ML20346A074
| ML20346A074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/2020 |
| From: | Specter H Micro Utilities |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Poole J | |
| References | |
| OEDO-20-00434 | |
| Download: ML20346A074 (10) | |
Text
Cover Sheet Critique of the NRCs Indian Point Safety Evaluation HERSCHEL SPECTER mhspecter@verizon.net November, 2020
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY ANALYSIS Micro-Utilities, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 Impact of Different Scenarios on Obtaining Reasonable Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TABLE A-1 Comparison of Different DTF Analyses - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 3.0 Specific Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Case 1 See HDI PSDAR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 3.2. Case 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 TABLE A-2 IP1, Entergys IP1 DTF and HDI IP1 Withdrawals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 3.3. Case 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 TABLE A-3 IP2, Entergys IP2 DTF and HDIs IP2 Withdrawals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 3.4. Case 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 TABLE A-4 IP3, Entergys IP3 DTF and HDIs IP3 Withdrawals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 3.5. Case 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 TABLE A-5 HDIs IP2 Initial Funding Level, and HDIs IP3 Withdrawals - - - - - - - - - - - 7 3.6. Case 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 TABLE A-6 Entergys IP2 DTF and HDIs IP3 Withdrawals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Table of Contents, page i of i
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
1.0 Executive Summary The NRC staff has recently completed its Safety Evaluation on the transfer of the Indian Point licenses from Entergy to Holtec and Holtec Decommissioning International (HDI) where it stated:
Therefore, the staff concluded that the transferees have reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover decommissioning and spent fuel management costs.
However the method that the staff used to arrive at this conclusion is deeply faulted and puts New York citizens at considerable risk. The staffs methodology is outdated and incomplete. Further, this Safety Evaluation is unresponsive to the comments the NRC has received on decommission-ing Indian Point. In particular, as written on page 26 of the Safety Evaluation, the staff issued a request to the Applicants for additional information on questions similar to those raised in the Comments to the NRC submitted by Micro-Utilities, Inc. The staff then received responses to this request for additional information from the Applicants. Yet, on page 26, the staff denies the public the opportunity to see its RAI and the Applicants responses until after the proposed license transfer is consummated. Yet, these RAI issues and the Applicants responses are at the very heart of the staffs reasonable assurance conclusion and should be made available to the public immediately.
As shown in this critique, the staffs conclusion of reasonable assurance is unjustified. Therefore this Safety Evaluation should be withdrawn.
The central issues raised by Micro-Utilities, Inc. are:
A. When analyzing the adequacy of a Decommissioning Trust Fund (DTF), the date selected as the start of the decommissioning process is critical. The selected date determines how many dollars are in the DTF at that moment and this forms the basis of the analysis of the amounts of money remaining in the DTF at various times throughout the whole decommis-sioning process. Select a different starting date and the money in the DTF will be different, as well as the time distribution of the remaining money in the DTF. Different starting dates, i.e., different initial amounts of money in the DTF, lead to different outcomes, as shown in TABLE A-1 and presented in more detail in Section 3 of this critique.Some start dates lead to DTFs that would be fully depleted before the radiological decommissioning process would be completed, thereby voiding the staffs conclusion of reasonable assurance. T he staff did not analyze the impacts of different start dates.
B. The amount of money in a DTF varies from day-to-day. At this time markets are rising, as are DTFs, but this has not always been the case. For example, during the Great Reces-sion Entergy provided a temporary bridge loan to the Indian Point DTFs to meet required funding levels. The HDI analysis selected a starting date when the DTFs were quite high.
This is reflected in a 19.2% increase in the IP3 DTF just in the year HDI selected for its starting DTF, yet in the three years between 2015 to 2018 the IP3 DTF rose an average of just 4.7% per year. The potential to repeat downturns similar to the Great Recession should not be ignored. DTFs are subject to decreases when markets decrease. For example, in 2017 the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by 25.08%, only to be followed in 2018 by a decrease of 5.63%. The HDI decommissioning funding analyses did not include scenar-ios where there could be significant decreases in the value of the DTFs due to market turn-downs. Such turndowns could occur in the midst the decommissioning process. It is page 1
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
obvious that there are a large number of potential financial scenarios for Indian Point, some of which could result in a failure to complete radiological decommissioning. By just look-ing at one favorable scenario, HDI and the staff have presented an incomplete analysis of the financial risks to New Yorkers from decommissioning Indian Point.
C. Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 are nearly identical. To conclude otherwise would defy common sense. The only two major differences between IP2 and IP3 are (a) the IP2 DTF is much smaller than the IP3 DTF and (b) HDIs analysis calculated that IP2 can be ade-quately decommissioned in spite of IP2 having a much smaller DTF than IP3. The NRC staff should have assumed that the decommissioning expenses that HDI calculated for IP3 apply to both IP2 and IP3. As shown in TABLE A-1, case #6, using HDIs IP3 year-by-year fund withdrawal figures combined with HDIs initial IP2 DTF, leads to a conclusion that the IP2 DTF would be underfunded. With this combination IP2s DTF would be fully depleted by around 2031, preventing the completion of the radiological decommissioning of the Indian Point site. Recognizing that IP2 and IP3 are nearly identical and that IP2 could be exposed to the same level of withdrawals as IP3 voids the staffs conclusion of reasonable assurance.
D. Because IP2 and IP3 are nearly identical many combinations of assumptions are possible.
For instance, the combination of HDIs IP3 year-by-year fund withdrawal figures with Entergys IP2 funding level that existed on October 31, 2018, is even more alarming. As shown in Case #5, the IP2 DTF would be fully depleted by 2029. Such a combination would also void the staffs conclusion of reasonable assurance.
The NRCs approach to determining reasonable assurance of the overall radiological risk from nuclear power plant accidents uses multiple scenarios with different initial conditions. This multi-scenario approach produces a distribution of potential outcomes where uncertainty bands and mean values can be displayed. With such information in hand, the staff can then make a decision on the acceptability of the radiological risk with reasonable assurance. By comparison, the approach used in the Safety Evaluation is highly deterministic and uses a single scenario, thereby ignoring other scenarios that would be very harmful to New York citizens. The Safety Evaluation seems to totally rely on the information supplied by the Applicants. As said on page 26 of the Safety Evaluation The staff will only review the HDI PSDAR itself if and when the proposed license transfer transaction is consummated. How can the staff write a Safety Evaluation which reaches the conclusion of reasonable assurance without closely reviewing the HDI PSDAR? This is sort of like a radiological risk assessment which only examined a feedwater pump trip, then took the Applicants word that everything is acceptable and delayed the publics ability to exam-ine this process. This approach would not be allowed in the NRCs radiological risk assessments.
It is not transparent and should not be allowed in the NRCs financial risk assessments for decom-missioning.
Not only is the narrow, deterministic analysis relied upon in the Safety Evaluation outdated com-pared to the NRCs approach to evaluating radiological risk, it is also outdated compared to finan-cial risk assessments in common use by financial investment institutions.
page 2
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
2.0 Impact of Different Scenarios on Obtaining Reasonable Assurance A number of different scenarios were investigated to determine their impacts on obtaining reason-able assurance that the DTFs are adequate. Results are presented in TABLE A-1. In TABLE A-1, Entergy DTF means the DTF amounts Energy reported to the NRC as of 12/31/2018. HDI DTFs means the amounts HDI used in its PSDAR, and repeated in the staffs Safety Evaluation, as of 10/31/2019. HDI withdrawals refers to the funds withdrawn year-by-year for IP1, or IP2 or IP3, as listed in the HDI PSDAR and in the NRCs Safety Evaluation. The Entergy reported DTF levels, in millions of dollars at a date of 12/31/2018 were $471.2, $598.4, and $780.6 for IP1, IP2, and IP3, respectively. The HDI DTFs for 10/31/2019 were, in millions of dollars were $533.5, $654, and $916.1 for IP1, IP2, and IP3, respectively. All cases below are in thousands of 2019 dollars, Case #1 is the same as appears in the HDI PSDAR and in the Safety Evaluation.
Case #2 replaces the 10/31/2019 DTFs that HDI used for IP1 with the DTF level Entergy reported to the NRC for 12/31/2019 for IP1. This shift in dates, and therefore shift in initial DTF funds, had a dramatic effect. A funding level equal to that at 12/31/2018 funding level, and with no other changes to the HDI analysis, reduced the time for the IP1 DTF to be completely depleted from after year 2062 to year 2031.
