 j
l l
percent power for any period of time would require a new set
)
1 of applications and reviews.
2
\\
3 (Pause as NRC staff consults off the record) 4 MR. SCINTO:
I will make that very clear on the 5
record.
There was a question about what we had sai' and I 6
said no, I understood what you were saying, to make it very 7
clear that if you proposed to withdraw your application we 8
clearly have the power to deny your application --
9 (Laughter) i 10 MR. SCINTO:
We have that power.
You were 11 addressing our power to trigger the events which bring the 12 obligation into play.
13 MR. NERSES:
That is what I needed to get cleared 14 up.
15 MR. WESSMAN:
And I guess in the other case where 16 if they" elected'to seek'to' operate at sdme intermediate 17 power, the issuance of that license, we have the power to 18 negotiate and require of you a surety in that case.
19 MR. SCINTO:
Correct.
20 MR. RITSCHER:
I think that is right.
21 You can either say that they are at that point 22 subject to the decommissioning rule which would require all 23 el those things to be implemented and certainly under New 24 Hampshire law if it was a level where we could go into 25 commercial operation, that would require the other Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
v P
38 i+s :
O 1
mechanisms to be in place anyway.
2 Or you can require a further surety bond.
3 MR. SCINTO:
But since we were talking about our 4
power, we.will leave the word negotiate out.
We have the 5
authority to impose a requirement.
6 MR. RITSCHER:
That is correct.
7 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
Are there any other questions?
8 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Any other questions on the second 9
question?
10 (No response) 11 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
If not, I would just like to go 12 back to one thing that you asked before, Joe, and that had 13 to do with the contingency.
(_ - 3 14 I would just like to point out on this first sheet 15 that we gave out to you that we have actually included more 16 contingency tha6 the Commission required in CLI'88.10.
The 17 order asked for $14.4 million and we are in our cash flow 18 providing $15.8 million.
19 MR. SCINTO:
I noticed the number.
20 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We have increased the contingency 21 ebove the Commission requirement.
22 MR. SCINTO:
Yes.
I noticed the number.
And I 23 guess our people have to take up -- people don't have slide 24 rules any more, do they?
25 (Laughter)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
39
+
1 MR. SCINTO:
They have calculators.
i l
l,
2 MR. FELD:
I was just wondering if you may have 3
done a calculation of what the initial escrow deposit would i
4 have to be to support escalation.
5 Under all the assumptions that you have concerning 6
3.5 percent escalation and the rate of return on those l
7 funds, how much that initial deposit would have to be to 8
support escalation on all cf the components that comprise 9
this decommissioning fund program?
10 MR. FEIGE,NBAUM:
What we could do is we could take 11 a five minute break and see what we have here.
12 We have done obviously some runs and some other 13 looksees.
14 If you want to give us five minutes for us to put 15 our heads together here.
16 MR. NERSES:
Ithink it would'be a good idea for 17 us to caucus ourselves here.
18 I want to find out something from the staff based 19 on some of the questions that have come up.
20 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We will see what we have.
21 MR. NERSES:
Ten minutes.
22 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We don't have everything here, 23 but let's see what we have.
24 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
25 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l 4
-__m______
l 40 1
MR. NERSES:
Back on the record.
2 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Okay.
Sid, we have just been 3
running some numbers here and we did do some calculations 4
which escalated the decommissioning the fuel storage costs 1
5 for the period of the 27 years and the contingency as well.
6 And that comes up with a total cash output surety 7
bond plus additional supplemental of $112.4 million.
And to 8
do that we would have to deposit in the supplemental trust 9
$6.22 million.
And that would generate, over the 28-year 10 period, S4.0.26 million, which if you compare the $112.4 11 million would be $101 million.
On the sheet that we handed 12 out earlier today the difference is about $10.7 million.
13 So again, that was escalation using the same 14 escalation assumptions for the decommissioning cost, the 15 fuel storage costs and the contingency.
16 MR. FELD:
Not'for the storage, then?
