Get documents about "Report to the February 27_ 2009
Shared by: dffhrtcv3
-
Stats
- views:
- 255
- posted:
- 12/25/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 485
Document Sample
Report to the
Vermont Department of Public Service
on the
Vermont Yankee License Renewal
February 27, 2009
Prepared and Submitted by:
GDS Associates, Inc. • 1850 Parkway Place • Suite 800 • Marietta, GA 30067 • www.gdsassociates.com
Marietta, GA • Austin, TX • Auburn, AL • Manchester, NH • Madison, WI • Indianapolis, IN • Augusta, ME
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 SCOPE......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 REVIEW OF NRC LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS............................................................................ 2-2
2.4 ACT 160 .................................................................................................................................... 2-3
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR PLANT............................. 3-1
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 GENERATION .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 REACTOR TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 LOCATION AND SURROUNDINGS ................................................................................................ 3-3
3.5 OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................................ 3-8
4.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITY ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 FEDERAL PREEMPTION VS. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ............................................................ 4-2
4.2 FEDERALISM AND THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER .................................. 4-3
4.2.1 Construction and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants........................................................ 4-4
4.2.2 High-Level Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal ............................................................... 4-6
4.2.3 Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal .............................................................................. 4-8
4.2.4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness............................................................................ 4-11
4.3 VERMONT’S CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER VERMONT YANKEE ....................................... 4-14
4.3.1 Continued Operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant............................................. 4-14
4.3.2 Storage and Disposal of Vermont Yankee’s Spent Nuclear Fuel....................................... 4-16
4.3.3 Storage and Disposal of Vermont Yankee’s Low-level Radioactive Waste ....................... 4-20
4.3.4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness............................................................................ 4-21
4.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 4-25
5.0 ENTERGY’S COMMITMENTS AND ABILITY TO MEET THEM ............................... 5-1
5.1 ENVY ECONOMIC COMMITMENTS EXTENDING BEYOND MARCH 21, 2012............................... 5-1
5.1.1 Purchased Power................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Termination of Commercial Operations and Decommissioning ......................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Spent Fuel and Other Nuclear Waste .................................................................................. 5-4
5.2 ENVY’S ABILITY TO MEET ITS COMMITMENTS EXTENDING BEYOND MARCH 21, 2012........... 5-5
5.2.1 Purchase Power Commitments............................................................................................ 5-8
5.2.2 Commitment to Negotiate in Good Faith for Purchase Power Agreement.......................... 5-9
5.2.3 Commitment to Share Excess Revenues from VYNPS Power Sales................................... 5-10
5.2.4 Commitments Relating to Termination of Commercial Operations and Decommissioning5-10
5.2.4.1 Commitment to Pay Costs of Security .................................................................................... 5-11
5.2.4.2 Commitment to Provide Inter-Company Credit Agreement and Parental Guarantee.............. 5-11
5.2.4.3 Commitment to Provide Additional Financial Assurance ....................................................... 5-12
5.2.4.4 Commitment to Share “Excess Decommissioning Funds”...................................................... 5-13
5.2.4.5 Commitment to Perform “Site Restoration”............................................................................ 5-14
5.3. COMMITMENTS REGARDING SPENT FUEL AND OTHER NUCLEAR WASTE ................................ 5-14
5.3.1 Timely Removal of Spent Fuel from VYNPS ...................................................................... 5-14
5.3.2 No Storage of Nuclear Waste Generated from Outside Vermont ...................................... 5-15
5.3.3 Commitment Regarding Spent Fuel Pool Configuration................................................... 5-16
5.3.4 Commitment Not to Seek to Invalidate Other Nuclear Waste Commitments on Grounds of
Federal Preemption.......................................................................................................... 5-16
5.4. ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS GENERALLY ............................................................................... 5-17
i
5.5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 5-21
6.0 NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING ...................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 DESCRIPTION OF NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 6-1
6.2 TYPES OF DECOMMISSIONING .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................... 6-2
6.4 DECOMMISSIONING PLANNING ................................................................................................... 6-3
6.5 REVIEW OF LATEST VERMONT YANKEE DECOMMISSIONING STUDY .......................................... 6-4
6.6 ADEQUACY OF VERMONT YANKEE DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING .............................................. 6-6
6.7 ANALYSIS OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING ............................................................................... 6-8
6.8 REASONABLENESS OF ASSUMED FUND EARNING AND COST ESCALATION RATES ................... 6-11
6.9 COMPARISON OF VERMONT YANKEE DECOMMISSIONING FUND TO OTHER NUCLEAR
DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS....................................................................................................... 6-13
6.10 IMPACT OF LICENSE RENEWAL ON DECOMMISSIONING ............................................................. 6-13
6.11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 6-15
7.0 NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL ............................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1.1 Characteristics........................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1.2 Temporary Storage.................................................................................................................... 7-3
7.1.1.3 Permanent Disposal................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.1.1.4 Current Status of Yucca Mountain Repository.......................................................................... 7-4
7.1.1.5 Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Between Nuclear Utilities and DOE ......................................... 7-5
7.1.1.6 Reprocessing and Other Alternatives to Geologic Disposal...................................................... 7-9
7.2 VERMONT YANKEE’S CURRENT SITUATION ............................................................................. 7-10
7.2.1 Spent Fuel Storage............................................................................................................. 7-10
7.3 SPENT FUEL LITIGATION WITH DOE ........................................................................................ 7-13
7.4 ENVY’S SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW ............................ 7-14
7.5 VERMONT YANKEE’S SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE EVENT OF LICENSE EXTENSION ...
................................................................................................................................................ 7-17
7.6 VERMONT YANKEE’S SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE EVENT THE ENEXUS
TRANSACTION OCCURS ............................................................................................................ 7-22
7.7 VERMONT YANKEE’S SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE EVENT OF AN ENVY
BANKRUPTCY FILING ............................................................................................................... 7-22
7.8 SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 7-23
7.9 LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 7-25
7.9.1 Definition of Low Level Radioactive Waste....................................................................... 7-25
7.9.2 Vermont’s LLRW Generation ............................................................................................ 7-25
7.9.3 Vermont’s LLRW Storage and Disposal Efforts ................................................................ 7-26
7.9.4 National LLRW Storage and Disposal Developments ....................................................... 7-27
7.9.5 Changes in Federal Law and Regulation .......................................................................... 7-28
7.9.6 Status of Licensing the Texas Compact Facility ................................................................ 7-28
7.9.7 Summary of Compact Costs............................................................................................... 7-31
7.9.8 Recommendations Regarding Vermont’s Continued Participation in Texas Compact ..... 7-33
7.9.9 Interim Storage of LLRW at Vermont Yankee.................................................................... 7-33
8.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 8-1
8.3.1 Plans and Procedures.......................................................................................................... 8-2
8.3.2 Review of Performance in Drills and Exercises .................................................................. 8-3
8.3.3 Interviews with Utility, State and Local Officials ................................................................ 8-3
8.3.4 Review of Evacuation Methods and ETEs ........................................................................... 8-3
8.3.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 8-4
ii
8.4 OVERVIEW OF THE VERMONT YANKEE EMERGENCY PLANNING PROGRAM .............................. 8-4
8.4.1 The Site ................................................................................................................................ 8-4
8.4.2 Emergency Planning Zone................................................................................................... 8-4
8.4.3 Role of the Utility................................................................................................................. 8-5
8.4.4 Role of Local Government ................................................................................................... 8-5
8.4.5 Role of the State................................................................................................................... 8-6
8.4.6 Role of the Federal Government.......................................................................................... 8-7
8.5 BASES AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PLANNING ..................................... 8-8
8.5.1 Reasonable Assurance ......................................................................................................... 8-8
8.5.2 Graded Approach to RERP ................................................................................................. 8-8
8.5.3 Emergency Plans Have Improved Over Time.................................................................... 8-10
8.6 REVIEW OF PLANS AND PROCEDURES .......................................................................... 8-10
8.7 EVALUATION OF DRILL AND EXERCISE PERFORMANCES ....................................... 8-12
8.8 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (USNRC) INSPECTION
REPORTS REGARDING THE VY OFFSITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM ................... 8-21
8.9 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 8-24
8.10 INTERVIEWS OF STATE, LOCAL, AND UTILITY OFFICIALS ....................................... 8-25
8.11 REVIEW OF EVACUATION PLANS, RESOURCES AND EVACUATION TIMES.......... 8-25
8.11.1 Review of Evacuation Plans for a Vermont Yankee Emergency........................................ 8-25
8.11.2 Review of Evacuation Time Estimates ............................................................................... 8-27
8.11.3 Review of Evacuation Resources ....................................................................................... 8-29
8.11.4 Review of Nuclear Power Plant Declared Emergencies ................................................... 8-31
8.12 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 8-32
8.13 STRENGTHS AND IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................. 8-33
8.13.1 Strengths ............................................................................................................................ 8-33
8.13.1.1 Proactive Attitude ................................................................................................................... 8-33
8.13.1.2 Multi-state Approach to RERP ............................................................................................... 8-34
8.13.1.3 Continuing Improvements in Emergency Planning................................................................. 8-34
8.14 IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES................................................................................................ 8-35
8.14.1 Use WebEOC..................................................................................................................... 8-35
8.14.2 Determine Better Methods to Communicate Non-emergency ENVY Information ............. 8-36
8.14.3 Leverage Additional Funds by Integrating the RERP with the Homeland Security (HS)
Program for Community-wide Exercises.......................................................................... 8-37
8.14.4 EOC Facilities ................................................................................................................... 8-37
8.14.5 Update Emergency Plans .................................................................................................. 8-38
8.14.6 Continue to Identify and Develop Transportation Needs and Resources .......................... 8-38
8.14.7 Continue to Strengthen Public Outreach and Education Programs about Evacuation..... 8-39
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL............................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
POWER STATION......................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.1 Air Quality Impacts ............................................................................................................. 9-2
9.1.1.1 Climate and Meteorology.......................................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.1.2 Impacts...................................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.2 Hydrology and Flood Plain Impacts ................................................................................... 9-5
9.1.2.1 Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 9-5
9.1.2.2 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................................. 9-6
9.1.2.3 Effects of Global Warming ....................................................................................................... 9-8
9.1.3 Groundwater and Surface Water Impacts ......................................................................... 9-10
9.1.3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting ............................................................................................................ 9-10
9.1.3.2 Groundwater Occurrence ........................................................................................................ 9-10
9.1.3.3 Groundwater Use .................................................................................................................... 9-11
9.1.3.4 Groundwater Quality............................................................................................................... 9-12
9.1.3.5 Tritium Releases ..................................................................................................................... 9-16
9.1.3.6 Surface Water Quality............................................................................................................. 9-17
9.1.3.7 Impacts.................................................................................................................................... 9-18
9.1.4 Species and Habitat Impacts ............................................................................................. 9-19
iii
9.1.4.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................. 9-19
9.1.4.2 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 9-23
9.1.5 Soil and Seismicity Impacts ............................................................................................... 9-33
9.1.5.1 Regional Geologic Setting ...................................................................................................... 9-33
9.1.5.2 Local Geology......................................................................................................................... 9-34
9.1.5.3 Regional Seismicity ................................................................................................................ 9-34
9.1.5.4 Vermont Seismicity................................................................................................................. 9-38
9.1.5.5 Impacts.................................................................................................................................... 9-45
9.1.5.6 High-Level Nuclear Waste...................................................................................................... 9-46
9.1.5.7 Low-Level Nuclear Waste ...................................................................................................... 9-48
9.1.5.8 On-site Waste Treatment and Disposal ................................................................................... 9-49
9.1.6 Releases from Infrastructure Failures............................................................................... 9-50
9.2 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 9-51
10.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF VERMONT YANKEE.................................................. 10-1
10.1 RADIOACTIVITY AND RADIATION ............................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.1 Dose Quantities and Units................................................................................................. 10-2
10.1.2 Pathways of Radiation Exposure....................................................................................... 10-3
10.2 REGULATORY LIMITS ............................................................................................................... 10-4
10.3 AIRBORNE PATHWAY ............................................................................................................... 10-8
10.4 WATERBORNE PATHWAYS ....................................................................................................... 10-8
10.5 INGESTION PATHWAYS ............................................................................................................. 10-9
10.6 DIRECT RADIATION PATHWAY ............................................................................................... 10-10
10.7 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AROUND VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER
STATION ................................................................................................................................. 10-12
10.8 STUDIES EXAMINING HEALTH EFFECTS AROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ........................ 10-17
10.9 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10-19
11.0 ECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS....................................................................... 11-1
11.1 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 11-2
11.2 SUMMARY RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 11-3
11.3 GOVERNMENT REVENUE VS. BURDEN ANALYSIS ..................................................... 11-6
11.3.1 Revenues ............................................................................................................................ 11-6
11.3.2 Burdens.............................................................................................................................. 11-9
11.3.3 Revenue/Burden Comparison .......................................................................................... 11-12
11.3.4 Net Present Value Revenues and Burdens ....................................................................... 11-14
11.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 11-15
11.4.1 Input/Output Modeling .................................................................................................... 11-15
11.4.2 IMPLAN Software............................................................................................................ 11-17
11.4.3 Inputs and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 11-18
11.4.5 Impact Analysis Results ................................................................................................... 11-23
11.4.6 Other Considerations from the Impact Analysis.............................................................. 11-29
11.4.7 Impact Analysis Multipliers............................................................................................. 11-30
11.5 REVENUE SHARING ARRANGEMENT WITH ENTERGY ............................................ 11-32
11.5.1 Market Price Sensitivity................................................................................................... 11-35
11.5.2 Scenario with 55% Share for Vermont Utilities ............................................................. 11-37
11.5.3 Extreme Low and High Cases.......................................................................................... 11-38
11.6 POTENTIAL FOR REDUCED POWER COST IN VERMONT .......................................... 11-39
11.6.1 Base Case – 45% of VY Energy In Vermont .................................................................... 11-39
11.6.2 Sensitivity Case – 20% of VY Energy In Vermont ........................................................... 11-45
11.6.3 Extreme Low and High Cases.......................................................................................... 11-46
11.7 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 11-47
12.0 ALTERNATIVES TO VERMONT YANKEE ................................................................... 12-1
12.1 METHODOLOGY AND OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................... 12-2
12.2 AREA-SPECIFIC IMPACTS ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 12-6
12.3 POWER MARKETS AND POTENTIAL PRICING IMPLICATIONS ..................................................... 12-8
iv
12.4 ENERGY AND DEMAND, AND ASSOCIATED POWER MARKETS AND PRICING IMPLICATIONS
(INCLUDING POTENTIAL REPLACEMENT POWER SOURCES)...................................................... 12-9
12.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS............................................................................................ 12-19
12.6 POTENTIAL REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIOS ................................................................................ 12-20
Appendix 1: Resumes
v
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
1.0 Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the studies commissioned by the
Department of Public Service (“DPS”) concerning the proposed certificate of
public good for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station to allow operation of
the station an additional 20 years. The report covers a wide variety of topics
relevant to the relicensing of Vermont Yankee, including topics that were
identified by the DPS staff in consultation with other state Departments and
through a public engagement process. This report was prepared under contract
with the Vermont Department of Public Service pursuant to Act 160 of the 2005-
2006 session of the Vermont State Legislature.1 It is being provided to the
Vermont Public Service Board and to Vermont’s Legislative Committees on
Natural Resources and Energy, the House Committee on Commerce, and the
Senate Committee on Finance for their consideration of Entergy Nuclear
Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.’s petition for a
Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to operate the Vermont Yankee nuclear
generating station for a period of 20 years beyond the upcoming March 21, 2012
expiration date of the existing CPG.
Contributors
The diverse subject matter in this report required the participation and
technical expertise of a wide range of subject matter experts. The overall project
was coordinated by GDS Associates, Inc., a consulting engineering firm with
extensive nuclear power experience. A list of the report chapters and chapter
authors is provided below. Resumes of the individual authors are provided in
appendix A.
Chapter Author
1 Executive Summary William Jacobs, GDS Associates
2 Introduction William Jacobs, GDS Associates
3 Technical Description William Jacobs, GDS Associates
1
Codified at 30 V.S.A. § 254.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
4 Regulatory Authority Michael Mullett, Mullett & Associates
5 Entergy’s Commitments and
Ability to Meet Obligations Michael Mullett, Mullett & Associates
6 Nuclear Decommissioning William Jacobs, GDS Associates
7 Nuclear Waste Management Michael Mullett, Mullett & Associates
8 Emergency Planning Jeffery Temple, Black Diamond Associates
9 Environmental Issues Various Authors from Aspen Environmental
Group and Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
10 Public Health Issues Clayton French
11 Economic Benefits Jacob Thomas, GDS Associates
12 Alternatives to VY Scott Albert, GDS Associates
Technical Description
The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) is a 620 megawatt
electric MW(e) capacity boiling water reactor (BWR) located in on the
Connecticut River approximately 5 miles southeast of Brattleboro, in Vernon,
Vermont. Vermont Yankee began commercial operation on November 30, 1972.
Vermont Yankee was originally licensed with a net electric capacity of 514 Mw.
On March 2, 2006, the NRC approved a power uprate to increase the maximum
core thermal power from 1592 Mw(t) to 1912 Mw(t) resulting in an increase in net
electric output to 620 MW(e). The power uprate was also approved by the
Vermont Public Service Board in orders dated March 15, 2004 and March 3,
2006. Vermont Yankee is powered by a boiling water reactor manufactured by
General Electric and features a Mark I containment. In a boiling water reactor,
the steam used to drive the main turbine-generator is produced from reactor
coolant water that is heated in direct contact with the nuclear fuel assemblies.
The steam passes through the turbine and is condensed back into water in the
condenser and then pumped back into the reactor vessel.
The VYNPS is located on approximately 125 acres of land in Vernon,
Vermont owned by Entergy and a narrow strip of land between the Connecticut
River and the east boundary of the VYNPS property to which Entergy has
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
perpetual rights and easements from its owner. The property is approximately 5
miles southeast of Brattleboro, Vermont, and about 28 miles north of Amherst,
Massachusetts. Besides Brattleboro, Vermont, the only other densely
concentrated settlement area within 5 miles of the site is the town of Hinsdale,
New Hampshire, east of the Connecticut River.
