NL-09-068, Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Decommissioning Cost Estimate and Irradiated Fuel Management Program
| ML092050204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/2009 |
| From: | Joseph E Pollock Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | NRC/FSME, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0090, NL-09-068, TAC ME0020, TAC ME0021 | |
| Download: ML092050204 (21) | |
Text
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB S0Entergy P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, N.Y. 10511-0249 Tel (914) 734-6700 J.E. Pollock Site Vice President Administration NL-09-068 July 15, 2009 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
Reply To Request For Additional Information Regarding Decommissioning Cost Estimate And Irradiated Fuel Management Program (TAC NOS. ME0020 AND ME0021)
Indian Point Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 License Nos. DPR-5 and DPR-26 Reference 1. NRC Letter dated May 13, 2009 "Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1 And 2 -Request For Additional Information Regarding Decommissioning Cost Estimate And Irradiated Fuel Management Program (TAC NOS. ME0020 AND ME0021)
Reference 2. Entergy Letter NL-08-144 to NRC dated October 23, 2008 regarding, "Unit 1 & 2 Program for Maintenance of Irradiated Fuel and Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54 (bb) and 10 CFR 50.75(f)(3)".
Dear Sir or Madam:
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc (Entergy) is providing the additional information requested in Reference 1 regarding the preliminary decommissioning cost analysis and irradiated fuel management program information provided in reference 2. The responses to questions are provided in Attachment 1 to this letter.
This letter includes one new commitment, which is included as Attachment 2.
NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 1 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Mr. Robert Walpole, Manager, Licensing at (914) 734-6710.
Sincerely, JEP/mb
Attachment:
- 1. Reply To NRC Request For Additional Information Regarding Decommissioning Cost Estimate And Irradiated Fuel Management Program (TAC NOS. ME0020 AND ME0021)
Attachment:
- 2. New Commitment to Provide Additional Funding cc: Mr. S. J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. J. Boska, Senior Project Manager, NRC, NRR, DORL NRC Resident Inspectors Office, Indian Point Mr. Paul Eddy, NYS Dept. of Public Service Mr. Francis J. Murray, Jr., President and CEO, NYSERDA
ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-09-068 REPLY TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE AND IRRADIATED FUEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (TAC NOS. ME0020 AND ME0021)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NO.50-003 AND 50-247
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 1 of 16 Response to Request for Additional Information In a letter dated October 23,2008, Accession No. ML083040378, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), submitted the preliminary decommissioning cost analysis and the irradiated fuel management program for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (IP1 and IP2) in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Sections 50.75(f)(3) and 50.54(bb).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in reviewing the submittal had the following questions transmitted by Letter dated May 13, 2009:
RAI No. 1: Attachment 1, Section 5. Financial Assurance In the submittal, Entergy referenced Table 7,"Funding Requirements for License Termination,"
and stated that a 2 percent real rate of return was applied to the IP2 decommissioning trust fund (DTF) balance of $347.2 million (balance as of December 31, 2007), and that Entergy would apply a portion of the balance from the DTF to support spent fuel management costs. Entergy acknowledged that an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 is required before the DTF could be applied to non-decommissioning costs such as spent fuel management costs. Based on Entergy's approach regarding spent fuel management costs, the NRC staff applied a 2 percent real rate of return to the DTF, and deducted the expenses identified in Table 3, "Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Total Decommissioning Cost."
The NRC staff's analysis indicted the DTF balance was short of the necessary funds to support both spent fuel management and decommissioning costs, and the NRC staff was not able to reconcile the difference between the NRC staff's and Entergy's analyses. The NRC staff requests that Entergy reconcile the difference between the NRC staff's analysis and Entergy's analysis. In addition, the NRC staff requests that Entergy identify the mechanism that Entergy proposes to use to make up the shortfall in funding for IP2, if necessary.
Response
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (ENIP2), believes that the difference between the NRC staff's analysis and its analysis is that ENIP2 has combined the balances from the Indian Point 1 and 2 (IP-1 and IP-2) decommissioning trust funds before deducting any of the expenses.