17 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Not for fuel storage.
18 MR. NERSES:
Do you have any questions on that?
19 MR. FELD:
I guess then the implication is then 20 that the contingency on the storage is also not being 21 escalated, since you applied 25 percent to a current dollar 22 value?
I'm sorry.
The disposal.
The disposal, there is no 23 escalation on disposal in this calculation and therefore the 24 contingency on that disposal, should it also be assumed that 25 that is not subject to escalation?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9
41 1
MS. NEAULT:
No, the contingency is multiplied --
2 oh, and then everything is escalated -- so the contingency 3
would be escalated.
4 MR. FELD:
On the disposal?
5 MS. NEAULT:
On the disposal.
6 MR. NERSES:
What I am hearing is you are saying 7
you took an escalated contingency and just mushed it over 8
and added it to the disposal.
That number, whatever that 9
number came out to be, even though disposal was not 10 escalated, the contingency was.
11 MR. FELD:
Well, it is unclear to me how you can 12 escalate the contingency if the value ettached to the 13 disposal remains in.
14 MS. NEAULT:
You would luultiply it out.
You would 15 multiply the 25 percent of the value and then your 28, that 16 portion of the contingency that was' multiplied out to the 17 fuel disposal escalated out.
18 MR. FELD:
I see.
All right.
19 MR. NERSES:
Is that clear?
Do you want to go 20 over that again?
21 MS. NEAULT:
Do you want me to say it again?
22 MR. FELD:
No, I understand it.
23 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
Fina.
Any other questions?
24 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
I guess what I would like to say 25 in rummary is we would like to submit a formal response to Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 4
K 4,
.,-s 1
the two questions in the very near future even as early as 2
tomorrow. The response will reflect what we discussed here today'and the sheets that were handed out that were handed l
4 out to you at the beginning of the meeting.
5 It would be very beneficial for us to hear if 6
there are any outstanding issues that we haven't discussed 7
that still remain to be addressed so that the formal 8
response can be as complete as possible and to avoid any 9
further iteration on these two issues cr any other issues 10 pertaining to the. surety bond and the post-5 percent 11 decommissioning fund.
4 12 So at this point I would ask if anybody had-13 anything else before we make our final formal submittal.
14 MR. NERSES:
Before I conclude the meeting I.said 15 I-would give an opportunity for members of the public to 16 make comments or ask questions.
~
~
17 And John, you mentioned you had something.
18 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I do have.
I am John Traficonte.
19 And I am as Assistant Attorney General.
Should I come up to 20
'a mike?
21 MR. NERSES:
Yes, please do.
22 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I apologize, because I have 23 questions that may make us backtrack a little bit on the 24 first half and then really only one question on the second 5
issue.
2 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
u______=__--_-_
. )
43 1
First, is it permissible to ask a question of the 2
staff?
3 We just would first like to make a request that we 4
get a copy if the staff has retained one of the I believe it 5
was April 5 draft submission that the applicants made in 6
response to the Earmarks 31 letter.
We did get a letter 7
from you, Vic, that commented in sending it back that it was 8
9 MR. NERSES:
I do not have a copy.
10 MR. TRAFICONTE:
You do not have a copy.
11 MR. SCINTO:
I'm pretty sure that no one does.
12 MR. TRAFICONTE:
No one has a copy.
Okay.
13 The second question is, and as I was saying in the 14 hallway I am almost embarrassed to state this question 15 publicly, but I would like to ask the staff and maybe you, 16 Joe.
I read CLi 88.10 many times as weil.
And I thought
~
17 there was an escalator, or at least an inflation factor 18 built into it and not only that it is my primitive 19 understanding of current valuing that if you set aside a sum 20 of money it will generate a certain flow some years hence.
21 And I thought that that is what the Commission was 22 doing when it was arriving at 72, and I take it from, 23 obviously, a simple-minded grasp of what is going on in here 24 today that the staff is now of the view that the Commission 25 was not doing that or that something in addition to the 72 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
44 1
is required.