Vermont Yankee was originally constructed and owned by the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (“VYNPC”). Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Corporation was owned by13 New England and northeast electric companies.
On July 31, 2002, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC purchased Vermont
Yankee from VYNPC for $180 million. Entergy received the reactor complex,
nuclear fuel, inventories, decommissioning fund and related real estate.
Coincident with the sale to Entergy, ten of the original owners liquidated their
holdings in VYNPC leaving only Central Vermont Public Service, Green Mountain
Power and Central Maine Power Company as stockholders of VNYPC.
Regulatory Authority
It has long been established that Congress has the constitutional authority
to regulate over the entire spectrum of nuclear power. Early on in the
commercialization of nuclear power, Congress found that federal regulation was
necessary and appropriate under its constitutionally-granted authority over the
common defense and security, interstate commerce, and promotion of the
general welfare. In relinquishing what had theretofore been monopolistic
government control over nuclear energy in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
Congress established federal regulation of commercial nuclear utilities by
creating a comprehensive licensing scheme administered by the Atomic Energy
Commission, now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That licensing system
controls the production of nuclear power and the use of nuclear source and by-
product materials. Because of this extensive federal regulation, virtually any
state law purporting to regulate any aspect of commercial nuclear power may
precipitate a preemption challenge in the courts and many such challenges have
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
occurred over the years. As a result, states must be especially careful in
exercising their police power to assert concurrent jurisdiction with respect to
nuclear power plants.
As the fourteenth sovereign state to join the federal Union created by the
Constitution, Vermont well understands both the broad reach and the specific
limits of its retained police powers. Based on its well-grounded understanding of
its role in the American federal system of government, Vermont has carefully
crafted a concurrent state regulatory framework for Vermont Yankee which is
consistent and cooperative with the federal regulatory framework established by
Congress for the plant. Act 160 is only the most recent example of this careful
craftsmanship. As a result, the overarching recommendation of this Report with
respect to the State’s regulatory authority over life extension of Vermont Yankee
is simple and straightforward: the State should exercise its authority with the
same careful craftsmanship with which that authority was created.
In that overarching context, one recommendation stands out above all
others. Act 160 carefully structured the State’s determination of Vermont Yankee
life extension within the time-honored framework of the Certificate of Public Good
statute, 10 V.S.A. § 248. In so doing, the Act assigns the ultimate authority for
issuance of a Certificate for Vermont Yankee life extension to the Legislature
rather than to the Public Service Board. Unquestionably, the Legislature has the
power to exercise this authority itself rather than to delegate it to the Board. In
exercising this power itself, however, the Legislature would be well-advised to
keep in mind the lesson taught by the recent experience of the State of Utah’s
failed attempt to exercise state authority over the proposed Private Fuel Storage
ISFSI. In general terms, that lesson is plain: a Legislature may exercise itself a
police power which it retains as a sovereign state rather than delegate it to one or
more state administrative agencies, but it may not exercise a power which has
been preempted by the Congress and delegated to one or more federal
administrative agencies.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
In more specific terms, the lesson to be learned from the recent Utah
experience is equally plain: the Legislature should carefully base its ultimate
determination with respect to Vermont Yankee on the same criteria, interpreted in
the same manner, as the Board would use for a Certificate of Public Good
generally. This is not to say that the Legislature should weigh those criteria in
the same way or apply them to reach the same decision that the Board would,
only that it should use those same carefully defined criteria interpreted and
applied in the same careful manner that the Board would to assure that the
decision made is within the retained police power of the State of Vermont and
does not intrude on any power which is the exclusive domain of the United States
of America.
Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Obligations
Chapter 5 describes and analyzes those regulatory commitments with
economic implications which ENVY and Entergy have made to the State of
Vermont which will extend beyond the term of Vermont Yankee’s current
operating license (March, 2012). The Chapter also assesses the Companies'
ability to meet those commitments under their current corporate structure, but not
in the event of an Enexus spinoff. In view of its conclusions on these matters,
the Chapter also makes a number of recommendations for the Legislature and
the Public Service Board to consider in determining whether to allow the station
to operate until 2032.
The Companies' regulatory commitments fall into three general categories:
(1) purchased power; (2) termination of operations and decommissioning; and (3)
management of spent fuel and other nuclear waste.
With respect to purchased power, the Chapter concludes that the
Companies have no obligation to sell their current Vermont customers any power
after March, 2012, but do have an obligation to engage, for a limited period of
time, in good faith negotiations with those customers for the sale of such power.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Whether the Companies sell power in the future to their current Vermont
customers, they will be obligated to share with those customers any "excess
revenues" from the sale of Vermont Yankee power above a specified "strike
price."
Upon termination of the operations of Vermont Yankee, the Companies
have an obligation to decommission the station in accordance with NRC
regulations and to restore the site f and when it is no longer being used for spent
fuel storage, power generation, or other commercial or industrial purposes. While
it is expected that the Companies will rely on the Vermont Yankee
decommissioning fund to meet these obligations, Entergy has also guaranteed to
provide up to $60 million if needed prior to decommissioning funds becoming
available, and ENVY is committed to provide additional funds or other acceptable
financial assurance as needed to ensure that funding will be sufficient to
accomplish decommissioning, site restoration, and spent fuel management. In
the event that there are "Excess Funds" available upon "Completion of
Decommissioning" after March 31, 2022, ENVY also has an obligation to share
55% of the "Excess Funds" with its Vermont customers.
ENVY has an obligation to manage spent fuel and other nuclear waste
generated by Vermont Yankee in accordance with applicable federal regulations.
Moreover, ENVY is also obligated by regulatory commitments made to Vermont
authorities to:
• Use its commercial best efforts to assure that spent fuel is removed from
the VYNPS site in a reasonable manner and as quickly as possible rather
than continuing to be stored at VYNPS.
• Not store nuclear waste generated outside of the State of Vermont at
VYNPS.
• Configure the spent-fuel pool so that high-decay-heat assemblies of SNF
are surrounded by low-decay-heat assemblies of SNF.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
• Not take legal action based on the doctrine of federal preemption to
prevent enforcement of these three nuclear waste obligations.
Chapter 5 assesses the Companies' ability to meet these commitments under
their current corporate structure but not in the event of the proposed Enexus
spinoff. Obviously, there will be no "Excess Revenues" from the sale of Vermont
Yankee power to share if the station’s NRC license and Vermont Certificate of
Public Good are not extended. However, the Companies' decommissioning and
nuclear waste management obligations will continue whether or not the station
extends its operations beyond March, 2012. Generally speaking, Entergy's
current corporate structure should not prevent the performance of the
Companies' obligations. However, it is crucial to understand that Entergy has not
committed to perform ENVY's obligations if ENVY should prove unable to do so;
Entergy has only made specific, limited commitments of its own. It is also
important to understand that Vermont Yankee's status as a single plant within a
larger fleet may influence Entergy's business decisions in directing ENVY
regarding the manner and timing of the performance of its commitments, e.g. the
method and timing of decommissioning and the sequencing of decommissioning
and spent fuel management activities.
In view of these conclusions, Chapter 5 also makes thirteen
recommendations. While these recommendations are too numerous to
summarize here, they all merit consideration. Several warrant special mention.
First, the Chapter recommends that a successor purchased power agreement be
negotiated before issuance of a Certificate of Public Good, which agreement
would become effective if and when the CPG is issued. Second, ambiguities and
uncertainties which have arisen under the current purchased power agreement
should be resolved in the successor purchased power agreement. Third, ENVY
should be requested to explain with clarity and specificity the principal alternative
scenarios and timetables which it realistically expects to occur with respect to
decommissioning, spent fuel management, and site restoration in the event a
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Certificate of Public Good is issued and Vermont Yankee operations are
extended beyond 2012. Fourth, ENVY’s commitment to provide additional funds
or other acceptable financial assurance to accomplish decommissioning, spent
fuel management, and site restoration should be clarified and quantified in the
context of these alternative scenarios and timetables. Fifth, the dollar amounts of
the EIHL-ENVY Intercompany Credit Agreement and Entergy Corporation
guarantee should be re-evaluated for likely increases due to expected changes in
circumstances and the time value of money foreseeable by 2032; in addition, the
substitution of a third-party letter of credit for the parental guarantee should be
seriously considered independent of the current contingency of a downgrade of
Entergy’s security rating.
Nuclear Decommissioning
Chapter 6 discusses the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee and
analyzes the status of the decommissioning fund. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulations require that each operator of a nuclear power plant plan
for the eventual decommissioning of the plant and ensure that adequate funding
will be available to decommission the facility. Decommissioning as defined by the
NRC means to remove nuclear facilities safely from service and to reduce residual
radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and
termination of the license. The most recent study of Vermont Yankee
decommissioning costs was conducted by TLG Services, Inc. (an Entergy
subsidiary) and issued in January 2007. This study presents the results of a site-
specific cost analysis based upon the design of Vermont Yankee, the quantities
of various radioactive materials, estimated costs for disposal of low-level and
high-level radioactive waste and site restoration to a greenfield condition as
committed to by Entergy.
GDS has conducted an analysis of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning
fund and forecast decommissioning costs to determine the required fund earning
rate for the costs identified in the scenarios presented in the most recent
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
decommissioning cost study by TLG. GDS concluded that all scenarios except
for Scenarios 1 and 3, the DECON scenarios beginning in 2012, can be funded
with reasonably achievable fund earning rates. GDS’ recommendations include:
1. The owner of Vermont Yankee should conduct periodic reviews of the
assumed decommissioning costs and fund earnings to ensure that the
assumptions used in the cost and funding studies are accurate and
reflect the most recent cost experience in actual plant
decommissioning and the most recent fund earnings rates.
2. The owner of Vermont Yankee should submit to the Public Service
Board and Department of Public Service the periodic analyses of the
adequacy of decommissioning funding that demonstrate that the
decommissioning fund is adequate to address likely decommissioning
scenarios. And,
3. If the periodic decommissioning funding report indicates that the
existing decommissioning fund is not adequate to fund a reasonable
decommissioning scenario, the owner of Vermont Yankee should
provide a course of action to ensure the adequacy of the fund including
periodic contributions to the fund to increase the fund balance to an
amount adequate to fund a reasonable decommissioning scenario.
Waste Management
Chapter 7 identifies and analyzes the principal implications of continued
operation of Vermont Yankee for twenty years beyond its current operating
license on the management of the station’s spent nuclear fuel and low-level
radioactive waste.
With respect to spent nuclear fuel, the principal (but not the only)
implications of extending the operating life of Vermont Yankee by 20 years will be
more waste stored on site for a longer period of time. Precisely how much more
waste will be stored for exactly how much longer is uncertain at this time based
on the information publicly available. Much of this uncertainty regarding the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
magnitude and duration of onsite spent fuel storage results from the underlying
uncertainty regarding the planned Yucca Mountain repository, uncertainty which
is beyond the ability of Entergy or the State of Vermont to resolve. However,
some of this uncertainty results from incomplete information being publicly
available regarding ENVY's plans for spent fuel management in the face of the
Yucca Mountain uncertainties, including but not limited to its plans for funding
spent fuel management. In particular, ENVY has not prepared or submitted to
either federal or state regulatory authorities a spent fuel management plan
assuming continued operation through 2032. In addition, the plan which it
submitted within the past year for spent fuel management assuming shutdown in
2012 was recently rejected by the NRC staff.
As a result, the primary (but not the only) recommendation of Chapter 7 is
that ENVY develop and provide to Vermont regulatory authorities in the very near
future alternative plans for spent fuel management based on at least four
different scenarios. These scenarios would reflect the four possible
combinations of two different sets of assumptions: Vermont Yankee shutdown in
2012 vs. 2032 and Yucca Mountain acceptance of Vermont Yankee waste
beginning in 2020 vs. a much later date. These plans should incorporate both
operational and financial components and be similar in format and content to the
plan for a 2012 shutdown which ENVY submitted to the NRC last year pursuant
to 10 CFR 50.54(bb). The financial component of the alternate plans should
address the issues identified by the NRC staff in its rejection of ENVY's initial 10
CFR 50.54(bb) report. It should also address what role, if any, ENVY expects to
be played by any damage award from the Department of Energy for breach of its
Standard Contract for Vermont Yankee spent fuel removal. Only with this
information in hand will Vermont regulatory authorities be in a position to
adequately understand and evaluate the different implications of 2012 and 2032
shutdowns for Vermont Yankee.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
With respect to low-level radioactive waste, the principal implications of
extending the operating life of Vermont Yankee by 20 years will be a slight
increase in the amounts of waste generated during operations and considerable
uncertainty in the timing of the large amounts of waste generated by
decommissioning.
With regard to the operational low-level radioactive waste generated by
Vermont Yankee after 2012, the Texas Compact facility is currently expected to
become operational in December, 2010. Should there be any delays in the
opening of the Texas Compact facility it is expected that most of the Vermont
Yankee operational low-level radioactive waste will continue to be shipped for
disposal to a licensed facility out-of-state. However, a small portion of the waste
(Class B and C) will require on-site storage at the nuclear station where there is
at least a 5 year storage capacity in place. Although several other solutions may
become available to Vermont Yankee for Class B and C low-level radioactive
waste management, it will be important for Vermont regulatory officials to
continue to monitor developments with the Texas Compact facility to assure
there is sufficient lead time to address any significant delay that may occur with
respect to that facility's availability.
Emergency Planning
This chapter examines Vermont’s plans for responding to a radiological
emergency at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vermont.
The report looks specifically at:
Emergency plans at the state and local levels of government.
Human performance during exercises and drills where emergency plans
are used.
The attitudes and concerns of state and local emergency management
officials, including child care center providers and a nursing home.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Specific emergency evacuation plans and resources available to
implement those plans.
Several existing programmatic strengths are identified and
recommendations for program improvement were identified and are included at
the end of this report
In general, the authors believe that the State of Vermont, working with
Vermont Yankee and other state, federal and local emergency management
partners is fully capable of protecting the public’s health and safety in a
radiological event. A very proactive attitude was found at the state, local and
utility levels. When problems are identified, they are fixed. When resources are
needed, they are identified and exercised. Vermont is also fortunate that it is a
partner in a three-state emergency preparedness consortium, with all three
states focusing on emergency plans around the Vermont Yankee plant. When
one state needs resources, it has two other states nearby to help identify and
provide those resources.
Additionally, evacuation time estimates for an evacuation of the Vermont
portion of the EPZ appear reasonable and capable of being met. While some
evacuation resource needs are identified, the state has plans to incorporate
additional resources into its emergency plans.
Environmental Issues
Chapter 9 discusses environmental issues associated with operating the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) for an additional 20 years. This
chapter summarizes the NRC data and numerous other documents, and also
provides additional analysis of how continued operation could affect the
environment
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
The environmental issues discussed in Chapter 9 address the effects of
plant releases, withdrawal from and discharge to the Connecticut River, waste
management and storage, and maintenance of transmission lines on air and
water quality, natural communities and habitat. Additionally, the effects of climate
change on the hydrology of the area, and seismic activity on soil stability and
conditions are also discussed. These environmental issues encompass the range
of public comments received on the Vermont Yankee GEIS Supplement 30.
Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
Chapter 10 discusses the radiological impact of Vermont Yankee. The
discharge of radioactive effluents and the direct emission of radiation from
routine nuclear power plant operations can have environmental impacts on man,
animals, and plants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the federal agencies responsible for
protecting public health and safety with regard to the use of nuclear materials in
commercial nuclear power plants. Both the NRC and EPA have established strict
limits on the amount of radioactive effluents allowed to be released from nuclear
power plants to the environment and the resulting exposure for members of the
public from direct radiation emission and from radioactive effluents. The NRC
uses these limits as the deciding factor as to whether the radiological impact from
nuclear plant operations is judged to be small (of the three categories small,
moderate, large). In addition, NRC regulations require licensees to have effluent
and environmental monitoring programs to ensure that the impacts from plant
operations are minimized. The permitted effluent releases and emitted radiation
result in very small doses to members of the public living in the vicinity of
commercial nuclear power plants.
The radiological impact of current and past operation of the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station has been examined from a variety of perspectives
and was found to be small, based on the criteria of the NRC for the category of
lowest impact. The maximum dose to the public from effluent releases is
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
negligible compared to natural sources of radiation and radioactivity. The
maximum direct radiation dose to the nearest resident continues to be below
regulatory limits. The radiological impact from the small number of off-site
environmental samples that detected plant produced radioactivity (well below any
regulatory limit) is negligible. No effect of plant aging that would significantly
affect the radioactive effluents or the direct radiation exposure pathway has been
identified. Both maximum individual and average doses are expected to remain
well within design objectives and regulations. Because no reason was identified
to expect effluents to increase in the period after license renewal, continued
operation well within regulatory limits is anticipated. The significance of radiation
exposures to the public attributable to operation after license renewal is expected
to continue to be small. The estimated cancer fatality risk to the average
individual due to plant operations is much less than one in a million
Economic Benefits
Chapter 11 considers the economics of a decision to extend the operating
license of Vermont Yankee an additional 20 years. The analysis presented
therein represents a cost/benefit analysis of the value added to the state
government, to the economy in general, and to the electric ratepayers through
continued operation of the facility. Four components of the economic analysis
are presented in Chapter 11, including a tax/revenue assessment of burdens
placed on the government and taxes collected by the government due to
operation of the facility; an economic impact analysis of the multiplicative effects
on the economy through total value added and jobs supported by operations of
Vermont Yankee; the value to ratepayers of a revenue sharing arrangement
between Entergy and certain electric utilities in Vermont; and the possibility that
Entergy might sell power out of Vermont Yankee to in-state utilities at some
discount from market prices.
Continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility represents a
substantial economic value to the State of Vermont and its citizens. With just
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
over 500 employees, Vermont Yankee currently ranks among the 60 largest
private and public employers in Vermont. It plays a larger role in the Windham
County area, where it ranks in the top 5 of employers according to the
Brattleboro Area Chamber of Commerce. The cost/benefit analysis conducted in
this study and detailed in Chapter 11 indicates that positive value is created for
the local and state governments, the economy as a whole, and the electric
ratepayers of the state if the station continues to operate an additional 20 years.