Case #3 is similar to case #2 where all aspects of the HDI analyses were kept the same, except that IP2s initial funding level was set at the amount Entergy reported to the NRC for 12/31/2018. In this scenario IP2s DTF becomes completely depleted by year 2043.
Case #4 is similar to case #2 where all aspects of the HDI analyses were kept the same, except that IP3s initial funding level was set at the amount Entergy reported to the NRC for 12/31/2018. In this scenario IP3s DTF becomes completely depleted by year 2054.
Cases #2, #3, and #4 demonstrate the importance of different starting dates with their date depen-dent DTF levels. Different dates lead to different results, some of which are not acceptable. Many other dates could have been selected with some demonstrating in adequate funding and others showing the opposite. This observation underscores the need to consider more than one starting date to reach a conclusion of reasonable assurance.
Case #5 investigates the importance of acknowledging that decommissioning IP2 and IP3 would essentially cost the same amount of money. From a public protection point of view the cost to decommission IP3 would be the cost to decommission IP2. That said, case #5 represents an analysis of IP2 where everything is the same as the IP2 analysis in HDIs PSDAR and the staffs Safety Evaluation except that the funds withdrawn for IP3 are used in this IP2 analysis. If the decommissioning of IP2 costs as much as the decommissioning of IP3, then the IP2 fund would be exhausted by year 2031.
Case #6 also addresses the issue of IP2 and IP3 being virtually the same. Case #6 takes case #5 a step further. In this analysis the HDI funds withdrawn match those of IP3 and the starting DTF level is the same as Entergy reported to the NRC for 12/31/2018. In this scenario the IP2 DTF would be exhausted by year 2029.
page 3
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
TABLE A-1 Comparison of Different DTF Analyses Case IP Input Description DTF Reasonable
- Unit(s) Depletion Assurance Date Obtained?
1 IP1,IP2, HDI DTFs, HDI withdrawals, as per the All after 2062 Yes IP3 HDI PSDAR Staff Safety Evaluation 2 IP1 Entergy IP1 DTF, HDI IP1 Withdrawals 2031 No 3 IP2 Entergy IP2 DTF, HDI IP2 Withdrawals 2043 No 4 IP3 Entergy IP3 DTF, HDI IP3 Withdrawals 2054 No 5 IP2 HDI IP2 DTF, HDI IP3 Withdrawals 2031 No 6 IP2 Entergy IP2 DTF, HDI IP3 Withdrawals 2029 No 3.0 Specific Analyses 3.1 Case 1 See HDI PSDAR 3.2 Case 2 TABLE A-2 IP1, Entergys IP1 DTF and HDI IP1 Withdrawals Year Begin- Withdraw Trust Fund Year End- Begin- Adjusted Year ning of Earnings ing Trust ning of Trust Ending year,Trust Fund Bal- year Fund Trust Fund Bal- ance, Trust Earn- Fund ance, HDI Fund ings, Balance, PSDAR HDI HDI HDI Balance, Entergy Entergy Table PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR Entergy DTF DTF 5-1a Table 5-1a Table 5-1a Table 5-1a DTF 2021 533,532 -32,617 5,844 506,759 411,900 8,238 387,521 2022 506,759 -32,183 9,492 484,068 387,521 7,750 363,088 2023 484,068 -57,397 8,533 435,204 363,088 7,261 312,952 2024 435,204 -71,547 7,273 370,930 312,952 6,259 247,662 2025 370,930 -28,992 6,839 348,777 247,662 4,953 223,623 2026 348,777 -32,586 6,324 322,515 223,623 4,472 195,509 2027 322,515 -40,615 5,638 287,538 195,509 3,910 158,804 2028 287,538 -37,287 5,005 255,256 158,804 3,176 124,693 2029 255,256 -29,410 4,517 230,363 124,693 2,494 97,777 2030 230,363 -53,727 3,533 180,169 97,777 1,956 46,005 2031 180,169 -78,112 2,041 104,097 46,005 920 -31,187 2032 104,097 -49,944 1,183 60,366 -31,187 0 -81,131 page 4