ENIP2 believes that the reason the staff's analysis showed the IP-2 fund was short is that in the Table 3, mentioned in this RAI, most all of the spent fuel management expenses are, as an administrative matter, allocated to IP-2. Please see Table 8 in Attachment 1 to the October 23, 2008 filing, where the IP-1 and IP-2 decommissioning costs and funds are combined in one schedule. Table 8 shows that when the IP-1 and IP-2 funds are combined and used to offset the decommissioning and spent fuel management costs for both units, there are sufficient funds available and an excess of approximately $103 million results at the end of decommissioning.
This analysis is based on December 31, 2007 trust fund balances.
An alternative solution is to charge more of the spent fuel management expenses against the IP-1 decommissioning fund. Since the spent fuel management costs support both IP-1 and IP-2 fuel, and both funds would be available to address these costs, it would simply be an administrative matter to make such a different allocation. However, ENIP2 does not believe a different allocation is necessary, as it has simply combined the fund balances for purposes of the overall decommissioning effort calculations.
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 2 of 16 Please see the response to RAI No. 2 below for plans relating to the decline in fund balances resulting as of December 31, 2008.
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 3 of 16 RAI No. 2: Attachment 1, Section 5. Financial Assurance The NRC staff request that Entergy address the impacts on its analysis based on the apparent
$25.81 million decrease in the DTF balance to $321.39 million for IP2 as of December 31, 2008.
The updated balance is identified in Entergy's letter dated March 30, 2009, "Status of Decommissioning Funding for Plants Operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc." In the March 31, 2009, submittal Entergy stated that the $321.39 million included the provisional trust balance of $29.39 million. Entergy's response should consider that if there is a change in the DTF balance that materially and significantly impacts a licensee's cost and funding analysis, the licensee may be under an obligation, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.9, to update any changes in projected cost, or available funds.
Response
The decrease in the DTF balance from December 2007 and December 2008 does not impact ENIP2's ability to fund the radiological cleanup of the IPEC site (IP-1 and IP-2). It would, however, impact the level of financial resources available to fund other activities (for example, spent fuel management) if 1) the fund balance does not recover from the recent market decline faster than the NRC's allowable rate of return before decommissioning is required, 2) the operating license from IP-2 is not renewed and 3) there is no consideration given to compensation anticipated from the DOE for damages incurred for spent fuel management costs.
ENIP2 does not believe it is reasonable to assume the fund will not recover, the license will not be renewed, and DOE damages will not be realized. However, ENIP2 understands the Staff's present concern, and responds as follows.
Since IP-1 will be decommissioned along with IP-2, and share site facilities and services, the financial resources of the two units are combined for purposes of this analysis.
Table 2.1 illustrates ENIP2's current plan to address the potential shortfall in funding for spent fuel management (assuming a December 31, 2008 trust fund balance, a 2% real rate of return on the DTF, and no consideration of DOE compensation). For this amended plan, ENIP2 now commits to make a $110 million contribution to the trust fund in 2026. (See Commitment No.
NL-09-068-1 in Attachment 2). This revision results in the trust fund having a near zero balance by the end of the decommissioning project after the 2% real rate of return is applied to the trust funds.
ENIP2 has filed for license renewal for Indian Point 2, and expects a decision on that application in 2011. ENIP2 expects that the addition of a renewed license term for Indian Point 2 will materially change the required additional contribution amount for the spent fuel management plan, and accordingly expects to submit a revised plan if lic6nse renewal is granted, that should eliminate or substantially reduce any required future contributions to the trust fund.