The total 20-year value is estimated to range from an extreme low potential of
$1.5 billion to an extreme high of $5.1 billion, representing between 0.2% and
0.6% of estimated Gross State Product over the 20 years. The base case value
is $3.6 billion over 20 years. These results can be construed to represent the
likely cost to the economy of shutting down Vermont Yankee in 2012 as opposed
to extending its operating license. Although it could be argued that the
decommissioning process would provide for mitigated economic activity beyond
2012, decommissioning would occur at the expiration of the extended license as
well. This economic activity is enough to support anywhere from 21,298 to
36,884 full time equivalent job-years over the twenty years of continued
operations (one full-time job held for twenty years represents twenty job-years).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Summary of Economic Impacts of Continued Operation of VY for 20 Years
($Millions)
20-Year Total of Nominal Values
Extreme Low Base Extreme High
Component Case Case Case
Govt Revenues Net of Burdens $173.4 $237.8 $282.1
Value Added – Econ. Activity $1,095.9 $1,289.3 $1,482.7
Revenue Sharing Agreement $259.5 $938.8 $1,441.1
Potential Electric Rate Discount $0.0 $716.1 $1,193.5
Value Added – Rate Discount $0.0 $421.3 $702.2
Total $1,528.8 $3,603.3 $5,101.6
Jobs Supported by Value 21,298.0 30,079.4 36,884.2
*
Added
20-Year Net Present Value**
Extreme Low Base Extreme High
Component Case Case Case
Govt Revenues Net of Burdens $105.1 $143.3 $169.6
Value Added – Econ. Activity $642.1 $755.5 $868.8
Revenue Sharing Agreement $159.0 $587.8 $908.0
Potential Electric Rate Discount $0.0 $178.2 $296.9
Value Added – Rate Discount $0.0 $231.0 $385.0
Total $906.2 $1,895.8 $2,628.3
Jobs Supported by Value 21,298.0 30,079.4 36,884.2
*
Added
Average Annual Value Over 20 Years
Extreme Low Base Extreme High
Component Case Case Case
Govt Revenues Net of Burdens $8.7 $11.9 $14.1
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Value Added – Econ. Activity $54.8 $64.5 $74.1
Revenue Sharing Agreement $13.0 $46.9 $72.1
Potential Electric Rate Discount $0.0 $35.8 $59.7
Value Added – Rate Discount $0.0 $21.1 $35.1
Total $76.5 $180.2 $255.1
Jobs Supported by Value 1,064.9 1,504.0 1,844.2
Added*
Alternatives
Chapter 12 provides information regarding potential alternatives to the
relicensing of Vermont Yankee for continued operation past 2012. To address
this topic, GDS examined the local and regional physical, economic and
environmental implications of retiring the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station.
The chapter relied on secondary research and numerous relevant documents
and reports.
GDS determined that the retirement of the station poses no serious
transmission or distribution problems to Vermont, but could potentially cause
some minor problems in parts of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Additionally, the retirement of the station will likely cause retail electricity prices to
increase somewhat in Vermont, while having a milder effect in the regional
market place. The degree to which retail prices increase would depend on how
this power is replaced in utility portfolios. Additionally, the emissions associated
with this replacement power would likely be higher than that of Vermont Yankee
– at least in the short term. Like the pricing implications, the environmental
impacts of retiring the plant also depend on how Vermont Yankee’s production is
replaced. To assist the DPS in this matter, GDS examined a number of feasible
alternative power generation technologies, and Chapter 12 contains detailed
discussions of each of these. GDS also compiled several potential replacement
portfolios that could supplant the production of Vermont Yankee.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 1-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the studies
commissioned by the Department of Public Service (“DPS”) concerning
the proposed license renewal of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant
to allow operation of the plant an additional 20 years. As described in
more detail below, this report is a requirement of the Vermont legislature.
2.2 Scope
This report covers a wide variety of topics relevant to the relicensing of
Vermont Yankee. These topics were identified by the DPC staff in
consultation with other state Departments and through the public
participation during which the public was given the opportunity to discuss
the prospect of Vermont Yankee operating for an additional 20 years and
to inform the DPS about the issues that were of concern to them. Topics
covered in the report include:
• Description of the Vermont Yankee Plant
• Discussion of regulatory authority
• Discussion of Entergy’s commitments and ability to meet its
obligations
• Analysis of nuclear decommissioning funding
• Discussion of waste management issues
• Review of emergency planning
• Review of environmental issues
• Review of public health issues
• Analysis of the economic benefits of Vermont Yankee
• Analysis of the alternatives to Vermont Yankee
• Discussion of the relationships between the plant, the public and
the regulators
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
2.3 Review of NRC license renewal process
U.S. nuclear power plants are licensed to operate for 40 years. This term
was specified by Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The law was
fashioned after the Communications Act of 1934, in which radio stations
were licensed to operate for several years and allowed to renew their
licenses as long as the stations continued to meet their charters. The
Atomic Energy Act allowed for nuclear power plants to renew their
licenses.
Congress selected a 40-year term for nuclear power plant licenses
because this period was a typical amortization period for an electric
power plant. The 40-year license term was not based on safety,
technical or environmental factors.
Each nuclear power plant is licensed based on a given set of
requirements, depending primarily on the type of plant. This set of
requirements is called the plant’s “licensing basis.”
A plant’s licensing basis is an evolving set of requirements and
commitments. Overtime, as technology advances and operating
experience provides new information, a plant’s licensing basis may be
changed –for example, when the NRC issues new requirements and the
plant makes modifications. These new and additional requirements
become part of the plant’s licensing basis.
NRC’s License Renewal Requirements
The NRC’s license renewal review is a detailed process that includes
on-site inspections. A typical license renewal review takes about 22
months. The NRC issued a license renewal rule in 1995. To extend the
operating license for a reactor, a company must demonstrate to the
NRC that it will manage aging issues effectively during the renewal term,
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
thus ensuring equipment functionality. The rule allows licensees to apply
for extensions of up to 20 years over the initial 40-year term. The utility
applying for license renewal must demonstrate to the NRC that
programs are in place to safely manage the aging process for both
active components and passive components such as the containment
building that is designed to last for the life of the plant. The aging
process is managed through periodic inspection and testing of all
required components to ensure that they are capable of acting as
designed to keep the plant safe.
The NRC amended its environmental protection rule in 1996 to establish
requirements for environmental reviews of license renewal applications.
The NRC identified more than 20 issues that would require plant-specific
reviews including the storage and disposition of used fuel, some aspects
of water quality and use, aquatic life, and endangered or threatened
species. The regulatory process for the environmental review allows the
public an opportunity to express concerns about environmental impacts
related to the license renewal application.
2.4 ACT 160
This report was prepared under contract with the Vermont Department of
Public Service pursuant to Act 160 of the 2005-2006 session of the
Vermont State Legislature.2 The report is being provided to the Vermont
Public Service Board and to Vermont’s Legislative Committees on Natural
Resources and Energy, the House Committee on Commerce, and the
Senate Committee on Finance for their consideration of Entergy Nuclear
Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.’s petition for
a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to operate the Vermont Yankee
2
Codified at 30 V.S.A. § 254.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
nuclear generating station for a period of 20 years beyond the upcoming
March 21, 2012 expiration date of the existing CPG.
Act 160 states:
§ 254. Construction or extended operation of nuclear plant; public
engagement process
(a) Time lines for approval.
(1) Any petition for approval of construction of a nuclear energy
generating plant within the state, or any petition for approval of the
operation of a nuclear energy generating plant beyond the date
established in a certificate of public good issued under this title,
must be submitted to the public service board no later than four
years before the date upon which the approval may take effect.
(2) Upon receipt of a petition for approval of construction or
operation as provided under this section, the public service board
shall notify the general assembly of that fact. The public service
department, with the review of the joint energy committee, is
authorized and directed to arrange for studies to be conducted as
appropriate to support the general assembly in the fact finding and
public engagement process established in subsection (b) of this
section.
(3) Upon completion of the studies, the public service department
shall provide the studies to the public service board and to the
committees on natural resources and energy, the house committee
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
on commerce, and the senate committee on finance, together with
other information requested by the general assembly.
(b) Public engagement and fact-finding.
(1) The objectives of the studies to be arranged by the public
service department with the review of the joint energy committee
and the objectives of the public engagement process as a whole
shall be:
(A) to facilitate public discussion of long-term economic and
environmental issues relating to the operation of any nuclear
facility in the state;
(B) to identify and assess the potential need for the
operation of the facility and its long-term economic and
environmental benefits, risks, and costs; and
(C) to assess all practical alternatives to those set forth in
the applicant's petition that may be more cost-effective or
that otherwise may better promote the general welfare.
(2) The studies arranged by the department in consultation with the
joint energy committee and the public engagement process, in
general, shall:
(A) identify, collect information on, and provide analysis of
long-term accountability and financial responsibility issues,
such as:
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
(i) funding plans for guardianship of nuclear waste
after licensure but before removal of nuclear waste
from the site;
(ii) closure obligations, dates of completion, and
assurance of funds to secure fulfillment of those
closure obligations;
(iii) federal obligations and assurance of funds to
provide for any undischarged federal responsibilities;
(iv) funding for emergency management requirements
and evacuation plans before and after plant closure;
and
(v) any other financial responsibility related to any
periods in which the facility is out of service.
(B) identify, collect information on, and provide analysis of
long-term environmental, economic, and public health
issues, including issues relating to dry cask storage of
nuclear waste and decommissioning options.
(C) identify, collect information on, and provide analysis of
current economic issues, in light of the fact that the operation
of the nuclear energy generating plant beyond the date
permitted in any previous certificate of public good is to be
evaluated under present day cost-benefit assumptions and
analyses and not as an extension of the cost-benefit
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
assumptions and analyses forming the basis of the previous
certificate of public good for the operation of the facility.
(3) In conducting its part of the public engagement process, the
department shall conduct no less than three public meetings. The
meetings shall be at separate locations within the state, in proximity
to the nuclear energy generating facilities involved as well as in
other locations as determined by the department, and each shall be
noticed by at least two advertisements, each occurring between
one and three weeks prior to the meetings, in newspapers having
general circulation within the state and within the municipalities in
which the meetings are to be held. Copies of the notices shall be
provided to the public service board, the general assembly, the
agency of natural resources, the department of health, the agency
of transportation, the attorney general, and each retail electricity
provider within the state. During this public engagement and fact
finding process the department shall have authority to retain expert
witnesses, counsel, advisors, stenographic and other research
assistance it may require. The department may compensate the
same and allocate related costs, as well as the costs of procuring
the studies, to the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power
station, in the same manner authorized for personnel in particular
proceedings under sections 20 and 21 of this title. The department
shall prepare a report of the proceedings containing a discussion of
the principal contentions made by members of the public, analyses
by any expert witnesses or consultants retained by the department,
presentations by any state agency, and by any utility, and shall
provide the same to the members of the committees on natural
resources and energy, the house committee on commerce, and the
senate committee on finance, and to the public.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
(4) The public engagement and fact finding process set forth in this
section may be held in conjunction with or separately from the
statewide public engagement process on energy planning to be
conducted by the department pursuant to the energy security and
reliability act.
(5) The general assembly shall conduct proceedings it deems
appropriate in order to complete the fact finding and public
engagement process.
(c) Public service board action. In acting on a petition subject to this
section, the board shall consider the objectives of the studies to be
arranged by the department, the objectives of the public
engagement process as a whole, and the general and specific
issues that the studies are required to address, as specified in
subsection (b) of this section.
The public engagement studies required by subsection (b) were
conducted by the Department of Public Service in the form of five regional
workshops between October 3 and October 30, 2007, and a separate two-
day Deliberative Polling®3 session held in Burlington on November 3-4,
2007.4 Additionally, there was an on-line participation option for people
who chose not to attend a meeting. Following the completion of the
3
“Deliberative Polling” is a trademark of James S. Fishkin.
4
See, Vermont’s Energy Future, Deliberative Poll, Final Results, Prepared for the Vermont Department of
Public Service by Center for Deliberative Opinion Research, University of Texas at Austin, November
2007. See also, Vermont’s Energy Future, Regional Workshops: Final Report, Prepared for the Vermont
Department of Public Service by Raab Associates, Ltd. with Consensus Building Institute, November 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 2 Introduction
studies, the Department of Public Service retained GDS Associates, Inc.
to prepare this report.5
5
GDS Associates utilized subcontractors to prepare specific chapters of this report. A description of the
authors and their qualifications associated with each chapter is included in this report.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 2-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
3.0 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
3.1 General Description
The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) is a 620 megawatt
electric MW(e) capacity boiling water reactor (BWR) located in on the
Connecticut River approximately 5 miles southeast of Brattleboro, Vermont in
Vernon Vermont. Vermont Yankee began commercial operation on November
30, 1972. A picture of the Vermont Yankee plant is shown in Figure 3.1 below.
Figure 3.1 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
3.2 Generation
Vermont Yankee was originally licensed with a net electric capacity of 514
Mw. On March 2, 2006, the NRC approved a power uprate to increase the
maximum core thermal power from 1592 Mw(t) to 1912 Mw(t) resulting in an
increase in net electric output to 620 MW(e). Since achieving commercial
operation in November, 1972, Vermont Yankee has generated134,822,038
megawatt-hours. In 2007, Vermont Yankee generated 4,703,728 megawatt-
hours at a capacity factor of 86.6 percent Vermont Yankee’s original operating
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
license will expire on March 21, 2012. On January 27, 2006 Vermont Yankee’s
owner applied to the NRC to extend the operating license for an additional 20
years. The NRC’s License Renewal Review Schedule for Vermont indicates that
the Commission’s decision should be issued in November 2008.
3.3 Reactor Technology
Vermont Yankee is powered by a boiling water reactor manufactured by
General Electric and features a Mark I containment. In a boiling water reactor,
the steam used to drive the main turbine-generator is produced from reactor
coolant water that is heated in direct contact with the nuclear fuel. The steam
passes through the turbine and is condensed back into water in the condenser
and then pumped back into the reactor vessel. A simplified schematic of a
boiling water reactor is shown in figure 3.2 below.
Figure 3.2 Diagram of a Boling Water Reactor (BWR)
The reactor’s primary containment is a pressure suppression system
consisting of a drywell, a pressure-absorption chamber, and vent pipes
connecting the drywell to the pressure-absorption chamber. The drywell is a steel
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
pressure vessel with a spherical lower portion and a cylindrical upper portion.
The pressure-absorption chamber is a steel pressure vessel in the shape of a
torus, located below and encircling the drywell, and is approximately half-filled
with water. The vent system from the drywell terminates below the water level in
the torus, so that in the event of a pipe failure in the drywell, the released steam
passes directly to the water where it is condensed.
Secondary containment is provided by the reactor building, which is
constructed of reinforced concrete to the refueling floor. Above the refueling floor,
the structure is a steel framework with insulated, corrosion-resistant metal siding.
The reactor building also houses all refueling equipment, including the spent fuel
storage pool and the new fuel storage vault.
The reactor fuel is uranium dioxide pellets sealed in Zircaloy-2 tubes. The
fuel is enriched to no more than 5 percent. The reactor is refueled on an 18-
month refueling cycle. Spent fuel is currently stored onsite in the storage pool
and in an independent spent fuel storage facility constructed onsite.
3.4 Location and Surroundings6
The VYNPS is located on approximately 125 ac of land in Vernon Vermont
owned by Entergy and a narrow strip of land between the Connecticut River and
the east boundary of the VYNPS property to which Entergy has perpetual rights
and easements from its owner. The property is approximately 5 mi southeast of
Brattleboro, Vermont, and about 28 mi north of Amherst, Massachusetts. Besides
Brattleboro, Vermont, the only other settlement of any size within 5 mi of the site
is the town of Hinsdale, New Hampshire, east of the Connecticut River. Figures
3.3 and 3.4 show the site location and features within 50 mi and 6 mi,
respectively.
6
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 30 Vol. 1
Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
Figure 3.3 Location of Vermont Yankee, 50-mile Region
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
Figure 3.4 Location of Vermont Yankee, 6-mile Region
The 125-ac VYNPS property boundaries are shown in Figure 3.5. The
property is bounded on the north, south, and west by privately owned land
and on the east by the Connecticut River. The site is surrounded by an
exclusion area, as shown in Figure 3.6. No residences are permitted within
this exclusion zone. During an accident condition of radiological significance,
the licensee would possess the capability for exercising immediate and direct
control over activities in the exclusion area for the purpose of radiological
protection. The nearest residences lie outside the site boundary to the
southwest at 0.26 mi. The areas adjacent to the site to the north, west, and
south are primarily farm and pasture lands.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
Figure3.5 Vermont Yankee Site Layout
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
Figure 3.6 Vermont Yankee Station Exclusion Zone
The area within the 5-mi radius is predominantly rural with the exception of a
portion of the town of Brattleboro, Vermont, and the town of Hinsdale, New
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
Hampshire. Between 75 and 80 percent of the area within 5 mi of the station is
wooded. The remainder is occupied by farms and small industries. Downstream
of the plant on the Connecticut River is the Vernon Hydroelectric Station.
3.5 Ownership
Vermont Yankee was originally constructed and owned by the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Corporation was owned by13 New England and northeast electric. The original
owners were:
• Central Vermont Public Service (31.3%)
• New England Electric System (20%)
• Green Mountain Power Corp. (17.9%)
• Connecticut Light and Power (9.5%)
• Public Service Company of New Hampshire (4%)
• Central Maine Power Company (4%)
• Cambridge Electric Light Company (2.5%)
• Montaup Electric Company (2.5%)
• Western Massachusetts Electric Company (2.5%)
• Burlington Electric Department (3.6%)
• Vermont Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative
(1%)
• Lyndonville Electric Department (0.6%)
• Washington Electric Cooperative (0.6%)
On July 31, 2002, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC purchased
Vermont Yankee from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (“VYNPC”)
for $180 million. Entergy received the reactor complex, nuclear fuel, inventories
and related real estate. The liability to decommission the plant, as well as
decommissioning trust funds of approximately $310 million, was also transferred
to Entergy. The acquisition included a 10-year power purchase agreement under
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 3 Description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
which VYNPC would buy a portion of the electricity produced by the plant. This
contract expires March 21, 2012.