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
3.3 Case 3 TABLE A-3 IP2, Entergys IP2 DTF and HDIs IP2 Withdrawals Year Begin- Withdraw Trust Fund Year Begin- Adjusted Year ning of Earnings Ending ning of Trust Ending year, Trust year Fund Trust Trust Fund Trust Earnings, Fund Fund Bal- Balance, Fund Entergy Balance, ance, HDI HDI HDI HDI Balance, DTF Entergy PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR Entergy DTF Table Table Table Table DTF 5-1b 5-1b 5-1b 5-1b 2021 654,078 -70,024 6,814 590,868 583,262 11,665 524,903 2022 590,868 -105,834 9,701 494,735 524,093 10,498 428,757 2023 494,735 -85,496 8,185 417,424 428,757 8,575 351,836 2024 417,424 -44,113 7,466 380,777 351,836 7,037 314,760 2025 380,777 -43,993 6,736 343,520 314,760 6,295 277,062 2026 343,520 -40,373 6,063 309,210 277,062 5,541 242,230 2027 309,210 -39,697 5,390 274,903 242,230 4,845 207,378 2028 274,903 -55,164 4,395 224,134 207,378 4,147 156,361 2029 224,134 -53,960 3,403 173,577 156,361 3,127 105,528 2030 173,577 -15,449 3,163 161,291 105,528 2,110 92,190 2031 161,291 -15,449 2,917 148,758 92,190 1,844 78,585 2032 148,758 -18,646 2,602 132,714 78,585 1,572 61,510 2033 132,714 -9,623 2,462 125,553 61,510 1,230 53,117 2034 125,553 -5,990 2,391 121,954 53,117 1062 48,189 2035 121,954 -6,000 2,319 118,274 48,189 964 43,152 2036 118,274 -6,014 2,245 114,505 43,152 863 38,001 2037 114,505 -6,000 2,170 110,675 38,001 760 32,761 2038 110,675 -5,990 2,094 106,779 32,761 665 27,426 2039 106,779 -6,000 2,016 102,795 27,426 549 21,975 2040 102,795 -6,005 1,936 98,725 21,975 439 16,409 2041 98,725 -6,000 1,855 94,580 16,409 328 10,737 2042 94,580 -6,000 1,772 90,352 10,737 215 4952 2043 90,352 -6,000 1,687 86,040 4952 99 -949 2044 86,040 -6000 1,601 81,636 -949 0 -6,949 page 5
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
3.4 Case 4 TABLE A-4 IP3, Entergys IP3 DTF and HDIs IP3 Withdrawals Year Begin- Withdraw Trust Fund Year Begin- Adjusted Year ning of Earnings Ending ning of Trust Ending year, Holtec Trust year Fund Trust Trust Fund Trust Earn- Fund Fund Bal- Balance, Fund ings, Balance, ance, Balance, Entergy Entergy Entergy DTF DTF HDI HDI HDI HDI DTF PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR Table Table 5-1c Table 5-1c Table 5-1c 5-1c 2021 916,100 -110,773 9,395 814,722 765,443 15,309 669,979 2022 814,722 -124,235 13,810 704,297 669,979 13,340 559,144 2023 704,297 -107,740 11,391 608,488 559,114 11,183 462,587 2024 608,488 -85,924 10,451 533,016 462,587 9,252 385,915 2025 533,016 -54,171 9,577 488,421 385,915 7,718 339,462 2026 488,421 -57,084 8,627 439,964 339,462 6,789 289,167 2027 439,964 -48,119 7,837 399,682 289,167 5,783 246,831 2028 399,682 -32,164 7,350 374,868 246,831 4,937 219,625 2029 374,868 -32,142 6,855 349,581 219,625 4,393 191,880 2030 349,581 -32,138 6,349 323,792 191,880 3,838 163,570 2031 323,792 -32,138 5,833 297,487 163,570 3,271 134,703 2032 297,487 -31,679 5,316 271,124 134,703 2,694 105,718 2033 271,124 -7,343 5,276 269,057 105,718 2,114 100,490 2034 269,057 -3,607 5,309 270, 759 100,479 2,009 98,881 2035 270,759 -3,607 5,343 272,494 