2 And that probably has an easy answer.
The second 3
part is not so easy.
4 I would like to know why the staff is going to be 5
content if it is with anything'less than a surety for the 6
entire amount, in light of what CLI 88.10 says about the 7
need for a surety type funding mechanism, if the staff is of 8
the view that the total amount to be set asiae exceeds 72 by 9
some as yet undetermined amount.
10 MR. NERSES:
Do you want to answer that question?
11 MR. SCINTO:
Sure.
First off, on the question of 12 the funds over S72 million that they of ferec'. In the surety, 13 that was what we told, reflected in the memo of March 31, 14 that we thought that it was $72.1 million, and a 'vaed for 15 consideration of escalation for some or all of the costs.
16 With respect to the funding arrangements, the CLI 17 88.10 allowed them to go any one of four ways on funding.
18 That was a surety bond, or the. methods approved in the 19 decommissioning rule, or that special arrangement that they 20 had offered.
21 I don't believe the decommissioning rule prohibits 22 a combination arrangement, provided that each of the 23 components of the combination is a satisfactory component.
24 MR. TRAFICONTE:
All right.
That is clarifying.
l 25 And then I now just have some questions for the applicants Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1 4
l 45 1
and I don't know exactly --
1 2
MR. SCINTO:
I think that's it, I think.
3 MR. TRAFICONTE:
You think which part?
4 MR. SCINTO:
That last question that I gave you an 5
answer.
l 6
MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes, yes.
7 MR. SCINTO:
And I just wanted to make sure that -
8
- I said I think it is that way.
But the staff has not 9
analyzed the proposal, has not -- we will be doing that.
10 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
11 MR. SCINTO:
So it may well be that on close 12 scrutiny, it could be different.
I'm giving you the answer 13 the best I've got right now.
l 14 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Okay, fine.
15 In light of that I just want to follow up with 16 some questions to the applicants if'I can.
And I'm not 17 going to hog the floor really too long.
18 I'm a little puzzled by the supplemental trust 19 fund mechanism.
And you had a question put to you I think 20 by this gentleman, Mr. Peterson -- Wessman, sorry.
I think 21 Mr. Wessman asked the question, could you reach the money, 22 could you sell the Londs in the event prior to the 28 year 23 mark or at some point before any one of the bonds matured.
24 My question is more general.
Sureties of course 25 are a mechanism that provide assurance to an outside Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
+
Qi e
46' um 1
observer that a certain sum of money will be-available when -
2 the day comes..
3-I am not.sure-I understand the nature of this
['
4
' supplemental fund.
Is it you are going to put away $4.7 5-million, you are going to buy these bonos, and they are 6
going to stick away someplace where legally you have 7
restr.icted your access to them?'
8 Chr could you for example under any number of 9
scenarios where you are short of cash, in year 3, year 4, 10 year 8, could you reach -- and I am looking at you, Mr.
11 Canner and I apologize -- could you reach those funds not-12 because the market is up,-the market is down, but because 13 you need the cash prior to the point where you need the 14 money?
15 MR. RITSCHER:
This will be an irrevocable trust 16 like th'e pre-operational' trust.
The monies put into it will
~~
~
17 be totally out of the control of the owners until such time 18 as the trust is liquidated, which could not occur until a 19-full power license is issued or decommissioning is 20 completed.
21 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, until decommissioning is 22 completed.
Decommissioning after 5 percent is completed.
23 MR. RITSCHER:
Right.
24 MR. TRAFICONTE:
All right.
Now, Mr. Feigenberry, 25 I had a question that was very similar to the question that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
47 1
you were asked about escalation on the $13 million for fuel 2
disposal.
3 We had a break.
We came back and I was expecting 4
you to come back with an escalator applied to the fuel 5
disposal, $13 million, and you didn't do that, or at least I 6
didn't hear that you did that.
7 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
I made that clear that I didn't.
8 I don't have those numbers.
9 MR. TRAFICONTE:
The $13 million of course is an 10 expense at the end of the 28-year period, is it not?