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 4 of 16 Table 2.1 (millions of dollars) _ _
$2007 Escalated Cost ($2008)
Unit 1 _ __Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 $2008 Ending Spent Spent Spent Spent Total DTF Year Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Cost Contribution Balance 2008 _______ ______547.740 2009 ___ _____ 558.695 2010,_________ _____ 569.869 2011 ______581.266 2012 _______________592.891 2013 1.059 0.335 11,164 514 1.099 0.346 11.637 0.532 13.614 591.135 2014 4.236 1.339 49,271 1,974 4.396 1.386 51 .257 2.044 59.082 543.876 2015 4.236 1.339 25,307 13,279 4.396 1.386 26.287 13.673 45.741 509.012 2016 2.656 3,711 16,971 2.781 3.879 17.471 24.131 495.062 2017 2.649 3,701 16,924 2.774 3.868 17.423 24.065 480.898 2018 2.649 _ _ 3,701 16,924 2.774 3.868 17.423 24.065 466.451 2019 2.649 3,701 16,924 2.774 3.868 17.423 24.065 451.715 2020 2.656 3,711 16,971 2.781 3.879 17.471 24.131 436.619 2021 2.649 3,688 9,720 2.774 ____3.855 10.008 16.636 428.715 2022 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 427.880 2023 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 _____ 427.029 2024 2.656 3,686 2,718 2.781 _ _ 3.853 2.800 9.435 426.135 2025 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 ,425.249 2026 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.4091 110.00 534.345 2027 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 535.623 2028 2.656 _ _ 3,686 2,718 2.781 3.853 2.800 9.435 536.901 2029 2.649 _ __3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 538.230 2030 2.649 _ __3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 ______539.586 2031 2.649 _ __3,676 2,711 2.774 _ __3.842 2.793 9.409 540.969 2032 2.6561___ 3,686 2,718 2.781 3.853 2.800 9.435 ______542.354
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 5 of 16 Table 2.1 (continued)
(millions of dollars) _ _
$ 2007 Escalated Cost ($ 2008) ____
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 2008 ____
Ending Spent Spent Spent Spent Total DTF Year Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Cost Contribution Balance 2033 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 543.792 2034 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 545.259 2035 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 546.756 2036 2.656 3,686 2,718 2.781 3.853 2.800 9.435 548.256 2037 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2,793 9.409, 549.812 2038 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 551.400 2039 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 553.019 2040 2.656 3,686 2,718 2.781 3.853 2.800 9.435 554.645 2041 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409 _____ 556.329 2042 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.409, 558.047 2043 2.649 3,676 2,711 2.774 3.842 2.793 9.4091 559.799 2044 2.656 3,686 2,718 2.781 3.853 2.800 9.435 ______561.560 2045 2.611 3,675 2,585 2.734 3.842 2.663 9.239 563.553 2046 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 569.067 2047 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 574.691 2048 1.831 3,678 0 1.928 3.845 0.000 5.773 ______580.413 2049 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 586.264 2050 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 592.233 2051 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 598.321 2052 1.831 3,678 0 1.928 3.845 0.000 5.773 604.514 2053 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 610.848 2054 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 ______617.308 2055 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 623.897 2056 1.831 3,678 0 1.928 3.845 0.000 5.773 ______630.603 2057 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 ___3.834 0.000 5.757 ______637.458
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 6 of 16 Table 2.1 (continued)
(millions of dollars)
$ 2007 Escalated Cost ($ 2008)
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 $ 2008 Ending Spent Spent Spent Spent Total DTF Year Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Radiological Fuel Cost Contribution Balance 2058 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 644.450 2059 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 651.583 2060 1.831 3,678 0 1.928 3.845 0.000 5.773 658.842 2061 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 666.262 2062 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 673.830 2063 1.826 3,668 0 1.922 3.834 0.000 5.757 681.550 2064 1.831 24,751 0 1.928 25.806 0.000 27.734 667.448 2065 1.826 55,625 0 1.922 57.823 0.000 59.745 621.051 2066 18.899 168,560 0 19.467 174.284 0.000 193.751 439.722 2067 68.313 71,834 1,361 70.318 74.458 1.403 146.180 302.336 2068 148.490 25,113 446 153.163 26.059 0.459 179.682 128.701 2069 17.216 6,046 318 17.838 6.262 0.324 24.424 106.851 2070 17.216 6,046 318 17.838 6.262 0.324 24.424 84.564 2071 17.216 6,046 318 17.838 6.262 0.324 24.424 61.831 2072 17.235 6,547 314 17.857 6.780 0.320 24.957 38.110 2073 11.400 26,485 0 11.799 27.426 0.000 39.225 (0.353) 441.557 3.012 659,351 178,256 457.719 3.117 685.161 183.560 1,329.558
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 7 of 16 RAI No. 3: Section 1.7.9.. Site Contamination (Document El 1-1583-003)
This submittal indicated that IP2 has approximately 379,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil; however, the cost to remediate or remove the contaminated soil was not identified in this section of the document. The NRC staff requests that Entergy identify what is the cost to remediate or dispose of the approximately 379,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil. In this section, Entergy indicated that for IP2, the substructures of the discharge canal, fuel storage building and part of the turbine building would have to be removed to address the subsurface soil contamination.