In addition, coincident with the sale to Entergy ten of the original owners
liquidated their holdings in VYNPC leaving only Central Vermont Public Service,
Green Mountain Power and Central Maine Power Company as stockholders of
VNYPC.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 3-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
4.0 Regulatory Authority
Under any form of government, even ones of limited powers such as those of the
United States and the fifty states which constitute it, “sovereignty” is the supreme power
which governs the body politic.7 The governments of the several states and the federal
government are each “sovereign” in their own right, yet the sovereignty of state
governments is essentially different from and subordinate to that of the federal
government.8 The original thirteen states existed as separate sovereign entities prior to
the adoption of the Constitution forming the United States and before the resulting
federal union assumed all the attributes of sovereignty.9 As a result, all of the attributes
of sovereignty except those surrendered to the United States by the adoption of the
Constitution and the amendments thereto have been retained by the states.10 However,
the sovereign power of the states is necessarily diminished to the extent of the grants of
power to the federal government in the Constitution11 and is limited by the restraints on
state governments expressed or implied in the Constitution.12
Of particular relevance here, it has always been acknowledged in American
constitutional law that the states possess fully what is known as the “police power” or
the power to enact laws to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the populace,
except as that power is limited by the federal Constitution.13 Because laws regulating
safety, health and welfare have primarily and historically been matters of local concern,
states have retained great latitude under their police power to legislate in order to
protect the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and safety of all persons subject to their
7
See, e.g., Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Union Sav. Bank Co., 119 Ohio St. 124, 162 N.E. 420 (1928).
8
See, e.g., Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, reh'g denied, 495 U.S. 915 (1990).
9
See, e.g., Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1866).
10
See, e.g., Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943); Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).
11
See, e.g., U.S. v. California, 297 U.S. 175 (1936).
12
See, e.g., Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, reh'g denied, 495 U.S. 915 (1990).
13
See, e.g., City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 654 So. 2d 1311 (La. 1995).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
jurisdiction.14 Consistent with this principle, it is generally recognized that under our
federal system, the states possess primary authority for defining and enforcing, for
example, criminal law,15 tort law,16 marriage17 and family law,18 and property law.19 The
exercise of regulatory authority over commercial activities is also a form of the police
power.20
Under the American framework for sharing the police power between the state
and federal governments, there are three basic alternatives with respect to regulatory
authority. Such authority may involve the exercise of: (a) powers reserved to the states
by the Tenth Amendment, (b) powers preempted by the federal government under the
Supremacy Clause found in Article VI, clause 2, or (c) powers delegated to the federal
government under the Constitution but which the Constitution or the Congress has
limited in such manner as not to preempt the states from concurrently exercising powers
of their own with respect to the same subject.21 When considering whether a particular
state regulatory power is pre-empted by a particular federal law, the United States
Supreme Court “start[s] with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States
were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest
purpose of Congress.”22
4.1 Federal Preemption vs. Concurrent Jurisdiction
Once Congress’ authority to regulate a particular activity is established under the
14
See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 116 S. Ct. 2240 (1996).
15
See, e.g., U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
16
See Martinez v. State of Cal., 444 U.S. 277, reh'g denied, 445 U.S. 920 (1980).
17
See, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 44, reconsideration granted in part on other
grounds, 74 Haw. 650, 875 P.2d 225 (1993), and aff’d, 80 Haw. 341, 910 P.2d 112 (1996).
18
See, e.g., Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, reh'g denied, 402 U.S. 990 (1971).
19
See, e.g., Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979)
20
See, e.g., City of Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 439 (2002); Davidson v.
City of Clinton, Miss., 826 F.2d 1430, 1433 (5th Cir. 1987).
21
See Lawrence Flint, Shaping Nuclear Waste Policy at the Juncture of Federal and State Law, B.C. Envt’l Aff. L.
Rev. 163, 184 (Fall, 2000).
22
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Constitution, the question is whether Congress has exercised its power in such a
manner as to preempt the states from exercising any concurrent jurisdiction over the
same activity.23 This inquiry involves asking first whether compliance with both federal
and state law is a practical impossibility. If so, the state law in question is preempted.24
Second, even if compliance with both federal and state law is practicable, but Congress
has expressly declared that its authority over a particular subject shall be exclusive and
without condition or exception, then the states cannot simultaneously exert authority
over that same subject and any state law attempting to regulate that subject is
preempted.25 Third, even where Congress has not expressly declared its exclusive
authority and prohibited concurrent jurisdiction and dual regulation, preemption may still
be implied in one of two ways.26 Where the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive
as to occupy a given field, then any state law falling within the field is preempted (“field
preemption”).27 In addition, where the state law stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress in enacting the related
federal law, then the state regulation is also preempted (“conflict preemption”).28
4.2 Federalism and the Regulation of Commercial Nuclear Power
It has long been established that Congress has the constitutional authority to
regulate over the entire spectrum of nuclear power.29 Early on in the commercialization
of nuclear power, Congress found that federal regulation was necessary and
appropriate under its constitutionally-granted authority over the common defense and
security, interstate commerce, and promotion of the general welfare.30 In relinquishing
what had theretofore been monopolistic government control over nuclear energy in the
23
Id. (citing Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F.2d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir. 1971), aff'd 405 U.S. 1035
(1972)).
24
Id.
25
Id.
26
Id. (citing Nevada v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545, 1560 (9th Cir. 1990)).
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Id. (citing Northern States Power Co, 447 F.2d at 1147).
30
Id.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Congress established federal regulation of commercial
nuclear utilities by creating a comprehensive licensing scheme administered by the
Atomic Energy Commission, now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.31 That licensing
system controls the production of nuclear power and the use of nuclear source and by-
product materials.32
Because of this extensive federal regulation, virtually any state law purporting to
regulate any aspect of commercial nuclear power may precipitate a preemption
challenge in the courts and many such challenges have occurred over the years. As a
result, states must be especially careful in exercising their police power to assert
concurrent jurisdiction with respect to nuclear power plants. In this regard, four
regulatory contexts are particularly relevant to the present report: (1) construction and
operation of nuclear power plants; (2) storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel; (3)
storage and disposal of low-level radioactive waste; and (4) emergency planning and
preparedness.
4.2.1 Construction and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants
Early in the development of commercial nuclear power, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota that
the federal government has exclusive authority to regulate the construction and
operation of nuclear power plants, including the levels of radioactive effluents
discharged from them.33 However, this ruling was subsequently limited in its scope by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources
Conservation & Development Commission.34
In the latter case, the State of California had charged the Development
31
Id. at 185 (citing Northern States Power Co, 447 F.2d at 1148).
32
Id.
33
Id. (citing Northern States Power Co, 447 F.2d at 1154).
34
Id. (citing 461 U.S. 190 (1983)).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Commission, which had authority over the generation and sale of electricity in the state,
with responsibility for enforcing a state law that conditioned the construction of nuclear
plants on the existence of a means of disposal for nuclear waste.35 Essentially, the law
imposed a moratorium on the development of new nuclear plants in the state until the
Commission found that a permanent solution for disposing of spent fuel rods had been
developed and approved by the federal government.36 Pacific Gas & Electric asserted
that the state law was preempted by the Atomic Energy Act.37 The Supreme Court
found that the Atomic Energy Act did not expressly prohibit a state from requiring a
permit to construct a nuclear plant.38 However, the Court determined that there are two
distinct aspects to the nuclear waste issue: safety and economics.39 Although it was
clear that a comprehensive scheme of federal regulation occupied the entire field of
nuclear safety, the Court found that the State of California could pass laws addressing
the economic aspects of nuclear power.40 The risk existed that, due to the lack of
interim storage space or a permanent disposal method for spent fuel, a nuclear plant
could be forced to shut down.41 Thus, the California Commission, in exercising its
traditional state responsibility for regulating public utilities with respect to the need,
reliability, and cost of electric power plants, could legitimately address the nuclear waste
issue as it affected the economics and reliability of electricity generation.42 In a
footnote to its decision,43 the Court distinguished the California legislation from the
Minnesota law which had been ruled unconstitutional in Northern States Power. The
Court read the contested Minnesota regulation to regulate the discharge of waste by
nuclear power plants and thus to fall squarely within the field of nuclear safety reserved
35
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 194).
36
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 198).
37
Id.
38
Id. at 186 (citing 461 U.S. at 205).
39
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 196-97).
40
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 205).
41
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 196-97).
42
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 205).
43
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 212 n.24).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
for federal regulation.44 The Court also acknowledged that just prior to the decision in
Pacific Gas & Electric, Congress had passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA),
thereby enacting a complex federal scheme for disposing of nuclear waste.45 However,
the Court still concluded that the question of the economic feasibility of nuclear power
was not preempted by federal law and remained for the states to decide.46
4.2.2 High-Level Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal
The issue of whether the NWPA preempted all state laws restricting high-level
nuclear waste storage and disposal was revisited but not resolved in the case of
Nevada v. Watkins.47 In that case, the Nevada legislature had passed a law prohibiting
the federal government from establishing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
without the state legislature’s approval.48 The legislature then went further and made it
illegal for any person or governmental entity to store high-level waste in Nevada.49
These laws were enacted in response to amendments to the NWPA in 1987 that
designated Yucca Mountain as the sole site for characterization as a federal high-level
nuclear waste repository.50 The Ninth Circuit Court ruled against Nevada, allowing DOE
to proceed with its Yucca Mountain site characterization.51 However, because the
Yucca Mountain repository would be sited on land owned by the federal government,
the Circuit Court based its ruling upon the Property Clause of the Constitution52 and did
not reach the question of whether the NWPA completely occupied the field of nuclear
waste regulation.53
44
Id.
45
Id.
46
Id. (citing 461 U.S. at 219).
47
Id. (citing 914 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1990)).
48
Id. (citing 914 F.2d at 1550-51).
49
Id. (citing 914 F.2d at 1551).
50
Id. at 187 (citing 914 F.2d at 1550).
51
Id. (citing 914 F.2d at 1561).
52
Id. (citing 914 F.2d at 1554).
53
Id. (citing 914 F.2d at 1561).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
More recently, in Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. Nielson,54 the Tenth
Circuit struck down a series of provisions of Utah state law designed to prevent a
licensed high-level waste facility from operating in the state, including provisions relating
to (1) county planning, (2) unfunded potential liability, (3) abolition of limited liability, (4)
road access, and (5) facility licensing.
The federal appeals court struck down the county planning provisions because
they required county land use plans to “address the effects of the proposed [SNF
storage] site upon the health and general welfare of the citizens of the state,” including
“specific measures to mitigate the effects of high-level nuclear waste ... [to] guarantee
the health and safety of citizens of the state.” The court found that these provisions
were preempted because they “address matters of radiological safety that are
addressed by federal law and that are the exclusive province of the federal
government.”55
The Tenth Circuit further ruled that the part of the Utah licensing scheme that
required a disposal facility to pay the state seventy-five percent of the “unfunded
potential liability” of the facility also conflicted with the federal regulatory scheme.
Federal law vests the NRC with the authority to determine when to license a facility and
the amount of liability insurance that a facility must obtain. Thus, the Utah statute, by
imposing its own independent determination of potential liability and a related payment
to the state as a condition of licensing, conflicts with the objectives of federal law.56
The court also ruled that the statutory provisions which abolished limited liability
for shareholders in companies operating disposal facilities conflicted with federal law
because they “upend[ed] a fundamental principle of corporate law as applied to SNF
54
376 F.3d 1223 (2004).
55
Id. at 1246.
56
Id. at 1250.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
storage facilities [and] disrupt[ed] the balance that Congress sought to achieve.”
Because shareholders are generally not personally liable under Utah law for the debts
of a corporation in which they hold stock, the statute conflicted with federal objectives
because “the abolition of limited liability attempts a sea change in the law of
corporations and is targeted at the nuclear industry only.”57
Additionally, as the court read the record, it clearly showed that the road access
provisions had been enacted for the express purpose “to prevent the transportation and
storage of SNF in Utah” in order to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Thus,
“the Road Provisions were enacted for reasons of radiological safety and are therefore
preempted.”58
Finally, the Tenth Circuit overturned the facility licensing provisions because they
related only to nuclear waste facilities, “were grounded in radiological safety concerns,”
and had “some direct and substantial effect on the decisions” regarding the required
levels of radiological safety in Utah. As such, they were also plainly preempted by
federal law occupying the entire field of radiological safety.59
4.2.3 Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal
Congress enacted in 1980 and then amended in 1985 the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Act (LLRW Policy Act)60 to encourage every state to take responsibility for
its own waste, to enable states to form multi-state compacts, to site and license regional
disposal facilities, and to encourage development of additional sites to dispose of
LLRW.61 In conjunction with § 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA),62 the LLRW Policy
57
Id. at 1251.
58
Id. at 1252.
59
Id. at 1253.
60
42 U.S.C. §§ 2021b-2021j.
61
See generally Melissa Beutler Orien, Battle over Control of Low-level Radioactive Waste: Some States Are
Overstepping Their Bounds, 2005 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 155 and Deborah M. Mostaghel, The Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Amendments Act: An Overview, 43 DePaul L. Rev. 379 (1994).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Act authorizes the federal government to delegate certain aspects of LLRW regulation
to the states.63 This delegation is accomplished through an agreement with the state
(“274 Agreement”), signed by the governor of the state and the NRC chairman.64
When a state reaches an agreement with the NRC and the agreement is
approved by Congress, the state becomes an “Agreement State.”65 An Agreement
State has limited authority to regulate byproduct materials, source materials, and
special nuclear materials subject to the express proviso that the state may engage only
in “coordinated and compatible” regulation of the designated nuclear materials.66
The NRC directly cooperates with an Agreement State in developing standards
to regulate radiation hazards and to issue licenses.67 The NRC has published guidelines
delineating the scope of an Agreement State's authority to regulate waste within its
borders and requiring that a state's law governing nuclear energy not conflict with the
federal scheme of regulation.68 In addition, the NRC has issued a directive reiterating in
detail § 274's command that all state LLRW programs must be “coordinated and
compatible” with its own regulations.69
To determine whether a state program is compatible with federal regulations, the
NRC directive defines standards based primarily on how the state’s action or inaction
62
42 U.S.C. § 2120c.
63
Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, Agreement State Program, available at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/state-
tribal/agreement-states.html (last updated June 11, 2008).
64
Id.
65
Each of these agreements is reported in the Federal Register. Copies of these agreements and a map identifying
Agreement and Non-Agreement States may be found at http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/rulemaking.html (last updated Oct.
31, 2008).
66
See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(a)(1), (g).
67
See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b), (d).
68
See Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, Processing an Agreement and Handbook for Processing an Agreement, SA-
700 (July 19, 2007), available at http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/procedures.html#stateagree (last updated May 15, 2008).
69
See Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, Directive No. 5.9, Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs
(Feb. 27, 1998), available at http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/procedures.html#stateagree (last updated May 15, 2008).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
affects “the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis or on other
jurisdictions.”70 A program becomes incompatible with federal law if its
regulations preclude a practice that is in the national interest.71 A state is
permitted to place “additional requirements when required to protect public health
and safety” if it can do so without making its program incompatible with federal
regulations.72
In authorizing the federal government to delegate its authority to states,
Congress clearly intended to promote effective nuclear waste disposal and to
encourage states to dispose of waste within their own borders. Congress also
emphasized that delegation of authority to states did not affect the federal goals
for and ultimate control over radioactive waste.73 Specifically, “[n]othing
contained in [the LLRW Policy Act] or any compact may be construed to confer
any new authority on any . . . State to regulate the . . . treatment, storage,
disposal, or transportation of low-level radioactive waste in a manner
incompatible with the regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”74
The precise limits on a state's ability to regulate LLRW under § 274 have
not been widely litigated to date. The issue has never reached the Supreme
Court, and only one circuit court has determined the scope of a state's authority
to regulate LLRW after it has entered into a 274 Agreement with the NRC.75
In Washington State. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Spellman, the
State of Washington, a 274 Agreement State, banned out-of-state waste from
entering the state for disposal through a ballot initiative.76 Washington argued
that the ban was permissible because, through its 274 Agreement and the LLRW
70
See id. at 1.
71
See id. at 5.
72
Processing an Agreement, supra note 48, § 4.1.1.2d
73
See Orien, supra note 55, at 159.
74
42 U.S.C. § 2021d(b)(3)(A).
75
See Orien, supra note 55, at 162.
76
See 684 F.2d 627, 629-31 (9th Cir. 1982).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Policy Act, the federal government had ceded all control over low-level waste
disposal to Washington.77 However, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and
held that Washington's 274 Agreement gives it only limited control over LLRW on
the grounds that “[t]he regulation of the disposal of low-level radioactive waste is
a legitimate federal activity, and Congress has not waived or delegated its
authority over the subject.”78 Further, neither the 274 Agreement nor the LLRW
Policy Act “is a grant of total authority to the states over the disposal of low-level
wastes within their own borders.”79 Washington’s initiative to ban out-of-state
waste was preempted by federal law through conflict preemption because closing
a state's borders to LLRW “would significantly aggravate the national problem of
low-level waste disposal.”80
4.2.4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness
Following the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) reexamined the role of emergency planning and
preparedness for protection of the public in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.
The Commission issued regulations requiring that before a plant could be
licensed to operate, the NRC must have “reasonable assurance that adequate
protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological
emergency.”81 The regulations set forth sixteen emergency planning standards82
and define the responsibilities of the licensee as well as state and local
organizations involved in emergency response.
77
Id. at 629.
78
Id. at 630.
79
Id.
80
Id. at 631.
81
The Commission's requirements for emergency planning are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 50.47. Additional information about emergency planning and preparedness is contained
in Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50 and in NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, a joint publication of the NRC and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) titled "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants."
