ML20246D433
| ML20246D433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1989 |
| From: | Hairston W ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FRN-54FR25393, RTR-REGGD-01.XXX, RTR-REGGD-1.XXX, TASK-DG1003, TASK-RE 54FR25393-00023, 54FR25393-23, NUDOCS 8908280084 | |
| Download: ML20246D433 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _.
Ii Alabama Power Company K*
fgb 40 Inverness Center Parkway
- -:'d~
~f Post Office Box 1295 T-E ~ ~
Birmingham Alabama 35201
-m
- ~ ~
Telephone 205 868 5581 0M '.} C)
P W. G. Hairston, IU U"-
r'-
Senior Vice President Op Nuclear Operations NabalTla D'M the southern ektnc wutem Docket Nos. 50-348 August 17, 1989 50-364 3
Office of Administration and Resources Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b
fg* $3g Washington, D.C.
20555 b
ATTENTION:
Regulatory Publications Branch, DFIPS Comments on NRC Proposed Regulatory Guide
" Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors"
Dear Sir:
In May 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a proposed regulatory guide on " Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors" and invited comments by August 4, 1989. The NRC has sinca.. indicated that comments received up to two weeks late will be accepted. Alabama Company has monitored the efforts of NUMARC and EEI with regard to this proposed rulemaking.
In accordance with this request for comments, Alabama Power Company hereby endorses the NUMARC and EEI, comments which were provided to the NRC on August 4, 1989.
In addition, Alabama Power Company provides the enclosed supplemental comments.
Alabama Power Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory guide.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely, l
s (h.). l{h #
W. G. Hairston, III WGH/CRP:db Enclosure cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. G. F. Maxwell l
l 8908280034 890817 PDR REGGD 01.XXX C PDR
r-
~
p :.
Page 2 bc: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Mr. B. M. Guthrie Mr. J. D. Woodard Mr. K. W. McCracken Mr. D. N. Morey Mr. J. E. Garlington Mr. J. W. McGowan Mr. M. D. Rickles Mr. R. S. Fucich Mr. S. Fulmer Committment Tracking System (2) 509 L__-_-_--.
a.:
Comments on Proposed Regulatory Guide
" Assuring.the Availability of Funds for Nuclear Power Plants" 1.
RE Section 1, Introduction, last paragraph, last sentence, Page 4,
which states:
It is expected that the decommissioning fund available at the time of '
reactor shutdown will not differ significantly from the actual costs of decommissioning.
Comment:-
The reactor' shutdown date may precede decommissioning activities by as much as five; years or more.
In the case of multiple-unit plants, actual - decommissioning activities (for all units) will invariably be delayed until the last unit is shut down.
How will this delay impact required funding levels (particularly with regard to the oldest unit)?
2..
RE Section 2.1, Regulatory Position, Paragraph 2.1.2, Page 14, which states:
The applicant or licensee should indicate that the method used is at least equal in amount to the estimated or certified decommissioning
. cost for the facility.
Comment:
This would better read...
"that the method used should'
-result in a cost estimate that is at least equal to the estimated or certified decommissioning cost for the facility."
3.
RE Section 2.1, Regulatory Position, Paragraph 2.1.6.1, Page 15, which states:
If the. licensee decides to change the funding method during the life of: the facility, a revised funding method should be submitted...The existing funding method is to be maintained until the licensee has submitted a new certificate of financial assurance.
Comment:
What constitutes a change in funding method?
What distinguishes a change in method from a change in funding level?
i
________w
,.,3
.e Comments on-Proposed Regulatory Guide on Assuring the Availability of Funds for Nuclear Power Plants -
Page 2 l
4.: RE. Section 2.2, Regulatory Position, Paragraph' 2.2.4, Page 16, which states:
Any trust investments complying with IRS Code-Section 468A or with explicit
. instructions from a utility's state public utility comission or from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.would be acceptable to the NRC staff.
j.
Comment:
The NRC text would seemingly mandate that.a utility invest funds based.upon instructions provided by its state commission or the FERC.
We do not believe the state commission, the NRC or the FERC needs to provide-such investment instructions.
If the NRC were to insist that utilities invest in funds as directed
- by its' state commission or the FERC, the question of FERC's e
l~
preemptive rights. should be addressed.
If a utility invests in L
non-Black Lung securities, with its state commission's approval, I
could the FERC overrule the State? Does the FERC have preemptive rights ~in designating acceptable trust investments?
l.
5.
RE Section 2.2, Regulatory Position, paragraph 2.4.5, Page 16, which l'
states:
Annual deposits in an external sinking fund, including projected
- earnings, should be at least equal to? the total amount remaining to be accumulated, divided by the remaining years of the license.
Comment:
The calculation of the "trtal. amount remaining to be accumulated" needs further clarification.
If a utility bases its decommissioning estimate on a site-specific study, it may compile the estimate in current dollars (inflation-to-date),
future dollars
.(projected inflation), or some combination of both.
In such cases, the particular assumption used by the utility in compiling its estimate would impact the calculation of the " total amount remaining to be accumulated."
The most desirable interpretation, in light of the flexibility needed by utilities to accommodate NRC, state, and IRS requirements, would be to allow the utility to fund (at least) on a straight-line basis, recognizing inflation as it occurs.
l-I
.w_
m 4
Comments on Proposed Regulatory Guide on Asstring the Availability of Funds for Nuclear Power Plants Page 3 6.
RE Appendix A,
Glossary of Financial Terms, regarding " External Sinking Fund," which states:
A fund established and maintained by periodically setting funds aside in an account segregated 'from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control Comment:
The phrase "outside the licensee's administrative control" is ambiguous. We would suggest qualifying the phrase as follows:
...outside the licensee's administrative control regarding custody of the assets, except in such cases as distributions are required for decommissioning purposes.
The utility should retain investment management discretion. The NRC should not require a utility to utilize an external investment manager.
7.
RE Appendix B,
Recommended Wording for Financial Assurance Instruments, Paragraph 4, Page B-3, regarding the disbursement of property in escrow account, includes the following statement:
No withdrawal from the account can exceed percent of the outstanding balance of the escrow account or
- dollars, whichever is greater unless NRC approval is attached.
Comment:
It is not clear how this stipulation would be applied.
Would it be used to prevent the withdrawal of excess moneys in an overfunded situation? If so, how would excess moneys be returned to the utility? Although the concept of using escrow funds only for bona fide decommissioning costs is sound, we would recommend that this provision be deleted.
I l
i
-