98,881 1,978 97,251 2036 272,494 -3,612 5,378 274,260 97,251 1,945 95,584 2037 274,260 -3,607 5,413 276,066 95,584 1,911 93,888 2038 276,066 -3,607 5,449 277,907 93,888 1,878 92,159 2039 277,907 -3607 5,486 279,786 92,159 1,843 90,395 2040 279,786 -3,612 5,523 281,697 90,395 1,808 88,890 2041 281,697 -3,607 5,562 283,652 88,890 1,772 87,055 2042 283,652 -3,607 5,601 285,646 87,055 1,741 85,189 2043 285,646 -3,607 5,641 287,679 85,189 1,704 83,286 2044 287,679 -3,612 5,681 289,748 83,286 1,666 81,340 2045 289,748 -3,607 5,723 291,864 81,340 1,627 79,360 2046 291,864 -4,433 5,749 293,179 79,360 1,587 76,514 2047 293,179 -7,453 5,715 291,441 76,514 1,530 70,591 page 6
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
2048 291,441 -11,953 5,590 285,078 70,591 1,412 60,050 2049 285,078 -11,917 5,463 278,624 60,050 1,201 49,334 2050 278,624 -11,927 5,334 272,030 49,334 987 38,393 2051 272,030 -11,917 5,202 265,315 38,393 768 27,244 2052 265,315 -11,953 5,067 258,429 27,224 545 15,816 2053 258,429 -11,927 4,930 251,432 15,816 316 4,205 2054 251,432 -11,927 4,790 244,294 4,205 84 -7,638 2055 244,294 -14,805 4,590 234,079 -7,638 0 -22,443 3.5 Case 5 TABLE A-5 HDIs IP2 Initial Funding Level, and HDIs IP3 Withdrawals Year Begin- Withdraw Trust Fund Year Begin- Adjusted Year ning of Earnings Ending ning of Trust Ending year,Trust Trust year Fund Trust Fund Bal- Fund Trust Earnings, Fund ance, Balance, Fund Entergy Balance, Balance, DTF Entergy Entergy DTF HDI HDI HDI HDI DTF PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR Table Table Table Table 5-1c 5-1c 5-1c 5-1c 2021 916,100 -110,773 9,395 814,722 654,078 6,814 550,119 2022 814,722 -124,235 13,810 704,297 550,119 9,023 434,906 2023 704,297 -107,740 11,391 608,488 434,906 8,698 335,864 2024 608,488 -85,924 10,451 533,016 335,864 6,717 256,657 2025 533,016 -54,171 9,577 488,421 256,657 5,133 207,619 2026 488,421 -57,084 8,627 439,964 207,619 4,152 154,678 2027 439,964 -48,119 7,837 399,682 154.678 3,094 109,653 2028 399,682 -32,164 7,350 374,868 109,653 2,193 79,682 2029 374,868 -32,142 6,855 349,581 79,682 1,594 49,133 2030 349,581 -32,138 6,349 323,792 49,133 983 17,977 2031 323,792 -31,679 5,833 297,487 17,977 359 -12,832 2032 297,487 -31,679 5,316 271,124 -12,832 0 -44,511 page 7
CRITIQUE OF THE NRCS INDIAN POINT SAFETY EVALUATION Micro-Utilities, Inc.
3.6 Case 6 TABLE A-6 Entergys IP2 DTF and HDIs IP3 Withdrawals Year Begin- Withdraw Trust Fund Year Begin- Adjusted Year ning of Earnings Ending ning of Trust Ending year,Trust Trust year Fund Trust Fund Bal- Fund Trust Earnings, Fund ance, Balance, Fund Entergy Balance, Balance, DTF Entergy Entergy DTF HDI HDI HDI HDI DTF PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR PSDAR Table Table Table Table 5-1c 5-1c 5-1c 5-1c 2021 916,100 -110,773 9,395 814,722 583,262 11,665 484,154 2022 814,722 -124,235 13,810 704,297 484,154 9,683 369,602 2023 704,297 -107,740 11,391 608,488 369,602 7,392 269,254 2024 608,488 -85,924 10,451 533,016 269,254 5,385 188,715 2025 533,016 -54,171 9,577 488,421 188,715 3,774 138,318 2026 488,421 -57,084 8,627 439,964 138,318 2,766 84,000 2027 439,964 -48,119 7,837 399,682 84,000 1680 37,561 2028 399,682 -32,164 7,350 374,868 37,561 751 6,170 2029 374,868 -32,142 6,855 349,581 6170 123 -25,845 2030 349,581 -32,138 6,349 323,792 -25,845 0 -57,983 page 8