82
The sixteen standards cover the following topics: Assignment of Responsibility; Onsite Emergency
Organization; Emergency Response Support and Resources; Emergency Classification System;
Notification Methods and Procedures; Emergency Communications; Public Education and Information;
Emergency Facility and Equipment; Accident Assessment Protective Response; Radiological Exposure
Control; Medical and Public Health Support; Recovery and Reentry Planning and Post-Accident
Operations; Exercises and Drills; Responsibility for the Planning Effort: Development, Periodic Review,
and Distribution of Emergency Plans; and Radiological Emergency Response Training.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Emergency planning and preparedness has been adopted as an
additional component of the NRC’s “defense-in-depth” safety philosophy. Briefly
stated, this philosophy:
(1) requires high quality in the design, construction and
operation of nuclear plants to reduce the likelihood of malfunctions;
(2) recognizes that equipment can fail and operators can
make errors, therefore requiring safety systems to reduce the
chances that malfunctions will lead to accidents that release fission
products from the fuel; and
(3) recognizes that, in spite of these precautions, serious fuel
damage accidents may happen, therefore requiring containment
structures and other safety features to prevent the release of fission
products offsite.
The purpose of adding emergency planning and preparedness to the defense-in-
depth philosophy is to provide reasonable assurance that, even in the unlikely
event of a release of radioactive materials to the environment, actions can be
taken to protect the population around nuclear power plants.83
Specifically, the Commission has defined a plume exposure pathway
emergency planning zone (EPZ) consisting of an area about 10 miles in radius
and an ingestion pathway EPZ about 50 miles in radius around each nuclear
power plant. EPZ size and configuration may vary in relation to local emergency
response needs and capabilities as affected by such conditions as demography,
topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
83
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Fact Sheet on Emergency Planning and Preparedness, available at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emer-plan-prep.html (last visited Dec. 13,
2008).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Each plant owner is required to practice its emergency plan with offsite
authorities at least once every two years to ensure state and local officials remain
proficient in implementing the plan. 84
Federal oversight of emergency planning for licensed nuclear power
plants is shared by the NRC and FEMA through a memorandum of
understanding. The memorandum is responsive to the President's decision of
December 7, 1979, that FEMA take the lead in offsite planning and response,
that NRC assist FEMA in carrying out this role, and that NRC continue its
statutory responsibility for the radiological health and safety of the public.85
The NRC revised a portion of its emergency response regulations on April
19, 2001, to require that consideration be given to include potassium iodide (KI)86
as a protective measure for the general public living within ten (10) miles of a
nuclear power plant to supplement sheltering and evacuation in the event of a
severe accident. However, it is left up to each State to make a final decision on
the use of KI as a supplemental protective measure. Nuclear plant emergency
plans already provide for distribution of KI to emergency workers and to certain
institutionalized populations, such as hospital patients within emergency planning
zones. In early 2002, the NRC contracted to supply KI to States, Indian Tribes,
and, in some cases, local governments that choose to incorporate KI for the
general public in their emergency plans. The NRC has developed guidance to
assist state and local governments in making decisions on the role and use of KI
in their site-specific emergency plans. To date, ten states -- Massachusetts,
Maryland, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Arizona, Florida,
Delaware, and Alabama -- have requested a supply of KI from the NRC for their
84
See id.
85
See id.
86
Potassium iodide, if taken in time, blocks the thyroid gland's uptake of radioactive iodine and can help
prevent thyroid cancers and other thyroid diseases that might be caused by exposure to inhaled or ingested
radioactive iodine. It will not protect against any other inhaled radionuclides nor will it offer protection
from external exposure to radiation. Therefore, the NRC regards prophylactic use of KI as a reasonable,
prudent, and inexpensive supplement to evacuation and sheltering, which protect the whole body from
radiation exposure. See id.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
populations out to ten (10) miles from nuclear power plants located nearby.87
4.3 Vermont’s Concurrent Jurisdiction Over Vermont Yankee
Vermont has carefully crafted its own framework of concurrent jurisdiction
over Vermont Yankee to be cooperative and compatible with federal regulation
and thereby avoid federal preemption.
4.3.1 Continued Operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Plant
The key to Vermont’s regulatory role with respect to the continued
operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is the state’s Certificate of Public
Good statute.88 Of particular relevance is this provision of the statute:
No nuclear energy generating plant within this state may be
operated beyond the date permitted in any certificate of public good
granted pursuant to this title, including any certificate in force as of
January 1, 2006, unless the general assembly approves and
determines that the operation will promote the general welfare, and
until the public service board issues a certificate of public good
under this section. If the general assembly has not acted under this
subsection by July 1, 2008, the board may commence proceedings
under this section and under 10 V.S.A. chapter 157, relating to the
storage of radioactive material, but may not issue a final order or
certificate of public good until the general assembly determines that
operation will promote the general welfare and grants approval for
that operation.89
The criteria to be applied generally by the Public Service Board to approval of a
Certificate of Public Good for an electric generating facility and incorporated by
reference in the statutory provision applicable to any extension of the existing
87
See id.
88
30 V.S.A. § 248.
89
30 V.S.A. § 248(e)(2).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
Certificate for Vermont Yankee are also defined by statute. In particular, the
Public Service Board may not issue a Certificate unless it finds that any
extension:
(1) . . . will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the
region with due consideration having been given to the
recommendations of the municipal and regional planning
commissions, the recommendations of the municipal legislative
bodies, and the land conservation measures contained in the plan
of any affected municipality. . . ;
(2) is required to meet the need for present and future demand for
service which could not otherwise be provided in a more cost
effective manner through energy conservation programs and
measures and energy-efficiency and load management measures,
including but not limited to those developed pursuant to the
provisions of subsection 209(d), section 218c, and subsection
218(b) of this title;
(3) will not adversely affect system stability and reliability;
(4) will result in an economic benefit to the state and its residents;
(5) . . . will not have an undue adverse effect on esthetics, historic
sites, air and water purity, the natural environment and the public
health and safety, with due consideration having been given to the
criteria specified in subsection 1424a(d) and subdivisions
6086(a)(1) through (8) and (9)(K) of Title 10;
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
(6). . . ;90
(7) . . . is in compliance with the electric energy plan approved by
the department under section 202 of this title, or that there exists
good cause to permit the proposed action;
(8) does not involve a facility affecting or located on any segment of
the waters of the state that has been designated as outstanding
resource waters by the water resources board . . . ;
(9) . . . ;91 and
(10) . . . can be served economically by existing or planned
transmission facilities without undue adverse effect on Vermont
utilities or customers.
However, unlike other projects reviewed by the Public Service
Board under section 248, the Vermont Yankee license renewal petition
cannot be approved by the Board unless and until the Vermont Legislature
“determines that operation will promote the general welfare and grants
approval for that operation.”92 The entirety of this Report is intended to
assist the Legislature in that determination.
4.3.2 Storage and Disposal of Vermont Yankee’s Spent
Nuclear Fuel
The key provisions of Vermont law relating to the storage and
disposal of Vermont Yankee’s spent nuclear fuel read as follows:
90
The Public Service Board has determined that criterion 6 does not apply to merchant generators of
electricity because they are not required to have an approved least-cost integrated resource plan. See
Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for a certificate
of public good to modify certain generation facilities at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in
order to increase the Station’s generation output. Docket 6812, Order of 9/8/04, at 103, finding 247.
91
Criterion 9 is inapplicable to Vermont Yankee because it is not a waste-to-energy facility.
92
30 V.S.A. § 248(e)(2).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
(a) Neither the owners of Vermont Yankee nor their successors and
assigns shall commence construction or establishment of any new
storage facility for spent nuclear fuel before receiving a certificate of
public good from the public service board pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §
248. Standards generally applicable to substantial modification of
facilities with certificates of public good under 30 V.S.A. § 248 shall
apply to any future alterations of any permitted facility.
(b) In addition to all other applicable criteria of 30 V.S.A. § 248,
before granting a certificate of public good for a new or altered
spent nuclear fuel facility, the public service board shall find that:
(1) Adequate financial assurance exists for the management of
spent fuel at Vermont Yankee for a time period reasonably
expected to be necessary, including through decommissioning, and
for as long as it is located in the state.
(2) The applicant has made commitments to remove all spent fuel
from Vermont to a federally certified long-term storage facility in a
timely manner, consistent with applicable federal standards.
(3) The applicant has developed and will implement a spent fuel
management plan that will facilitate the eventual removal of those
wastes in an efficient manner.
(4) The applicant is in substantial compliance with any memoranda
of understanding entered between the state and the applicant.
(c) In addition, the following limiting conditions shall apply:
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
(1) Any certificate of public good issued by the board shall permit
storage only of spent fuel that is derived from the operation of
Vermont Yankee, and not from any other source.
(2) Any certificate of public good issued by the board shall limit the
cumulative total amount of spent fuel stored at Vermont Yankee to
the amount derived from the operation of the facility up to, but not
beyond, March 21, 2012, the end of the current operating license.
Authorized capacity may include on-site storage capacity to
accommodate full core offload or any order or requirement of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to the fuel derived
from these operations.
(3) The requirement to obtain a certificate of public good from the
board for this purpose applies to Vermont Yankee, regardless of
who owns the facility, and the conditions of the certificate of public
good and the requirements of this subchapter will apply to any
future owner.
(4) Compliance with the provisions of this subchapter shall
constitute compliance with the provisions of this chapter that
require that approval be obtained from the general assembly before
construction or establishment of a facility for the deposit or storage
of spent nuclear fuel, but only to the extent specified in this
subchapter or authorized under this subchapter. The public service
board is authorized to hear and issue a certificate of public good for
such a facility under 30 V.S.A. § 248, to the extent specified or
authorized in this subchapter. Other agencies of the state also may
receive and act on applications related to the construction or
establishment of such a facility, provided that any approval for such
a facility applies only to the extent specified or authorized in this
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-18
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
subchapter. Storage of spent fuel derived from the operation of
Vermont Yankee after March 21, 2012 shall require the approval of
the general assembly under this chapter.
(5) Compliance with the provisions of this subchapter shall not
confer any expectation or entitlement to continued operation of
Vermont Yankee following the expiration of its current operating
license on March 21, 2012. Before the owners of the generation
facility may operate the generation facility beyond that date, they
must first obtain a certificate of public good from the public service
board under Title 30.93
Under subsection (c)(4) of this statute, legislative approval in addition to
PSB approval is expressly required for spent fuel storage after March 21, 2012.
However, under a subsequently enacted but uncodified session law,94 the
93
10 V.S.A. § 6522.
94
See Section 1(f) of Act 160 of the 2006-2006 session of the Vermont Legislature, which reads:
Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND PURPOSE
(a) It remains the policy of the state that a nuclear energy generating plant may be operated in Vermont
only with the explicit approval of the General Assembly expressed in law after full, open, and informed
public deliberation and discussion with respect to pertinent factors, including the state’s need for power, the
economics and environmental impacts of long-term storage of nuclear waste, and choice of power sources
among various alternatives.
(b) It is the purpose of this act to establish a statutory process to implement this policy with respect to the
operation of any nuclear energy generating plant in the state beyond the date of any certificate of public
good granted and in force, including any in force as of January 1, 2006.
(c) Pursuant to No. 74 of the Acts of the 2005 session, the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power
station:
(1) is required to obtain the approval of the general assembly before storage of spent fuel derived from the
operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear power station after March 21, 2012, and also
(2) is required to obtain a section 248 certificate of public good from the public service board before
operation beyond that date.
(d) It is appropriate that the spent fuel storage issue be framed and addressed as a part of the larger societal
discussion of broader economic and environmental issues relating to the operation of a nuclear facility in
the state, including an assessment of the potential need for the operation of the facility and its economic
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-19
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
required legislative approval is to be voted on at the same time as the vote on the
Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee life extension takes place. As a
result, at the time when the existing Vermont Yankee ISFSI nears capacity, only
PSB approval will be required for construction of another ISFSI.
For a detailed discussion of the spent fuel management issues raised by
Vermont Yankee life extension, please see Chapter 7(A).
4.3.3 Storage and Disposal of Vermont Yankee’s Low-level
Radioactive Waste
Vermont is a Non-Agreement State under the LLRW Policy Act.95 As a
result, the NRC retains authority for regulation of the existing Vermont Yankee
low-level radioactive waste site under federal law and Vermont has not
authorized another low-level waste disposal site within the State. Instead, the
state elected to become a member of the Texas Compact along with the State of
Texas.96 The Vermont General Assembly approved Vermont’s entry into the
Compact in 1994 and Congress and the President approved the Compact in
1998.97 Vermont’s participation in the Texas Compact is governed by the terms
of the Compact and the provisions of 10 V.S.A. §§ 7060-7068. While progress
benefits, risks, and costs; and in order to allow opportunity to assess alternatives that may be more cost-
effective or that otherwise may better promote the general welfare.
(e) It is appropriate for the general assembly to require that when the public service board addresses the
issue of whether to issue a certificate of public good for the operation of the plant beyond the date specified
in a previous certificate of public good, it evaluate the issue under present day cost benefit assumptions and
analyses forming the basis of the certificate of public good for the current operation of the facility.
(f) For the foregoing reasons, the general assembly shall consider concurrently the issue of storage of spent
nuclear fuel derived from the operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear power station after March 21, 2012 as
set forth in No. 74 of the Acts of the 2005 session and the operation of Vermont Yankee after March 21,
2012 as set forth in 30 V.S.A. § 248, and shall grant the approval or deny the approval of such activities
concurrently. Accordingly, if the general assembly approves and determines that the operation of the
facility beyond the date permitted in any certificate of public good granted pursuant to this title will
promote the public welfare, then the approval of the general assembly for the storage of spent fuel derived
from the operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station after March 21, 2012 will also be deemed
approval as required in 10 V.S.A. § 6522.
95
See http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/rulemaking.html (last update Oct. 31, 2008).
96
The State of Maine was also a member of this Compact but withdrew in 2002.
97
Uldis Vanags, Report to the House and Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Energy Status of
the Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, Jan. 31, 2008, at 2.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-20
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
continues on the siting and licensing of a low-level waste facility in Texas, that
facility is currently not projected to become operational before December, 2010.98
For a discussion of the LLRW issues arising under the Texas Compact as
a result of life extension of Vermont Yankee which have been identified by the
Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, please see Chapter 7, Section B.
4.3.4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness
The key statute with respect to emergency planning and preparedness
with respect to the ongoing operation of Vermont Yankee is 20 V.S.A. § 3a. This
statute assigns the following duties to the Emergency Management Division of
the Department of Public Safety:
(a) In addition to other duties required by law, the emergency
management division shall:
(1) Establish and define emergency planning zones and prepare
and maintain a comprehensive state emergency management
strategy that includes an emergency operations plan, establish and
define emergency planning zones and prepare and maintain a
radiological emergency response plan for use in those zones, and
prepare an all-hazards mitigation plan in cooperation with other
state, regional, and local agencies for use in such zones and in
compliance with adopted federal standards for emergency
management. The strategy shall be designed to protect the lives
and property including domestic animals of persons within this state
who might be threatened as the result of all-hazards and shall align
state coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a
unified and multi-disciplined all-hazards approach to incident
management.
98
See http://www.wcstexas.com/PDF_downloads/Timeline_2007_0619.pdf. Also, for additional
discussion on the Texas Compact, see Chapter 8 of this report.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-21
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
(2) Design the radiological emergency response plan to protect
persons and property within this state who or which might be
threatened as the result of their proximity to any operating nuclear
reactor. The plan shall be formulated in accordance with
procedures approved by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. At a minimum, the plan shall provide for all the
following:
(A) Monitoring radiological activity within the state.
(B) Emergency evacuation routes within a ten-mile radius of any
operating nuclear reactor.
(C) Adequate notification and communications systems.
(D) Contingency procedures as deemed necessary in the event of
an incident or accident involving an operating nuclear reactor.
(3) Assist the state emergency response commission, the local
emergency planning committees and the municipally established
local organizations referred to in section 6 of this title in carrying out
their designated emergency functions, including developing,
implementing, and coordinating emergency response plans.
(4) Provide administrative support to the state emergency response
commission.
(b) Each fiscal year, the division of emergency management, in
collaboration with state and local agencies, the management of the
nuclear reactor, the legislative bodies of the municipalities in the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-22
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
emergency planning zone where the nuclear reactor is located, the
Windham regional planning commission, and any other municipality
or emergency planning zone entity required by the state to support
the radiological emergency response plan, shall develop the budget
for expenditures from the radiological emergency response plan
fund. The expenditure budget shall include all costs for evacuation
notification systems.
(c) From the fund, each town within the emergency planning zone
shall receive an annual base payment of no less than $5,000.00 for
radiological emergency response related expenditures from the
radiological emergency response plan fund. Additional
expenditures by municipalities in the emergency planning zone, the
Windham regional planning commission, and any other municipality
or emergency planning entity defined by the state as required to
support the plan, shall be determined during the budget
development process established by subsection (b) of this section.
The Radiological Emergency Response Plan Fund referenced in
subsections (b) and (c) of 20 V.S.A. § 3a is established and defined by 20 V.S.A.
§ 38:
(a)(1) There is created a radiological emergency response plan
fund, into which any entity operating a nuclear reactor or storing
nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in this state (referred to
hereinafter as "the nuclear power plant") shall deposit the amount
appropriated to support the Vermont radiological response plan for
that fiscal year, adjusted by any balance in the radiological
emergency response plan fund from the prior fiscal year. There
shall also be deposited into the fund any monies received from any
other source, public or private, that is intended to support the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-23
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
radiological emergency response planning process. The fund shall
be managed in accordance with subchapter 5 of chapter 7 of Title
32. Any interest earned on the balance in the fund shall be retained
by the fund.
(2) Expenditures from the fund shall be made by the division of
emergency management, subject to an annual legislative
appropriation. As part of the annual appropriations process, the
division of emergency management shall present a budget for the
ensuing fiscal year that anticipates the expenditures that will be
made from the fund. Each fiscal year, the division of emergency
management in collaboration with the state and local agencies, the
management of the nuclear power plant, the select boards of the
municipalities in the emergency planning zone, the Windham
regional planning commission, and any other municipality or
emergency planning zone entity defined by the state as required to
support the radiological emergency response plan shall develop the
budget for expenditures from the radiological emergency response
plan fund. State personnel with responsibility for local coordination
and plan development shall be physically located in the region. The
annual budget shall include only expenditures necessary to support
the radiological emergency response plan.