Also in this section of the document, Entergy did not identify the additional cost associated with demolition of these structures. The NRC staff requests that Entergy identify the additional cost associated with the demolition of these structures. If these costs are provided in supporting documents, please provide the reference that addresses the total cost of the contaminated soil removal and disposal cost, including demolition costs. The reference should also include a discussion of the sequence involved in this process. The NRC staff requests that the licensee provide a detailed discussion that addresses the cleanup activities and supporting costs in detail.
Response
The cost to remediate (dispose) of the approximately 379,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil is provided in Table A of Enclosure 2 to ENIP's October 23, 2008 filing. The cost and volumes are shown below:
Total Cost Volume Activity Index Activity Description ($ millions) (cubic feet)
Area of Concern (AOC) PCB Soil 4b.2.3 Remediation 3.399 99,394 4b.2.4 AOC Soil Remediation 1.272 24,481 5b.2.3 Unit 1 Legacy Soil Remediation 13.066 255,173 Total 17.736 379,048 The costs to remediate or remove portions of the discharge canal, fuel storage building and part of the turbine building in support of the soil remediation are provided in Table A of Enclosure 2 to ENIP2's October 23, 2008 filing. The costs are shown below:
Total Cost Activity Index Activity Description ($ millions) 4a.1.4.4 Turbine Building (clean portion) 0.796 4b.1.4.2 Discharge Canal (remediation) 1.091 4b.1.4.3 Fuel Storage Building (contaminated portion) 1.504 4b.1.4.7 Turbine Building (contaminated portion) 7.177 Total 10.57
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 8 of 16 Remediation requirements were based upon the site radiological characterization information available from the IPEC Groundwater Investigation Project ["Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report," GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., January 2008]. For purposes of the cost estimate, soil in the affected areas is assumed to be completely removed (i.e., to bedrock).
A further breakdown of the costs and volumes included in the decommissioning study for IP-2 is shown in Table 3.1. The affected areas referenced in the table are identified in Figures.3.1 and 3.2. The estimates include the direct costs associated with soil excavation, packaging, transportation and disposal.
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 9 of 16 Table 3.1 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Contaminated Soil Disposition Estimates Volume Cost Area (cubic feet) (million, $07)
AOC PCB Soil Remediation _
Tank 11 and 12 Area 86,770 Hell Gate Transformer Area 170 Transformer Yard 2,250 Substation "A" Area 2,813 Chem Waste Storage Area 450 Service Center Area 6,941 Sub-Total 99,394 3.399 AOC Soil Contamination 1 Septic Field, New Lab Building 4,000 Yard 8 Storage Area 19,160 New Lab Building Area 1,321 Sub-Total 24,481 1.272 Unit 1 Legacy Soil Remediation 2 Al 90,000 B 14,500_
F 115,000 U2 - Fuel Storage Building 20,000 Miscellaneous Shared 15,673 Sub-Total 255,173 13.066 Total 379,048 17.736 Note 1: Refer to Figure 3.1 for the location of these areas Note 2: Refer to Figure 3.2 for an outline of the areas.