Are 11 the applicants taking the position that the conservatism of 12 this $13 million built into Mr. Bradenbaugh's estimates, 13 that the conservatism of the $13 million is sufficient to 14 cover the other aspect of the contingency which is it is 28 15 years hence that this money will be needed?
16 MR. RATSCHER: ' That is right.
But'if you look at 17 what the realistic number is, for what that fee is going to 18 be, it is down in the $6.5 to $7 million range.
You would 19 escalate that up and you get.to a figure that is 20 approximately the same as the $13 plus the contingency 21 factor.
22 MR. TRAFICONTE:
All right.
I didn't hear you say 23 that and I just wondered if you did escalate it up, a 24 reasonable, in your view, not CLI 88.10's view, but your 25 view of a reasonable estimate now, if you escalate that up, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
48
~
1 do you come up with $13 million approximately?
2 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
You come up with about $16 3
million in that range, $16-17 million, which is equal to the 4
$13 million plus the contingency --
5 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I see.
~
-- of $3.75 million.
So it's the l
7 same ballpark.
8 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Okay.
good.
That's helpful.
9 A quick question to the economist, Mr. Murphy I l
l 10 think.
Mr. Wright.
I'm really doing well today.
I would i
11 probably get e'rery person in this room's name wrong if I was 12 pressed.
13 Did you use 3.5 as the document indicates you did, 14 and your discussion of 1.7 was to show how conservative 3.5 15 was?
~
16 MR. WRIGHT:
The 1.7 that~I indicated was the 1994 17 figure of the Office of Management and Budget and also the 18 Council of Economic Advisors.
19 So really_, in a sense, we were being conservative 20 by contrast to those Government agencies.
21 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Okay.
So you did use 3.5, yes.
22 MR. NERSES:
Is that all?
23 MR. TRAFICONTE:
No, I have two more quick 24 questions.
25 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
L.-4 49 f
l' MR. TRAFICONTE:
Maybe three.
'2 The DOE contract that you mentioned that will 3
cover the taking of he spent fuel?
I haven't ser a copy of
~
4
.it and if you are going to provide a copy to the staff I 5
'would appreciate, our office would' appreciate a copy as 6
well.
7 Is there an issue there.as far as your view of 8
whether chis kind of spent fuel, that is to say non-full 9
power operation spent fuel but low power spent fuel is 10 covered by the contract, is actually covered by the 11 contract?
12-MR. RITSCHER:
The contract requires DOE to take 13 all of the spent fuel --
14-MR. TRAFICONTE:
Right.
15 MR. RITSCHER:
from the facility.
The fees are 16 keyed to what is normally expected,~mors in the range that 17 your witness was using, and I am sure you will have to work 18
,out an appropriate fee.
19 But DOE's regulations do contemplate in other.
20 places taking fuel with less exposure than a molten core.
21 MR. TRAFICONTE:
So spent fuel is not defined or 22 maybe it is but it is defined in such a way that it would be 23 24 (Simultaneous voices) 25 MR. RITSCHER:
-- believe that this would be in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
50
(
~
1 that definition.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE:
All right.
3 I'do now have only two left and one is probably 4
very easy to answer.
I am a little puzzled by the removal 5
of or backing out of the excess fuel storage adjustment.
6 I read CLI 88.10 and scraething did not seem right 7
to me either but can you just articulate exactly what was 8
going wrong when they were calculating -- they are doubling 9
up for 49 months are they not?
And why is that again?
10 MS. NEAULT:
In CLI 88.10 order there were two 11 line items that had fuel storage in them.
The first was the 12 decommissioning costs which came directly from our plan.
13 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
14 MS. NEAULT:
And $21 million figure minus the 15 contingency' aquals 19.7.
16 That has fuel' storage money in there for 49 17 months.
1 18 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Okay.
19 MS. NEAULT:
And then you had the 25.million 20 figure for July '88.
21 MR. TRAFICONTE:
The last question is for Mr.
l 22 Ritscher.