(3) [Repealed by 2007, Adj. Sess., No. 192, § 5.904, eff. July 1,
2008].
(4) By January 15 of each year, the division of emergency
management shall submit to the general assembly a report
detailing expenditures from the fund for the preceding fiscal year.
(5) The state shall bill the nuclear power plant on a monthly basis
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-24
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
based on the budget presented and approved by the legislature.
The nuclear power plant shall have the right to audit the books and
records of the fund.
(6) Upon the permanent cessation of operation of the nuclear
reactor and final removal of all nuclear fuel and radioactive waste,
and the removal of emergency response plan regulations and state
responsibilities applicable to it by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and any other federal agency having regulatory
jurisdiction, and after all outstanding debts have been paid, all
monies remaining in the fund shall be repaid to the nuclear power
plant, and the fund terminated.
For a detailed discussion of the principal emergency planning and
preparedness issues posed by life extension for Vermont Yankee, please see
Chapter 8.
4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
As the fourteenth sovereign state to join the federal Union created by the
Constitution,99 Vermont well understands both the broad reach and the specific
limits of its retained police powers. Based on its well-grounded understanding of
its role in the American federal system of government, Vermont has carefully
crafted a concurrent state regulatory framework for Vermont Yankee which is
consistent and cooperative with the federal regulatory framework established by
Congress for the plant. Act 160 is only the most recent example of this careful
craftsmanship. As a result, the overarching recommendation of this Report with
respect to the State’s regulatory authority over life extension of Vermont Yankee
is simple and straightforward: the State should exercise its authority with the
same careful craftsmanship with which that authority was created.
99
The thirteen original states completed ratification of the Constitution in 1787; Vermont joined the Union
in 1791.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-25
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 4 Regulatory Authority
In that overarching context, one recommendation stands out above all
others. Act 160 carefully structured the State’s determination of Vermont Yankee
life extension within the time-honored framework of the Certificate of Public Good
statute, 10 V.S.A. § 248. In so doing, the Act assigns the ultimate authority for
issuance of a Certificate for Vermont Yankee life extension to the Legislature
rather than to the Public Service Board. Unquestionably, the Legislature has the
power to exercise this authority itself rather than to delegate it to the Board. In
exercising this power itself, however, the Legislature would be well-advised to
keep in mind the lesson taught by the recent experience recounted above of the
State of Utah’s failed attempt to exercise state authority over the proposed
Private Fuel Storage ISFSI. In general terms, that lesson is plain: a Legislature
may exercise itself a police power which it retains as a sovereign state rather
than delegate it to one or more state administrative agencies, but it may not
exercise a power which has been preempted by the Congress and delegated to
one or more federal administrative agencies.
In more specific terms, the lesson of the Utah experience is equally plain:
the Legislature should carefully base its ultimate determination with respect to
Vermont Yankee on the same criteria, interpreted in the same manner, as the
Board would use for a Certificate of Public Good generally. This is not to say that
the Legislature should weigh those criteria in the same way or apply them to
reach the same decision that the Board would, only that it should use those same
carefully defined criteria interpreted and applied in the same careful manner that
the Board would to assure that the decision made is within the retained police
power of the State of Vermont and does not intrude on any power which is the
exclusive domain of the United States of America.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 4-26
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
5.0 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
In conjunction with its purchase of VYNPS, ENVY and its Entergy affiliates made
numerous regulatory commitments for the benefit of Vermont ratepayers. Subsequent
to its purchase of VYNPS, ENVY and its Entergy affiliates made additional
commitments for the benefit of Vermont ratepayers. A summary of these commitments
is provided in Attachment 1. However, many of these previous commitments apply only
during the period of the current VYNPS operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which expires March 21, 2012. In addition, while important for other
reasons, a number of these commitments are essentially procedural or informational in
character and not readily susceptible to economic evaluation. Accordingly, the purpose
of this Chapter of the Report is to review those previous ENVY commitments which are
susceptible to economic evaluation and would apply during any license extension period
beyond March 21, 2012.
5.1 ENVY Economic Commitments Extending Beyond March 21, 2012
These ENVY commitments may be grouped into three general categories:
Purchased Power; Termination of Commercial Operations and Decommissioning; and
Spent Fuel and Other Nuclear Waste.
5.1.1 Purchased Power
The previous ENVY commitments extending beyond March 21, 2012, with
perhaps the most immediate economic implications for Vermont ratepayers are those
relating to the purchase of power from VYNPS during an extension of the plant’s NRC
operating license.
ENVY’s prior commitments do not obligate the Company to sell VYNPC any
power from VYNPS during an extension of the plant’s NRC license. Instead, ENVY is
committed only to provide VYNPC with reasonable notice of the availability of energy
and capacity as result of license extension and to provide VYNPC with a commercially
reasonable opportunity to negotiate on an exclusive basis for 30 days to purchase
available energy and capacity. The only ENVY obligations to VYNPC regarding this
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
negotiating opportunity are notice and good faith bargaining; otherwise, ENVY is free to
sell VYNPS power during license extension to any purchaser on any terms (including at
any price).100
Even though ENVY’s prior commitments do not obligate the Company to sell
VYNPC any power from VYNPS during an extension of the plant’s NRC license, ENVY
is obligated to share revenues from the sale of VYNPS power during a license
extension, whether the power is sold to VYNPC, another PPA customer, or the market.
In particular, ENVY is committed to share fifty percent (50%) of any “Excess Revenues”
with VYNPC for ten years commencing March 13, 2012. The term “Excess Revenues”
means the difference between VYNPS’s average price (in $/MWh) during a fiscal year
and the “Strike Price” (also in $/MWh) for the fiscal year times the total MWh sold from
VYNPS by ENVY during the fiscal year. The “Strike Price” is $61/mWh escalated on
March 13, 2013 and each March 13 thereafter by an annual “Escalation Factor”
calculated based on the weighting of the increases in three cost indices: Employment
Cost Index (ECI), weighted 60%; Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator (GPD-
IPD), weighted 25%; and Nuclear Fuel Market Index (NFMI), weighted 15%.101
5.1.2 Termination of Commercial Operations and Decommissioning
The previous ENVY commitments extending beyond March 21, 2012, with
perhaps the most long-term economic implications for Vermont ratepayers are those
relating to the termination of commercial operations and eventual decommissioning of
VYNPS following the expiration of an extension of the plant’s NRC operating license.
Of course, ENVY’s principal obligations with respect to the decommissioning of VYNPS
are established in general terms by federal law and defined in specific detail by NRC
regulations. However, there are five additional commitments previously made by ENVY
with economic implications for Vermont ratepayers which extend beyond March 21,
2012.
100
See Docket 6545, Sale Memorandum of Understanding, March 4, 2002, ¶ 1(a) [hereafter Sale MOU].
101
See Sale MOU, supra note 1, ¶ 4.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
First, throughout any license extension period and thereafter until
decommissioning of the VYNPS has been completed, ENVY will be responsible for all
costs of security for VYNPS. However, during decommissioning, ENVY will have the
right to use funds from the VYNPS Decommissioning Trusts to pay for such security.102
Additionally, ENVY will not file any action or petition based on or otherwise seek, claim,
defend, or rely on the doctrine of federal preemption to prevent enforcement of this
obligation.103
Second, at the time VYNPS is to be removed from commercial operation, ENVY
shall provide enhanced financial security in the form of a specified Entergy Corporation
guarantee and an EIHL-ENVY Intercompany Credit Agreement in an amount not less
than $60 million to assure funds will be available to it prior to decommissioning funds
becoming available.104
Third, at the time of the evaluation of the VYNPS decommissioning funds in
connection with submission to the NRC of the post-shutdown decommissioning
activities report for the plant, ENVY is committed to provide additional funds or other
acceptable financial assurance as needed to ensure that funding will be sufficient to
accomplish decommissioning, including site restoration and spent fuel management to
the extent committed in the Sale Docket.105
Fourth, in the event that “Completion of Decommissioning” is delayed beyond
March 31, 2022, any “Excess Funds” remaining in the decommissioning trust funds
transferred from VYNPC to ENVY at the closing of the sale of VYNPS (including any
gains, losses or fees on the funds while owned by ENVY) shall be shared between
102
See Docket 7082, Dry Cask Memorandum of Understanding, June 21, 2005, ¶ 10 [hereafter Dry Cask MOU].
103
See Dry Cask MOU, supra note 3, ¶ 12.
104
See Sale MOU, supra note 1, ¶ 13, Exhibits A, B.
105
See id., ¶ 9.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
ENVY and Vermont electric consumers. “Completion of Decommissioning” includes
dismantlement and decontamination but excludes spent fuel management and site
restoration. “Excess Funds” means any funds remaining in the trust funds following
“Completion of Decommissioning,” except for funds required for spent fuel management
and site restoration costs not otherwise paid by the federal government. Vermont
consumers’ share of “Excess Funds” would be fifty-five percent (55%), with that share
distributed pro rata among customers of VYNPC owners in proportion to their ownership
shares. Sharing of “Excess Funds” shall occur upon the occurrence of the earlier of (a)
ENVY’s completion of its VYNPS spent fuel management and site restoration
obligations, or (b) settlement, final adjudication, or satisfactory performance of DOE’s
spent fuel management obligations with respect to VYNPS.106
Fifth and finally, ENVY is committed to perform “site restoration” once the
VYNPS site is no longer used for nuclear purposes or non-nuclear commercial,
industrial or other similar uses. “Site restoration” means removal of all structures and, if
appropriate, regrading and reseeding of the land.107
5.1.3 Spent Fuel and Other Nuclear Waste
The previous ENVY commitments extending beyond March 21, 2012, with
perhaps the most uncertain economic implications for Vermont ratepayers are those
associated with spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and other nuclear waste. As with
decommissioning, ENVY’s principal obligations with respect to the spent fuel and other
nuclear waste are established in general terms by federal law and defined in specific
detail by NRC regulations. However, there are four additional commitments previously
made by ENVY with economic implications for Vermont ratepayers which extend
beyond March 21, 2012:
a. ENVY will use its commercial best efforts to assure that spent fuel
is removed from the VYNPS site in a reasonable manner and as
106
See id., ¶ 3, as modified in Docket 6545, PSB Final Order, Jun. 13, 2002, at 11-12.
107
See id., ¶¶ 9, 3.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
quickly as possible rather than being stored at VYNPS.108
b. ENVY will not store nuclear waste generated outside of the State of
Vermont at VYNPS.109
c. ENVY will configure the spent-fuel pool so that high-decay-heat
assemblies of SNF are surrounded by low-decay-heat assemblies
of SNF.110
d. ENVY will not file an action or petition based on or otherwise seek,
claim, defend, or rely on the doctrine of federal preemption to
prevent enforcement of these three nuclear waste obligations.111
5.2 ENVY’s Ability to Meet Its Commitments Extending Beyond March
21, 2012
ENVY is a limited liability company (LLC) with only one significant asset, VYNPS.
It is also a low-level subsidiary within a multi-tier holding company structure. See
Attachment 2. As a result, the prospect of a twenty-year license extension for VYNPS
raises once again for Vermont stakeholders the future ability of ENVY, in view of its
corporate structure, to meet its previous commitments for the benefit of Vermont
ratepayers which extend beyond March 21, 2012.112
Specifically, ENVY’s current corporate structure presents the “particular concern”
where a parent corporation inserts several layers of LLCs between itself and the
entity operating a high risk business. Each of those intervening LLCs can act as
a barrier to extending liability to the parent corporation that contains most of the
assets. . . . If a nuclear plant was unable to cover its liabilities, it might require
several separate litigations, or a very large and complex single litigation, to pierce
all the corporate veils back to the parent corporation with the bulk of the
108
See id., ¶ 11; see also Dry Cask MOU, supra note 3, ¶ 8.
109
See Dry Cask MOU, supra note 3, ¶ 7.
110
See id., ¶ 9.
111
See id., ¶ 12.
112
See, e.g., David Schlissel, Paul Peterson & Bruce Biewald, Financial Insecurity: The Increasing Use of Limited
Liability Companies and Multi-Tiered Holding Companies to Own Nuclear Power Plants, Synapse Energy
Economics, August 7, 2002, available at www.synapse-energy.com.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
assets.113
This “particular concern” may have special relevance to ENVY because it is a
limited liability subsidiary of Entergy Corporation which was a pioneer in establishing
separate corporate entities to own and operate nuclear power plants and today owns
and operates eleven nuclear units through an extensive network of wholly-owned
subsidiaries.114
Entergy explained its reasons for ENVY’s current corporate structure in the
course of the PSB proceedings on the original sale of the plant: Entergy Nuclear
Holding Company, a first tier of Entergy Corporation, has been established with
the intent that it will ultimately hold all the subsidiaries associated with Entergy's
nuclear operations. This will consolidate all of Entergy's unregulated nuclear
operations under a single holding company, while still supporting the operational
and financing demands of the individual plants. The use of holding companies
below Entergy Nuclear Holding Company allows Entergy to segregate various
types of financing, investment and business activities, and by doing so, enables
Entergy to better manage and control risks associated with these activities.115
In this context, it must be noted that the implications of ENVY’s current corporate
structure for not only its additional commitments but its overall ability to own and
operate VYNPS were previously considered by the PSB in its Final Order in the Sale
Docket.116 In particular, it must be noted that the Board concluded that, on balance,
ENVY’s current corporate structure is an advantage rather than a disadvantage to
Vermont compared to ownership by an entity such as VYNPC.117
113
Id., at 12.
114
Id., at 7. The Synapse report references only ten nuclear plants owned or operated by Entergy. However,
Entergy acquired the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan as its eleventh plant following publication of the Synapse
report in August, 2002.
115
Rebuttal Testimony of ENVY witness Connie Wells, Docket No. 6545, dated February 25, 2002, at 9.
116
See Final Order, Docket No. 6545, dated June 13, 2002, at 109-112.
117
See id., at 112.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
In addition, it is important to remember that ENVY’s principal obligations with
respect to termination of commercial operations and decommissioning for VYNPS are
established in general terms by federal law and defined in detail by NRC regulations.
The same is true with respect to ENVY’s principal obligations with respect to spent
nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste generated and stored at VYNPS. As a
result, ENVY is required to meet these obligations as an NRC licensee in the manner
required by NRC regulations independent of the additional commitments it has
previously made for the benefit of Vermont ratepayers which would continue to apply
after March 21, 2012. By the same token, the means available to the NRC for enforcing
ENVY’s principal obligations with respect to these matters do not apply to the additional
commitments which ENVY has made for the benefit of Vermont ratepayers. ENVY’s
ability to meet – and the NRC’s ability to enforce – the Company’s principal obligations
under federal law and NRC regulations with respect to decommissioning and spent fuel
and other high-level nuclear waste are addressed in Chapters 6 and 7.
In addition, it must be noted that ENVY’s corporate structure today has not yet
been changed by Entergy’s Enexus spin-off proposal and any effects on ENVY’s prior
commitments of that proposal are necessarily speculative at this time. Effectively, the
Enexus spin-off proposal would transfer the ultimate ownership and control of VYNPS
through ENVY from Entergy to Enexus. As such, it requires the approval of both the
NRC and the PSB. The implications of this transfer, if it occurs at all, will not be
foreseeable until the pending Enexus spin-off proceedings before the NRC and PSB
have concluded and the terms and conditions of any approval of the Enexus structure
are known. Of course, if the proposed Enexus structure is not approved by either the
NRC or the PSB, any effects it might have would be moot.
The effect on ENVY’s commitments of any future filing of a bankruptcy petition
would be somewhat less speculative but still very uncertain because of the fact-
sensitive complexities of federal bankruptcy law with respect to the determination and
enforcement by government agencies of ongoing regulatory obligations, especially but
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
not exclusively depending on whether the obligations in question involve protection of
public health and safety or only pecuniary interests or advantages. Generally speaking,
commitments which do not specifically call for the payment of money by ENVY to
VYNPC, another private entity, or the State of Vermont in its capacity as a creditor
would likely be unaffected by a bankruptcy filing, even if they require the expenditure of
money by ENVY to be performed. On the other hand, those commitments which do
specify the payment of money by ENVY to VYNPC, another private entity, or the State
of Vermont in its capacity as a creditor would very likely be subject to stay, reduction,
and discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding even though they arose in the course of a
state regulatory proceeding.118 Moreover, while the risks of bankruptcy to the
commitments would be extended along with the commitments themselves, those risks
would not be changed by a license extension in and of itself.
Thus, this Chapter of the Report is limited to evaluating whether license
extension itself, or any new understanding regarding the additional commitments
themselves, appears likely to affect ENVY’s ability to meet those commitments during a
license extension beyond March 21, 2012, in view of its structure as a limited liability
company with a single significant asset which is also a low-level subsidiary of the multi-
tier holding company, Entergy Corporation.
5.2.1 Purchase Power Commitments
In the absence of a license extension, ENVY will have no power to sell from
VYNPS and the purchase power commitments described in this chapter would simply
not be applicable. Assuming a license extension, however, both of the purchase power
commitments described in Chapter 5 would apply.
118
See, e.g., In re Torwico Electronics, Inc., 8 F.3d 146 (3d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1046 (1994); In re
Chateaugay Corp., 944 F.2d 997 (2nd Cir. 1991); In re Coporacion de Servicios Medicos Hospitalarios de Fajardo,
805 F.2d 440 (1st Cir. 1986); Penn Terra, Ltd. v. Department of Envt’l Resources, Comm. of Pa., 733 F.2d 267 (3d
Cir.1984); New York v. Mirant New York, Inc., 300 B.R. 174 (S.D.N.Y.2003); In re Gandy, 327 B.R. 796 (Bankr.
S.D.Tex. 2005); and In re Psychotherapy and Counseling Center, Inc., 195 B.R. 522, 36 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1, 50
Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 836, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 44,417 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1996).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
5.2.2 Commitment to Negotiate in Good Faith for Purchase
Power Agreement
The ENVY commitment to negotiate in good faith exclusively with VYNPC for 30
days with respect to a purchase power agreement clearly applies only after a license
renewal has occurred and ENVY determines that it has VYNPS power available to sell.