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 10 of 16 Figure 3.1 Potential Site Soil Remediation Areas
- INDIAN KIWOI UNI 2 NOT TO SCALE ~ONT OW':, bUILOUNQ 00'IMIII NID
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 11 of 16 Figure 3.2 Potential Power Block Soil Remediation Areas
. .. i.
i {:, .J .:'
rm t*['* ::.::: ............ . ~~.
. :: .;:*'*74=, . . .
Iv Ii d~
F!,
ut 1 vrv~ovvulov J
- Coed...,
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 12 of 16 RAI No. 4: Section 1.7.8., Site Contamination (Document El 1-1583-004)
This submittal indicated that IP1 has an estimated 1.26 million cubic feet of contaminated soil; however, the cost to remediate or remove the contaminated soil was not identified in this section of the document. The NRC staff requests that Entergy identify the cost to remediate or dispose of the approximately 1.26 million cubic feet of contaminated soil. Also in this section, Entergy indicated that for IP1, the substructures of the reactor containment, H. T. switchgear, underground utility tunnel, chemical systems, fuel handling, nuclear services, superheater and the turbine building would have to be removed to address the subsurface soil contamination. Table 1 listed the volumes of radioactive waste, but Table 1 did not list the disposal costs associated with the waste volumes. In addition, in this section, Entergy did not identify the additional cost associated with demolition of these structures. The NRC staff requests that Entergy identify the additional cost associated with the demolition and disposal of these structures. If these costs are provided in supporting documents, please provide the reference that addresses the total cost of the contaminated soil removal and disposal, including the building demolition, and transportation. The reference should also include a discussion of the sequence involved in this process. The NRC staff requests that Entergy provide a detailed discussion that addresses the cleanup activities and supporting costs in detail.
Response
The cost to remediate (dispose) of the approximately 1.26 million cubic feet of contaminated soil is provided in Table A of Enclosure 2 to ENIP2's October 23, 2008 filing. The cost and volume is shown below:
Total Cost Volume Activity Index Activity Description ($ millions) (cubic feet) 5b.2.2 Unit 1 Legacy Soil Remediation 64.645 1,262,434 Total 64.645 1,262,434 The costs to remediate or remove portions of the reactor containment, H. T. switchgear, underground utility tunnel, chemical systems, fuel handling, nuclear service, superheater and the turbine building is provided in Table A of Enclosure 2 to ENIP2's October 23, 2008 filing. The costs are shown below:
Total Cost Activity Index Activity Description ($ millions) 4a.1.4.1 Reactor Containment (clean portion) 11.632 4a.1.4.2 Chemical Systems Building (clean portion) 4.177 4a.1.4.3 Fuel Handling Building (clean portion) 0.236 4a.1.4.4 Nuclear Service Building (clean portion) 0.796 4b.1.4.1 Reactor Containment (contaminated portion) 27.867 4b.1.4.2 Chemical Systems Building (contaminated portion) 18.699 4b.1.4.3 Fuel Handling Building (contaminated portion) 16.576 4b.1.4.4 Nuclear Service Building (contaminated portion) 5.791 Continued on next page
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 13 of 16 4b.1.4.5 Service Building & H.T Switchgear (contaminated 1.510 portion) 4b.1.4.6 Superheater Building (contaminated portion) 8.678 4b.1.4.7 Turbine Building (contaminated portion) 12.302 Total 108.264 Remediation requirements were based upon the site radiological characterization information available from the IPEC Groundwater Investigation Project ["Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report," GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., January 2008]. For purposes of the cost estimate, soil in the affected areas is assumed to be completely removed (i.e.,
to bedrock).
A further breakdown of the costs and volumes included in the decommissioning study for IP-1 is shown in Table 4.1. The affected areas referenced in the table are identified in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 (RAI 3). The estimates include the direct costs associated with soil excavation, packaging, transportation and disposal.