23 I was troubled by the surety discussion.
24 Let me just put the question to you this way.
25 Any number of things can happen in the future.
If Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
L
1 i
51
~
I we are sitting here three years from now and this plant is 1
2 in a very similar posture then as Shoreham is today, well I 3
should say as Shoreham was, since Shoreham's situation seems 4
to change on a day to day basis, holding two weeks ago 5
constant, at which point the State of New York had purchased 6
it or was planning on purchasing it for a dollar and 7
decommissioning it.
8 Holding that as the current status of Shoreham, if 9
three years hence, two years hence or whenever under 10 whatever set of circumstances yc. want to imagine, if 11 Seabrook is in that position, do I understand you to say 12 that the way the surety agreement is structured, that would 13 not trigger the surety to step forward with the $72 million 14 in the event of decommissioning?
15 MR. RITSCHER:
I believe that is correct.
It 16 would not.
~
17 MR. TRAFICONTE:
It would not.
18 MR. RITSCHER:
But if you are going to compare it 19 to Shoreham, the Shoreham negotiations have always included 20 monies to pay for decommissioning.
21 And I would assume that Massachusetts and New 22 Hampshire will be stepping up as the State of New York is 23 three years hence.
24 MR. TRAFICONTE:
That is a comfortable assumption.
25 The only problem I have is that -- I really don't want to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
52.
'l engage in a legal argument with you, but CLI 88.10 is a m
2 funding, it is trying to establish a funding mechanism to 3
provide assurances on funding in the event that the plant 4
goes to 5 percent power but now higher.
5 And at least our reading of it since this 6
Intervenor, Mass AG, was at least in part responsible for l
l 7
the Commission reaching this issue, let me say I guess, for 8
the record, our concern was no raatter what set of 9
circumstances would lead or could lead in the future to the 10 plant being mothballed or simply licensing halted or delayed 11 for an interim period or whatever set of circumstances 12 arise, our concern was that there be funding mechanism 13 available to cover the costs of decommissioning.
14 And I understand that this bond at least as it is 15 structured is only going to be triggered by a denial by the 16 Commission of a' full power license.
17 MR. RITSCHER:
That is correct, it is and I think 18 as you heard what Joe Scinto said earlier you will recognize 19 that the Commission is in a position where it can control 20 whether or not those circumstances occur.
21 MR. SCINTO:
I just want to inject another point.
22 That has to do with the number of years hence this might be.
23 If conditions stay as unclear as they are the 24 whole arrangement only applies for approximately less than l
25 18 months now, because in July 1990 the applicant will have 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
.1
53 1
.to conform to the decommissioning rule.
2 That is another requirement, which I do not read 3
CLI 88.10 as exempting from the decommissioning rule.
So 4
th33 covers this interim period between now and July 1990 5
for the operations in that period if it should happen that -
6 7
(Simultaneous voices) 8 MR. NERSES:
He is saying it triggers in 1990 if 9
the decommissioning rule comes into effect.
10 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I know it does.
11 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
12 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Does it come into effect with the 13 funding requirements in the absence of full power operation?
14 MR. SCINTO:
It comes in for -- the 15 decommissioning rule doesn't have a power number in it.
16 MR. WRIGHT:
That is only after you have been 17 commissioned.
18 MR. SCINTO:
It was our argument that this plant 19 had an ope' rating license authorizing it to load fuel and 20 therefore was not subject to the decommissioning rule until 21 July 1990.
22 And therefore, they didn't need to do anything in 23 the interim.
The Commission's order requires protection in 24 the interim.
I do not read the Commission's rule as 25 substituting for the requirements of the decommissioning Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.54
.- t i
rule itself.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE:
This intervenor at least is' 3
taking heart that if in July of 1990 it is the' staff's 4
position that the decommissioning rule will become effective 5
and require the applicants to no matter what the status of 6
the licensing is, full power or otherwise, no matter what 7
the-status of the licensing is in July of 1990, to then meet 8
the then outstanding decommissioning requirements funding 9
wise.