Plainly, ENVY has no obligation to conclude a purchase power agreement with
VYNPC even if it has energy and capacity available from VYNPS as a result of a license
extension. And, ENVY would not breach its commitment to negotiate in good faith for
thirty days simply because it failed to conclude a purchase power agreement with
VYNPC during that time period, or ever, for that matter.
Following license renewal, the language of the ENVY commitment would appear
to present no bar to ENVY conducting a Request for Proposals process and soliciting
bids from other prospective purchasers prior to initiating exclusive negotiations for 30
days with VYNPC. All ENVY would have an obligation to do would be to make a good
faith attempt to negotiate its best deal with VYNPC. If VYNPC does not offer ENVY its
best deal for VYNPS power, ENVY is not obligated to accept the VYNPC offer.
Prior to license renewal, the language of the ENVY commitment would not
appear to preclude ENVY from conducting a Request for Proposals process, soliciting
bids from any prospective purchasers including VYNPC, and negotiating power
purchase agreements with any prospective purchasers including VYNPC. In this
scenario, the language of the ENVY commitment would not seem to require ENVY to
engage in good faith negotiations exclusively with VYNPC, for 30 days or otherwise.
The current ENVY corporate structure would likely affect any future negotiations
regarding VYNPS purchase power because Entergy’s power marketing subsidiary
would presumably be conducting or directing the negotiations and doing so with a view
to optimizing from an Entergy corporate perspective all deals being made within the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
same approximate period of time as any VYNPS deals.
5.2.3 Commitment to Share Excess Revenues from VYNPS Power
Sales
The ENVY commitment to share “Excess Revenues” from VYNPS power sales
clearly would apply only after a license renewal has occurred and ENVY actually sells
VYNPS power. However, the commitment would apply irrespective of the purchaser of
the power, whether VYNPS, another power purchaser, or the market.
The definition of “Excess Revenues” included in this ENVY commitment appears
to be reasonably precise. However, the value of the associated commitment to
Vermont ratepayers would appear to depend entirely on ENVY’s revenues from its sales
from VYNPS and the prices at which those sales occur. In addition, the Sale MOU
specifies only that any “Excess Revenues” will be shared with VYNPC.119
The current ENVY corporate structure, per se, would not likely affect this
commitment, but the existence and terms of any agreement between ENVY and any
Entergy power marketing affiliate could do so. Because ENVY is not rate-regulated,
there would appear to be no bar to ENVY selling VYNPS power to an Entergy power
marketing affiliate at cost-based prices and that affiliate in turn selling the power at
market prices to VYNPC, other power purchasers, or the market. In such a scenario,
there would likely be no “Excess Revenues” for ENVY to share with VYNPC or for
VYNPC to share with anyone else.
5.2.4 Commitments Relating to Termination of Commercial
Operations and Decommissioning
ENVY’s commitments relating to termination of commercial operations and
decommissioning for VYNPS will apply whether a license extension is approved for the
plant or not. However, the timing of the performance of those commitments is likely to
be later if a license extension is approved than if it is not.
119
See Sale MOU, supra note 1, ¶ 4.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
5.2.4.1 Commitment to Pay Costs of Security
ENVY’s commitment to pay the costs of security for VYNPS would apply after
March 21, 2012, whether the plant’s NRC license is extended or not. During a license
extension and the period following termination of commercial operations prior to
commencement of decommissioning, these costs would be payable by ENVY. Once
decommissioning commenced, these costs would be payable by the VYNPS
decommissioning funds.
ENVY’s current corporate structure could affect this commitment if the security
contract covering VYNPS also covered other plants operated by ENOI and some or all
of the associated costs for VYNPS are allocated rather than directly assigned to the
plant.
5.2.4.2 Commitment to Provide Inter-Company Credit
Agreement and Parental Guarantee
This commitment to provide enhanced financial security in the form of an EIHL-
ENVY Intercompany Credit Agreement and an Entergy Corporation guarantee in an
amount not less than $60 million to assure the availability of funds to ENVY prior to
decommissioning funds becoming available would apply whether or not the VYNPS
license is extended. However, Entergy’s performance of its parental guarantee would
not be assured until such time as VYNPS commercial operations have actually
terminated and the need for enhanced financial security has actually been established,
presumably in March, 2032. Furthermore, a downgrade of Entergy’s credit rating below
investment grade would not be the best time to arrange a third-party letter of credit in
lieu of the parental guarantee.
The current corporate structure of ENVY clearly motivated this commitment. Of
particular concern is that, upon termination of VYNPS commercial operations, ENVY will
have no ongoing source of revenue prior to initiating decommissioning and gaining
access to the VYNPS decommissioning funds. The Board determined in 2002 that the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
credit agreement and parental guarantee in an amount not less than $60 million would
be sufficient to address ENVY’s financial needs between termination of commercial
operations and decommissioning funding becoming available.120 However, due to the
passage of time, changes in circumstances, and the declining time value of a fixed sum
of money, the sufficiency of this commitment would clearly require re-evaluation in the
context of a license renewal until 2032.
5.2.4.3 Commitment to Provide Additional Financial
Assurance
ENVY’s commitment to provide additional funds or other acceptable financial
assurance to accomplish decommissioning, including site restoration and spent fuel
management to the extent committed in Docket 6545, would apply whether or not the
VYNPS license is extended. However, it would not become applicable until ENVY’s
submission to the NRC of its post-shutdown activities report for the plant and the
additional funding or assurance required is not specified.
Plainly, however, this commitment was motivated by the current corporate
structure of ENVY. The obvious concern underlying this commitment is that ENVY,
even taking into consideration the availability of funds in the VYNPS decommissioning
trusts, might not have sufficient funds to complete decommissioning as defined in NRC
regulations, as well as to perform the spent fuel management and site restoration
obligations to which it committed in Docket 6545 (which are not included in
decommissioning as defined in NRC regulations). Presumably, then, the commitment
would be to fund – or provide assurance of funding – for any shortfall in funding
available for those spent fuel management and site restoration activities not included in
decommissioning as that term is defined in NRC regulations. However, the wording of
this commitment does not require ENVY to provide additional funds in order to
decommission the VYNPS by any particular date. Indeed, the most likely (because the
least expensive) means for ENVY to assure the necessary funds would be simply to
120
See Final Order, supra note 17, at 113-117.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
defer decommissioning under the SAFSTOR methodology for some additional period of
time in the expectation that the investment returns on the VYNPS decommissioning
funds would outpace the growth in its decommissioning costs until the required funding
level was achieved.121
5.2.4.4 Commitment to Share “Excess Decommissioning
Funds”
ENVY’s commitment to share “Excess Decommissioning Funds” would apply
whether or not the NRC license for VYNPS is extended. However, the extension of the
license would make it virtually certain that one of the preconditions for such sharing
would occur, namely that “Completion of Decommissioning” would not occur by March
31, 2022. On the other hand, extension of the license would also make it much more
likely that any sharing of “Excess Funds” would be delayed because there will be
additional spent fuel generated during the license extension which would have to be
managed for some time after “Completion of Decommissioning.” See Chapter 7of this
Report, infra.
The current corporate structure of ENVY will almost certainly affect this
commitment, with respect to both its value and the timing of its performance. Because
ENVY is part of a larger holding company structure which owns multiple nuclear plants,
there will necessarily be a complex economic, technical, and legal calculus by which the
decommissioning of those plants will be sequenced. As a result, the timing of the
VYNPS decommissioning will almost certainly be affected to some extent by such
considerations relating to the other Entergy nuclear plants. However, the primary
considerations regarding the timing of any sharing will be the timing of VYNPS
decommissioning in view of the availability of sufficient decommissioning funding and
the timing of the removal of VYNPS spent fuel and other nuclear waste in view of the
availability of both high- and low-level waste disposal sites.
121
See, e.g., John Dillon, Legislature Considers Decommissioning Fund, Vermont Public Radio, Feb. 11, 2008
(quoting ENVY executive Jay Thayer that completion of VYNPS decommissioning might be deferred for as long as
60 years after plant shutdown).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
5.2.4.5 Commitment to Perform “Site Restoration”
ENVY’s commitment to perform “site restoration” would apply whether or not
NRC license extension was to occur for VYNPS. However, extension of the license
would also make it much more likely that any “site restoration” would be delayed
because there will be additional spent fuel generated during the license extension which
will have to be managed for a period of time after “Completion of Decommissioning” that
will be longer than it would have been in the absence of license extension. See
Chapters 7 and 8 of this Report, infra.
The current corporate structure of ENVY will almost certainly affect this
commitment, at least with respect to the timing of its performance. Because ENVY is
part of a larger holding company structure which owns multiple nuclear plants, there will
necessarily be a complex economic, technical, and legal calculus by which the
decommissioning of those plants and the disposal of spent fuel from those plants will be
sequenced. As discussed above, the timing of VYNPS decommissioning and spent fuel
removal will almost certainly be affected by such considerations relating to the other
Entergy nuclear plants as well as VYNPS itself. However, the primary considerations
regarding the timing of site restoration will again be the timing of VYNPS
decommissioning in view of the availability of sufficient decommissioning funding and
the timing of the removal of VYNPS spent fuel and other nuclear waste in view of the
availability of both high- and low-level waste disposal sites.
5.3. Commitments Regarding Spent Fuel and Other Nuclear Waste
ENVY’s commitments regarding spent fuel and other nuclear waste at VYNPS
will apply whether a license extension is approved for the plant or not. However, the
timing of the performance of those commitments is likely to be later if a license
extension is approved than if it is not.
5.3.1 Timely Removal of Spent Fuel from VYNPS
ENVY’s commitment to make commercially reasonable efforts to remove spent
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
fuel from VYNPS would apply whether or not NRC license extension was to occur.
However, extension of the license would also make it much more likely that completion
of removal of spent fuel would be delayed because there will be additional spent fuel
generated during the license extension which will need to be managed for some time
period longer than would have been the case absent license extension. See Chapter 8
of this Report, infra.
The current corporate structure of ENVY will almost certainly affect this
commitment, at least with respect to the timing of its performance. Because ENVY is
part of a larger holding company structure which owns multiple nuclear plants, there will
necessarily be a complex economic, technical, and legal calculus by which the removal
of spent fuel from those plants will be sequenced. As a result, the timing of VYNPS
spent fuel removal will almost certainly be affected by such considerations relating to
the other Entergy nuclear plants, as well as VYNPS itself. In this context, the term
“commercially reasonable” may well mean something quite different to ENVY
executives than it does to Vermont public officials.
5.3.2 No Storage of Nuclear Waste Generated from Outside Vermont
ENVY’s commitment not to store nuclear waste generated outside the State of
Vermont at VYNPS would apply whether or not the plant’s NRC license is extended.
Moreover, license extension would not adversely affect ENVY’s ability to keep this
commitment because the additional waste likely to be generated as a result of license
extension will be generated within the State of Vermont.
The current corporate structure of ENVY would not affect its ability to perform this
commitment. However, this corporate structure could affect its motivation to perform
this commitment. Because ENVY is part of a larger holding company structure which
owns multiple nuclear plants, there could well be circumstances under which it would be
advantageous to that larger structure to store out-of-state waste at VYNPS, either
temporarily or indefinitely As a result, ENVY’s current corporate structure could provide
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
an incentive for ENVY to seek to modify this commitment.
5.3.3 Commitment Regarding Spent Fuel Pool Configuration
ENVY’s commitment to configure the spent-fuel pool so that high-decay-heat
assemblies are surrounded by low-decay-heat assemblies would apply whether or not
the VYNPS license is extended. However, the commitment would plainly apply for a
longer period of time with than it would without license extension because the spent fuel
pool would necessarily remain in use for approximately five years after the termination
of commercial operations under the extended license.
The current corporate structure of ENVY will not affect this commitment in any
foreseeable manner. Whether ENVY is part of a larger holding company structure
which owns multiple nuclear plants would not seem to have any implications for
configuration of the VYNPS spent fuel pool.
5.3.4 Commitment Not to Seek to Invalidate Other Nuclear Waste
Commitments on Grounds of Federal Preemption.
ENVY’s commitment not file an action or petition based on or otherwise seek,
claim, defend, or rely on the doctrine of federal preemption to prevent enforcement of
the three preceding nuclear waste obligations would apply whether or not the VYNPS
license is extended. However, the commitment would apply for a longer period of time
with than it would without license extension because the related nuclear waste
commitments would apply longer.
The current corporate structure of ENVY would not affect its ability to keep this
commitment in any foreseeable manner. However, this corporate structure could affect
its motivation to keep this commitment. Because ENVY is part of a larger holding
company structure which owns multiple nuclear plants, there could well be
circumstances under which it would be advantageous to invalidate site-specific
limitations on the holding company’s nuclear operations. As a result, ENVY’s current
corporate structure could provide an incentive for ENVY to seek to modify or moot this
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
commitment, e.g., by sale or transfer of the plant, inter-affiliate operating agreement,
etc.
5.4. Additional Commitments Generally
Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #3, Entergy Vermont Investment Company,
and ENVY are all limited liability companies. This fact appears to have been known to
and considered by the PSB in its evaluation of the ENVY corporate structure in its Sale
Final Order.122 However, the Board did not seem to assign any significance to ENVY
being a limited liability company rather than a traditional corporation. It is also less than
certain whether the Board expressly considered any implications (even though it
apparently knew) of the fact that all three entities are Delaware not Vermont limited
liability companies.
Delaware has aggressively sought to be a leader among the states in providing
alternatives to the traditional corporation. One example of this aggressive leadership is
the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, which governs the formation and operation
of a Delaware limited liability company (“DLLC”). The DLLC can provide not only tax but
business advantages over the traditional corporation. A DLLC may pursue almost any
lawful business activity, or combination of business activities, including manufacturing,
services, holding and developing real estate, and holding and managing intangible
property such as securities and other investments.123
It is not traditional articles of incorporation but instead an operating agreement
which is the key governance document for any LLC, including a DLLC. An operating
agreement is a private contract and not a public document. Moreover, under the DLLC
Act the identity of a DLLC's owners and managers, and the terms of their relationships,
can remain confidential. The DLLC Act does not specify any minimum capital
investment. Non-U.S. businesses and individuals generally are free to form and operate
122
See id., at 109-110.
123
See, e.g., Robert L. Symonds Jr. & Matthew J. O'Toole, Delaware: Preferred Gateway to the U.S. Marketplace,
Corporation Service Co., Dec. 2004, available at http://www.incspot.com/public/c13-01a.html
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
DLLCs because the DLLC Act does not require an owner or manager of a DLLC to be a
natural person or a citizen or resident of the United States. There is no requirement that
a DLLC carry on business activities or establish or maintain any place of business
(other than a registered agent and registered office) in Delaware. Additionally, a DLLC's
records need not be located in Delaware. They may be located wherever is most
convenient for the parties, including any jurisdiction outside the United States.
Furthermore, such records may be maintained in electronic or other non-written form.124
The principal advantages of a DLLC are double income taxation avoidance,
highly adaptable business combination capability, unfettered management authority,
unlimited contractual flexibility, and limited liability. A DLLC may be structured in virtually
any manner that best suits the business needs of its owners. This flexibility can make
the DLLC preferable to the traditional corporation and, in many cases, to other
alternative business entities such as limited partnerships or general partnerships. Two
well-respected Delaware corporation lawyers, one of whom co-authored the DLLC Act,
have explained these advantages in more detail, as follows:
Limited Liability
The DLLC Act generally refers to owners of a DLLC as "members," and to
persons designated to manage the business and affairs of the entity as
"managers." The DLLC Act permits a DLLC to be managed by its
members, without requiring such members to be managers. The DLLC Act
provides that no member or manager is liable personally for any debt,
obligation, or liability of a DLLC solely by virtue of such party's status as a
member or manager. In addition, the DLLC Act expressly empowers a
DLLC to "indemnify and hold harmless any member or manager or other
person from and against any and all claims and demands whatsoever."
This limitation on personal liability and the broad scope of permissible
indemnification compare favorably with the corresponding protections
124
See id.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-18
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
enjoyed by stockholders, officers, and directors of a Delaware corporation.
Contractual Flexibility
The basic approach of the DLLC Act is to let the parties define their
business relationship in the limited liability company agreement, and to
provide rules only for those matters on which the parties have failed to
agree. A stated policy of the DLLC Act is to give maximum effect to the
principle of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of limited liability
company agreements. This important policy means that the parties can
predictably create and maintain the relationships that best suit their
business needs. For instance, in their limited liability company agreement,
the parties may provide for various classes of members (with each class
enjoying different rights, powers, and duties, including separate voting
rights and economic rights). In fact, the parties may by agreement
determine nearly all aspects of their relationship with one another. To the
extent that a member or manager has duties (including fiduciary duties) to
the DLLC or to another member or manager, the DLLC Act provides that
the limited liability company agreement may expand or restrict or eliminate
such duties (other than the implied contractual covenant of good faith and
fair dealing). This flexibility arises from Delaware's longstanding policy
favoring freedom of contract.
Management Flexibility
The principle of contractual freedom manifests itself particularly in
management flexibility, a cornerstone of the DLLC Act. The parties can
select the management arrangement that works best for them. Under the
DLLC Act, members of a DLLC can participate in management without
jeopardizing their limited liability, or they may elect to have the DLLC
managed by someone else, or fashion a blend of these two approaches.
The limited liability company agreement may provide for different classes
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-19
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
of managers, each having such rights, powers, and duties as are provided
therein. The limited liability company agreement also may contain
provisions relating to the exercise of voting rights, including provisions
relating to notice of the time, place, or purpose of any meeting at which
any matter is to be voted on, waiver of any such notice, action by consent
without a meeting, quorum requirements, and rules for voting in person or
by proxy. Members and managers of a DLLC generally are free to transact
business with the DLLC.
Business Combination Flexibility
In addition to flexibility at the creation and operational stages of a DLLC's
existence, the DLLC Act offers the parties a number of ways to restructure
the DLLC. For example, under the DLLC Act, a DLLC may merge or
consolidate with another DLLC, or with an "other business entity"
(including, but not limited to, corporations, statutory trusts, and
partnerships), whether any such other business entity is formed or
organized under the laws of Delaware or another jurisdiction. Delaware
offers additional flexibility by permitting reorganization of a DLLC by way
of asset sales, "conversions," "transfers," and "domestications."