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 14 of 16 Table 4.1 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 1 Contaminated Soil Disposition Estimates Volume Cost Area 1 (cubic feet) (million, $07)
Unit 1 Legacy Soil Remediation 2 Al 90,000 B 43,500 C 800,000 H 315,000 Miscellaneous Shared 12,934 Total 1,261,434 64.645 Note 1: Refer to Figure 3.1 (RAI 3) for the location of these areas Note 2: Refer to Figure 3.2 (RAI 3) for an outline of the areas
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 15 of 16 RAI No. 5: Attachment 1, Table 8 Decommissioning Funding Plan In its submittal Entergy references Table 8,"Decommissioning Funding Plan, IP1 Coordinated with IP2, 2013 Shutdown and 60-year SAFSTOR." The NRC staff applied a 2 percent real rate of return to the DTF balance of $218.8 million for IP1 as of December 31, 2008, and the DTF balance for IP2 of $321.39 million as of December 31, 2008, for a total DTF balance of $541.4 million as of December 31, 2008, and deducted the expenses identified in Column F of Table 8 since Entergy stated that it would use the DTF balances to support the spent fuel management costs. Again, Entergy acknowledged that an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 is required before the DTF could be applied to non-radiological costs. The NRC staff's analysis indicted the DTF balance was short of the necessary funds to support both spent fuel management and decommissioning costs, and the NRC staff was not able reconcile the difference between the NRC staff's and Entergy's analyses. The NRC staff's analysis was based on the DTF balances listed in Entergy's submittal dated March 30, 2009. The NRC staff requests that Entergy reconcile the difference between the NRC staff's analysis and Entergy's analysis. In addition, the NRC staff requests that Entergy identify the mechanism that Entergy proposes to make up the shortfall in funding for IP1, if necessary.
Response
Please see the response to RAI No. 2 for ENIP2's revised plan to address the potential shortfall in funding for spent fuel management.
Attachment 1 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 16 of 16 RAI No. 6: Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis for IP1 In its submittal, Entergy selected the SAFSTOR option for IP2 and stated that IP1 and IP2 would remain in SAFSTOR for up to 60 years and that the decommissioning of IP1 would take place at the same time as the decommissioning of IP2. Entergy stated it would complete the decommissioning of IP1 and IP2 within a 60-year SAFSTOR period following the expiration of IP2's operation license in 2013. In as much as the NRC issued an order on June 19, 1980, revoking the authority of the Consolidated Edison Company, the licensee at that time, to operate IP1, the NRC staff request that Entergy explain how it proposes to address, for IP1, the requirement in 10 CFR 50.82(a)3) that decommissioning be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations.
Response
ENIP2 plans to seek from the Commission an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12, at an appropriate time, based on the public health and safety exception to the 60-year decommissioning requirement in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3). This exemption request will be based on the fact that an earlier demolition of Indian Point 1 would interfere with the allowable 60-year SAFSTOR period for Indian Point 2 (and possibly Indian Point 3). The 60-year period allowed in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) was set, at least in part, based on the public health and safety consideration of allowing time for radioactive decay during the storage period, which permits reduction in radiation exposure during the decommissioning process. (53 F.R. 24018, 24021, June 27, 1988). The request may also include a similar request for relief on grounds of the unavailability of spent fuel disposal, if the DOE has not performed its spent fuel acceptance obligations. 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) expressly recognizes these bases as grounds for protecting the public health and safety, as follows:
"Decommissioning will be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations. Completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years will be approved by the Commission only when necessary to protect public health and safety. Factors that will be considered by the Commission in evaluating an alternative that provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the site." (emphasis added).
ATTACHMENT 2 TO NL-09-068 New Commitment to Provide Additional Funding ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NO.50-003 AND 50-247
Attachment 2 NL-09-068 Docket Nos.50-003 and 50-247 Page 1 of 1 List of Regulatory Commitments The following table identifies those actions committed to by Entergy in this document.
Any other statements in this submittal are provided for information purposes and are not considered to be regulatory commitments.