10 (Simultaneous voices) 11 MR. SCINTO:
-- they have an operating license on 12 that day --
13 (Simultaneous voices) 14 MR. SCINTO:
And it is possible that the 15 Commission is protecting against the possible circumstance 16 that they would'get the low power license, operate and some 17 time before July 1990, something would happen to terminate 18 operations permanently and they would not have an operating 19 11 cense on.that day, they would not then on that day be 20 covered by the decommissioning rule.
21 This protects that period.
22 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I don't have any other --
23 MR. SCINTO:
And this is a transcribed public 24 record and I presume if am totally outrageous we will get 25 guidance.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
55 E
1 (Laughter) 2 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Silence is an admission, too.
3 (Laughter) 4 MR. SCINTO:
No, no.
I do not take the position 5
that any outrageous statements in the public that don't 6
happen to be corrected by the Commission are bind!.ng on the 7
Commission.
8 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
I would just like to add in light 9
of Mr. Traficonte's remarks about Shoreham is that as Mr.
10 Traficonte well knows the Commission has set a target 11 schedule for a decision on the remaining emergency planning 12 matters for September 30, 1989 which is not that far in the 13 future and as I understand the regulations that decision 14 will be an up or down decision.
There is no middle ground.
15 So its license will either be granted or denied.
16 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, since it is on t'ne record, 17 I do understand that there is a February 3 memorandum from 18 the Commission of a rather odd procedural posture indicating 19 that it is looking for a decision on the Massachusetts side 20 of the EPZ by the end of September.
21 But just as a matter of record of course the New 22 Hampshire decision is now under appeal and the appeal board 23 will do whatever it is going to do sometime perhaps even 24 after September 30.
25 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
Are there any more --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
lL MR. TRAFICONTE:
Thank you very much. I appreciate 2
that.
3.
MR. NERSES:
Thank you.
Any more questions or 4-comments?
5 I feel that there are two comments to share with 6
you. 'One is that we-feel that in spite of what you believe 7
about the DOE contract, you ought to check that out:
8
. carefully and get back to us clearly indicating that what 9-you say is so.
10 MR.-FEIGENBAUM:
In regards to what, Vic?
11 MR. NERSES:
Check with DOE.
12 MR. FEIGF3BAUM:
In regards to whether the 13 contract covers our fuel?
14 MR. NERSES:
Yes.
The unusual circumstance that 15 you have.
16 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We have a definition of spent 17 fuel.
We wot ld just like to read it to you.
18 MR. NERSES:
I am not arguing that you have a 19 definition, that you have a contract --
20 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Well, what I am saying --
21' MR. NERSES:
-- lawyers look at it.-
What we are 22 saying is that you ought to check, get the name of the 23 authority to check with DOE and satisfy yourselves that in 24 fact what you are saying is true and let us know that.
I 25 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Yes, we will cover that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
4
)
+
. i i:.
5,.
h 1'
tm. NERSES' Okay.
1 2'
MR. FEIGENBAUM But let me just say that the term 3
" spent nuclear fuel" per the contract'means fuel that has 4
been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation,.
5 the constituent elements of which have not been separated by 6
. reprocessing.
7 So under that definition, our fuel would --
8 MR. NERSES:
I strongly feel that you have a case.
9 What I am saying is you ought to check it, okay?
10 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
We will indicate that in our 11 response.
12 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
13 The other thing is that we want to say is that 14 this see.ns reasonable, looks like it is in the right 15 direction.
The staff is not prepared to make a decision at 16 this particular' time on~your presentation.
They certainly
- 17
-have to take a look at the numbers.
18 And what we are prepared to say is the following:
19 That this is on the public record and we are 20 willing to -- the staff is going to be prepared probably to 21 respond formally to you after they have looked at the 22 numbers and studied them and run through them and so forth
' 23 with a letter.
24 And then we would be letter to tell you from that 25 letter whether or not the information you had given us is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6 8-4888 e
(
_.__-m_____m._ _. _ _ _ _ _
58 1
sufficient.
2 I think that we are prepared to be able to say 3
something to that effect.
4 What I am saying is consider that what you have 5
given to us which is in the record is something that we will l
6 evaluate and get back to you formally.
7 MR. NERSES:
Okay.
Just before we adjourn I would 8
like to assure ourselves that, so that we can have the most 9
comprehensive answer, that the staff can deal with, is are 10 there any other issues or any issue that we have discussed 11 today that are not fully understood or not clear or anything 12 left that we have not covered?
13 MR. SCINTO:
I guess -- let me interject.
14 I guess our feeling, we didn't see any, but there 15 might be something when we are delving into the numbers.
16 And that is my reaction.
17 We will be getting back to you promptly.
And we 18 are going to have to dive into these numbers.
19 MR. NERSES:
So before you come in with something 20 or generate something, we are saying we are prepared to do 21 that.
We are prepared to take this as something that is 22 formally submitted because it will be on the docket, we will 23 look at it and we will come back and respond to you, l
24 Therefore, you will know the staff's particular 25 position.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
1
59 1
MR. SCINTO:
We are talking of a matter of a few 2
days to get back to you.
We know you are anxious to get it 3
and you make the decision for yourself whether or not it's 4
worthwhile to send in, wait for our comments and modify it
^
5 or just wait for our comments first.
6 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
I think we'll make for your 7
comments.
8 MR. SCINTO:
he are talking a matter of a few 9
days.
I'm not promising we'll get it out by tomorrow.
10 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
That's fine.
11 MR. SCINTO:
A few days.
12 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
That's fine.
13 MR. NASH:
We may have a question here.
14 MR. FELD:
Maybe I would just like to get 15 clarification on one thing.
16 If I'were to 'take your table and take some of 17 those middle years where presumably you are capturing the 18 storage costs, for example, in Year 12 or Year 13, 19
$2,332,000,430, my expectation is that that number is 1.32 20 million raised to the, by a factor of 1.035 to the number of 21 years from 1988 and then a 25 percent contingency allowance 22 has been added to that.
23 Is that reasonable?
24 MS. NEAULT:
I am double checking.
25 (Pause)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9
2-_____
60
~
1 (Off the record comments) 2 MR. FELD:
How, if I go to Year 14 I would have 3
expected, since the escalation is on the order of 3.5 4
percent if you are assuming that the differential between 5
year 14 and 13 would be approximately 3.5 percent and I see 6
something on the order of 3 percent.
I am trying to 7
understand why that is the case.
8 MS. NEAULT:
The contingency isn't escalated in 9
this case.
10 MR. FELD:
And it works out that your contingency 11
-- so in other words you are saying --
12 MS. NEAULT:
That would be the contingency 13 differential you are looking at definitely.
~
14 MR. FELDt All right.
15 MR. SCINTO:
Well, maybe we'll get it ahead of 16 some of'those kinds of questions -- I was going to ask Sid
~
17 this question but I will ask it openly.
18 Ca you understand why that table, numbers of the 19 surety bond cash flow are different than schedule flow in a 20 surety bond?
21 MR. FELD:
I believe so.
22 MR. SCINTO:
Okay.
If you understand then, fine.
23 That was the question I was going to give to you.
24 If you understand it, we don't have to ask that.
25 MS. NEAULT:
Just to go over that one'more time, f
f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l i
,.a;,..
61 1
the reason the surety bond schedule, we don't need to draw
[
2 as much out in the beginning years is because we have that 3
$5$4 million excess fuel storage so when we remove that 4
double count of fuel storage that the Commission has used in-5 CLI 88.10 we have excess surety bond flows that we carry 6
forward.
7 MR. SCINTO:
Okay.
8 MR. NERSES:
Any more questions, comments?
l 9
(No response) 10 MR. NERSES:
The meeting is adjourned.
11 (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m.,
the meeting was 32 adjourned.)
13 14 15 16
^
~
~
17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9
a
~
1 CERTIFICATE 2
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 5
of:
6 Name: Seabrook Decommission Funding Assurance Plan 7
8 Docket Number:
50-443 and 50-444 9
Place:
Rockville, Maryland 10 Date:
April 20, 1989 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear
~
13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings.
18
/s/
b b
AA 19 (Signature typed) :
Peter M. Dixon 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 e
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9
. _ (.
I
,a NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE POST FIVE PERCENT DECOMMISSIONING FUND l-l*
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF APPLICATION AND SOURCE OF FUNDS l.
APPLICATION OF FUNDS SOURCE OF FUNDS Total Post Five Percent 572.lM Surety Supplemental Xsu Decommissioning Costs Bond Cash Flow Trust Fund UI Total 1
5 14,018,650 5 14,018,650 5 14,018,650 2
6,691,111 6,691.111 6,691,i11 3
1,749,883 1,749,883 1,749,883 4
1,799,540 1,799,540 1,799,540 5
2,126,429 2,126,429 2,126,429 6
1,904,129 1,904,129 1,904,129 l
7 1,959,185 1,959,185 1,959,185 8
2,016,168 2,016,168 2,016,168 9
2,075,I45 2,075,145 2,075,I45 10 2,136,186 2,136,186 2,136,I86 11 2,199,363 2,199,363 2,199,363 12 2,264,752 2,264,752 2,264,752 13 2,332,430 1,406,247 5 926,183 2,332,430 14 2,402,476 1,127,349 1,275,127 2,402,476 15 2,474,974 1,094,514 1,380,460 2,474,974 '
16 2,550,009 1,062,635 1,487,374 2,550,009 17 2,627,670 1,031,684 1,595,986 2,627,6.70 l*
18 2,708,050 1,001,635 1,706,415 2,708,050 19 2,791,243 972,461 1,818,782 2,791,243 l
20 2,877,348 944,137 1,933,211 2,877,348 21 2,966,466
^
9I6,638 2,049,828 2,966,466 22 3,058,'703 889,940
'2,168,763 3,058,703 23 3,154,169 864,019 2,290,150 3,154,169 24 3,252,976 838,854 2,414,122 3,252,976 25 3,355,242 814,421 2,540,821 3,355,242 26 3,461,086 790,700 2,670,356 3,461,086 27 3,570,635 767,670 2,802,965 3,570,635 28 17.169.058 16.663.011 506.047 17.169.058
$1D I.693.076 572.I26.456 529.566.620
$101.693.07.1
)
NOTES m U) Based on initial supplemental trust funding of 54,727,676.
9
NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE POST FIVE PERCEi4T DECOMMISSIONING FUND STATEMENT OF APPLICATION AND SOURCE OF FUNDS 3
j CUMULATIVE TWENTY-EIGHT YEAR TOTAL REQUIRED BY CALCULATED BY NHY CLI 88-10 APPLICATION OF FUNDS Decommissioning Costs
$ 19,708,800
$ 19,700,000 Fuel Storage 35,759,880 25,000,000 Fuel Disposal 13.000.000 13.000.000 68,468,680 57,700,000 Excess Fuel Storage Adjustment (5.408.130) 63,060,550 57,700,000 Contingency at 25%
15,765,138 14,400,000 Escalation (8) 22.867.388 Total Application of Funds
$ 101,693,076 5 72,100,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS Surety Bond Cash Flow 5 72.126,456 Zero Coupon Treasury Bond Maturities (Based on Initial Escrow Deposit of S.4,727,676) 29.566.620 (1)
Total Source of Funds
$101,693,076 NOTES (1) Projected zero coupon treasury bond maturity value based on portfolio structure as of April 14, 1989.
(8) Escalation, as determined from the President's Council of Economic Advisors and
' Office of Management and Budgets, at 3.5% of decommissioning costs, plus fuel storage less excess fuel storage adjustment.
00A3 I
_ ________ _ J