Avoidance of Double Taxation
As a matter of U.S. federal income tax law, a DLLC may be structured so
that it will not be subject to tax at the business organization level.
Therefore from a tax perspective the DLLC offers a very attractive
alternative to the corporation, which typically is taxed at the organization
level. The members of a DLLC may specifically agree to such tax
treatment in their limited liability company agreement. Of course, the
contractual freedom afforded by the DLLC Act enables the members to
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-20
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
agree to other tax treatment if they so desire.125
Effectively, then, a DLLC is a legal entity whose true identity, purpose, structure,
financing, and business activities are revealed only by its operating agreement and
other contracts in force at any given time and any related documents – documents
which are not publicly available for ENVY and which have not been provided or
reviewed subject to a confidentiality agreement in the course of the preparation of this
Report. Thus, this evaluation of ENVY’s ability to meet its additional commitments is
necessarily limited by this lack of information.
5.5. Recommendations
In view of the foregoing discussion of the potential effects of ENVY’s current
corporate structure on its ability to meet its additional obligations for the benefit of
Vermont ratepayers after March 21, 2012, the following recommendations would appear
to be in order:
1. Serious consideration should be given to negotiation with ENVY of a
successor purchased power agreement which would become effective if and
when the NRC approved license extension and the Board issued a certificate
of public good for continued operation of VYNPS;
2. The ambiguities and uncertainties in the ENVY commitment to share excess
revenues from VYNPS power sales in the event of a license extension and
continued operation should be resolved;
3. Additional information should be obtained in order to determine how ENVY’s
security costs for VYNPS are calculated, especially whether they are directly
incurred and assigned or indirectly incurred and allocated in accordance with
an affiliate services agreement;
125
Id.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-21
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
4. The dollar amounts of the EIHL-ENVY Intercompany Credit Agreement and
Entergy Corporation guarantee should be re-evaluated for likely increases
due to expected changes in circumstances and the time value of money
foreseeable by 2032; in addition, the substitution of a third-party letter of
credit for the parental guarantee should be seriously considered independent
of the current contingency of a downgrade of Entergy’s security rating;
5. ENVY’s commitment to provide additional funds or other acceptable financial
assurance to accomplish decommissioning, including site restoration and
spent fuel management to the extent committed in Docket 6545, should be
clarified and quantified;
6. The principal alternative scenarios and timetables for the decommissioning
and removal of spent fuel at VYNPS should be identified, evaluated, and
quantified with respect to the ENVY commitment to share excess
decommissioning funds;
7. The principal alternative scenarios and timetables for the performance of
Entergy’s commitment to VYNPS site restoration should be identified and
evaluated;
8. The term “commercially reasonable” as it relates to ENVY’s commitment
regarding removal of spent fuel should be clarified and articulated in a more
definite manner, especially in relation to the principal alternative scenarios
and timetables associated with future spent fuel generation and management
at VYNPS;
9. ENVY’s commitment to no storage at VYNPS of nuclear waste generated
from out of state should be expressly renewed in conjunction with any
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-22
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
extension of the plant’s operations;
10. ENVY’s commitment regarding the configuration of the VYNPS spent fuel
pool should be defined with more particularity in the context of the principal
alternative scenarios and timetables associated with spent fuel generation,
management, and removal;
11. ENVY’s commitment not to seek to have its other additional commitments
pre-empted should be expressly renewed in conjunction with any extension of
the plant’s operations;
12. All of ENVY’s additional commitments should be expressly extended to any
successor or assign in conjunction with any extension of the plant’s
operations; and
13. All of the key non-public documents which define ENVY in detail as a
Delaware limited liability company should be obtained and reviewed with
respect to their implications for the Company’s additional commitments for the
benefit of Vermont ratepayers in any docket established to consider extension
of VYNPS’ operations.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-23
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
Chapter 5, Attachment 1
ENTERGY COMMITMENTS PER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
DOCKET 6545 – SALE CASE
1. Entergy shall report to the DPS and PSB the status of the decommissioning
funds and the latest NRC calculation of such responsibility at the same time they
report to NRC. Entergy shall make this info available to the public and will
participate in a public discussion, on the adequacy of the decommissioning funds
at a meeting or meetings or some other forum to be determined in conjunction
with the DPS. Docket 6545 Order of 6/13/02, ordering clause 10; CPG ¶ 3.
2. Every 5 years, beginning with the 5th anniversary of the closing of the Sale,
Entergy shall update the site-specific decommissioning study and submit the
results to the DPS and PSB. Following the completion of each study, Entergy
shall (i) inform the public of the estimated cost of decommissioning which
resulted from the analysis, and (ii) participate in a public discussion of the results
at a forum to be determined in conjunction with the DPS. Docket 6545 Order of
6/13/02, ordering clause 11; CPG ¶ 4.
3. Within 12 months of 6/13/02, Entergy shall file with the PSB and DPS a copy of
the Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (“PSDAR”) which it has
pledged to prepare and maintain in the event of an unexpected shutdown.
Entergy shall update the PSDAR, once a year and file the update with the PSB
and DPS. Docket 6545 Order of 6/13/02, ordering clause 12; CPG ¶ 5.
4. Entergy shall obtain PSB approval in the event it requests disbursement of fund
from the Qualified Decommissioning Trust Fund or Non Qualified
Decommissioning Trust Fund other than for decommissioning VYNPS, for
payment of administrative expense or for distribution of funds upon completion of
decommissioning. Docket 6545 MOU at ¶ 7.
5. Entergy shall notify the DPS and PSB of intent to change any provision of the
trust agreement at least 30 days in advance of such a change. Docket 6545
MOU at ¶ 8.
6. At the time of evaluation of the decommissioning fund for NRC in connection with
the PSDAR, Entergy will provide additional funds or other acceptable financial
assurances as needed to ensure that funding will be sufficient to accomplish
decommissioning. Accomplishing decommissioning may include the
implementation of SAFSTOR or other forms of delayed decommissioning.
Docket 6545 MOU at ¶ 9.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-24
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
7. Entergy agrees that it must use its commercial best efforts to assure that the
spent fuel is removed from the VYNPS site in a reasonable manner and as
quickly as possible rather than stored at VYNPS. The DPS can participate in
discussions with DOE that involve VYNPS and to participate in decisions whether
to pursue discussions or litigate. Docket 6545 MOU at ¶ 11.
8. Entergy shall provide enhanced financial security to assure funds are available in
the amount of not less than $60 million at the time VYNPS is to be removed from
commercial operation. That financial assurance is now provided in the form of a
parental guarantee. Docket 6545 MOU at ¶ 13.
9. Entergy shall notify the PSB and DPS every six months, beginning Jan 1, 2003,
as to the status and amounts of guaranties of Entergy Corporation that are
outstanding at the time of the filing. Docket 6545 Order of 6/13/02, ordering
clause 9; CPG ¶ 1.
10. Any amendments to Entergy’s NRC license for VY shall be filed with the PSB
and DPS. Docket 6545 CPG ¶ 6.
11. Any FERC filings related to Entergy VY’s rates that are subject to FERC
jurisdiction under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act shall be filed with the
PSB and DPS. Docket 6545 CPG ¶ 7.
12. Any filing with respect to Entergy’s Exempt Wholesale Generator Status shall be
filed with the PSB and DPS. Docket 6545 CPG ¶ 8.
13. If completion of decommissioning of VYNPS is delayed beyond March 31, 2022,
any excess funds remaining in the decommissioning trust fund shall be shared by
Entergy and Vermont Ratepayers. Docket 6545 MOU at ¶ 3 as modified by the
Board’s Orders post judgment.
14. If license extension occurs, Entergy will share with VYNPC fifty percent of excess
revenues for ten years above a strike price. Docket 6545 MOU at ¶ 4.
15. DPS has broad rights within the plant as per the Inspection MOU.
DOCKET 6812 – UPRATE CASE
16. Entergy shall notify the PSB if it no longer has access to a low-level nuclear
waste disposal facility or if the facility is no longer expected to have sufficient
capacity for the waste. Docket 6812 CPG ¶ 8.
17. Entergy provides to Vermont an amount of money equal to 20% of the uprate
power sold by Entergy in each hour and shall equal 50% of the weighted average
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-25
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
price per MWH received by Entergy for uprate power generated in a calendar
year above a strike price. The money has to be paid to the state by March 31 in
the year following the sales eg. 2006 sales money was given to the state of
Vermont in March of 2007. Docket 6812 MOU at ¶ 2. The money now goes to
the Clean Energy Development Fund as per the statute.
DOCKET 7082 – DRY CASK STORAGE CASE
18. Enteryg will monitor the temperature on each cask located on the DFS pad
continuously using an electronic-monitoring system contemplated by the
Company’s current DFS-system design. Monthly the Company will manually
conduct radiation surveillance of each such cask. The DPS and the Company, in
consultation with the Department of Health, will develop a protocol for reporting
the results of such monitoring and surveillance to the DPS and the Department of
Health. Docket 7082 MOU at ¶ 5.
19. Entergy will use its commercial best efforts to ensure that high-level SNF stored
at the Station is removed from the site in a reasonable manner and as quickly as
possible to an interim or permanent location outside of Vermont. Docket 7082
MOU at ¶ 8.
20. Entergy will configure the spent-fuel pool so that high-decay-heat assemblies of
SNF are surrounded by low-decay-heat assemblies of SNF. Docket 7082 MOU
at ¶ 9.
21. Entergy will be responsible for all costs of security for the Station required under
its license from or otherwise by the NRC except that during decommissioning it
will have the right to use funds from the Decommissioning Trust Fund to pay for
such security. Docket 7082 MOU at ¶ 10.
22. Entergy will pay to the State of Vermont for deposit into the Fund payments
calculated to total $15,625,000 during the period commencing January 1, 2006,
and ending March 21, 2012. Payments will be made in equal quarterly amounts
of $625,000 per quarter commencing as of January 1, 2006, with the initial
payment to be due when the Company receives all such approvals and to include
all quarterly payments due up to that time and with the last payment to be due on
January 1, 2012. Docket 7082 MOU at ¶ 11.
DOCKET NRC 50-271-OLA – CONTAINMENT OVERPRESSURE
23. Entergy shall perform a Type A Containment Leak Rate Test during the VYNPS
refueling outage in 2010 and make the results available to the DPS within 60
days of the outage completion. Docket NRC 50-271-OLA MOU at ¶ 1.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-26
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
24. Entergy shall provide the DPS with weekly readings of nitrogen usage at the
VYNPS as an indication of containment integrity until the Type A Leak Test is
completed. The reading shall be in a format agreed upon by Entergy and the
DPS. Docket NRC 50-271-OLA MOU at ¶ 2.
25. Entergy shall perform detailed visual inspections of the torus to confirm that there
are no potential leakage paths during and following the completition of refueling
outages in 2007 and 2008. The MOU defined how these inspections are to take
place. During normal plant operations, Entergy will perform daily rounds in
accessible areas of the torus to identify any potential leakage paths. Docket
NRC 50-271-OLA MOU at ¶ 3.
26. Entergy will provide the DPS with any revisions to the Leakage Rate Testing
Programs between the date of the MOU and completion of the Type A Leak Rate
Test. Docket NRC 50-271-OLA MOU at ¶ 4.
27. Entergy will provide the DPS with a summary of the results of all primary
containment leakage rate tests performed in 2007 and 2008. Docket NRC 50-
271-OLA MOU at ¶ 5.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-27
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 5 Entergy’s Commitments and Ability to Meet Them
Chapter 5, Attachment 2
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 5-28
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
6.0 Nuclear Decommissioning
6.1 Description of Nuclear Decommissioning requirements
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations require that each operator of a
nuclear power plant plan for the eventual decommissioning of the plant and ensure
that adequate funding will be available to decommission the facility.
Decommissioning as defined by the NRC means to remove nuclear facilities safely
from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of
the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. Decommissioning
of nuclear facilities is necessary to protect the general public from the hazards
presented by any radioactive materials that would remain at the facility at the end
of its operating life. General guidance on decommissioning was provided by the
NRC in its rule adopted on June 27, 1988.126 This rule addressed planning needs,
timing, funding methods and environmental review requirements. In 1996 the
NRC published revisions to its general requirements for decommissioning.127 The
purpose of these revisions was to clarify ambiguities and to promote standardized
procedures and terminology to improve efficiency and uniformity in
decommissioning activities. In July 2000 the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.184
which further describes the methods and procedures that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the 1996 revised rule relating
primarily to the initial activities and the major phases of decommissioning.
6.2 Types of Decommissioning
Three decommissioning alternatives acceptable to the NRC are defined as
discussed below.
DECON: is defined as “the alternative in which the equipment, structures,
and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are
removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be
released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations.”
126
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 “General Requirements for
Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53,
Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988
127
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50, 51, “Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
SAFSTOR: is defined as “the alternative in which the nuclear facility is
placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be
safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination)
to levels that permit release for unrestricted use.” Areas of the plant are
generally accessible to conduct maintenance as needed and monitor the
condition of plant systems and structures. Decommissioning is generally
required to be completed within 60 years.
ENTOMB: is defined as “the alternative in which radioactive contaminants
are encased in a structurally long lived material such as concrete; the
entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance
is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting
unrestricted release of the property.” Areas of the plant that have been
entombed are not accessible to plant personnel. Decommissioning under
this scenario must be completed within 60 years.
6.3 Decommissioning Funding Requirements
The NRC rule on decommissioning issued on June 27, 1988 defines
decommissioning as described above and establishes technical requirements and
a mechanism to ensure that sufficient financial assets will be available to cover the
bulk of the activities necessary to decommission all nuclear power facilities. NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.159 “Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning
Nuclear Reactors” issued in August 1990 provides additional guidance to the
operators of nuclear power plants and describes the financial methods acceptable
to the NRC for providing the assurance required by the rule.
The rule required that each holder of an operating license submit a report to
the NRC indicating how the licensee will provide reasonable assurance that funds
will be available for decommissioning. The report was required to contain a cost
estimate for the decommissioning and certification that one of three acceptable
methods of providing financial assurance presented in the regulation would be
utilized. The acceptable methods established by the rule are:
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
1. An external sinking fund that accumulates money for
decommissioning gradually over the plant’s operating life.
Revenues earmarked for decommissioning are invested in a trust
fund that is professionally managed.
2. A prepayment account into which the company makes deposits
before the plant begins operation. The account may be a trust,
escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit or
government securities. It is kept separate from the company’s
other assets and is outside its control.
3. A surety bond, letter of credit or insurance, which guarantees that
decommissioning costs will be paid if the company defaults on its
obligation.
Nuclear plant operators have typically set up sinking funds to accumulate
money to decommission nuclear power plants. It should be noted that the external
sinking fund method of funding decommissioning anticipates that the
decommissioning fund will be of adequate size to decommission that plant only at
the end of the planned life of the facility and then only if the plant owner accurately
forecasts the cost of decommissioning, the escalation of decommissioning costs
and the fund earnings. Significant changes in any of these three factors can result
in a fund shortfall at the end of the operating license. This can be seen as nuclear
plant owners now have to plan for the construction of facilities for long-term on site
storage of spent fuel and for the cost of operating these facilities for many years in
the future. The SAFSTOR method of decommissioning allows for sufficient time
for the decommissioning fund to grow to a level adequate for decommissioning the
plant and for operation of spent fuel storage facilities until the DOE has removed
fuel from the site.
6.4 Decommissioning Planning
Approximately five years before a nuclear plant operator plans to terminate
plant operations, the operator must submit a preliminary decommissioning cost
estimate to the NRC. This cost estimate is typically an update of biannual filings
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
on estimated decommissioning costs and funding that each operator files with the
NRC. Within two years of the shutdown, the operator must submit a post-
shutdown decommissioning activities report to the NRC and affected states. This
report must include a description of the planned decommissioning activities
(DECON or SAFSTOR), a schedule for their completion, a discussion of how site-
specific decommissioning activities will adhere to previously issued environmental
impact statements and an estimate of expected costs. The plant operator is
denied access to the full amount of decommissioning during operations until the
site-specific cost estimate is submitted to the NRC.
The NRC will review the report and hold public meetings to discuss the
operator’s plans and the regulatory oversight process. If no objections are filed,
the operator may begin major decommissioning activities such as the permanent
removal of major radioactive components at the end of 90 days.
6.5 Review of latest Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Study
The most recent study of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs was
conducted by TLG Services, Inc. (an Entergy subsidiary) and issued in January
2007. This study presents the results of a site-specific cost analysis based upon
the design of Vermont Yankee, the quantities of various radioactive materials,
estimated costs for disposal of low-level and high-level radioactive waste and site
restoration to a greenfield condition as committed to by Entergy. The
methodology employed in this study uses a unit cost factor approach and is
based on identifying and estimating the decommissioning costs incurred in a
wide variety of activities including:
• Decontamination Costs;
• Equipment Removal Costs;
• Packaging Costs;
• Transportation Costs;
• Off-site processing Costs;
• Low Level Radwaste Disposal Costs;
• Contingency;
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
• Spent Fuel Management Costs; and
• Site Restoration Costs.
This methodology is typical of site-specific decommissioning studies
currently being performed and the TLG report generally follows the guidance
presented in Regulatory Guide 1.159, Regulatory Guide 1.184 and other NRC
requirements described above.
The volume of Class A, Class B, Class C and Greater than Class C
radioactive wastes are estimated and used to estimate waste disposal costs.
Craft man-hours and utility and contractor man-hours are estimated and priced.
For each scenario analyzed, TLG provides:
• Total Cost to Decommission including contingency;
• Total NRC License Termination Cost;
• Spent Fuel Management Cost;
• Non-nuclear Demolition Cost;
• Low-Level Radioactive Waste Volume (Class A, B and C)
• Low Level Radioactive Waste Volume (Greater than Class
C)
• Total Scrap metal removed; and
• Total Craft Labor Requirements.
A review of these data allows an understanding of the cost drivers for
each scenario.
The TLG study evaluated eight scenarios based on a combination of
shutdown dates (2012 or 2032), decommissioning alternative (DECON or
SAFSTOR) and expectations of the dates that the Department of Energy (DOE)
will begin and complete transfer of spent fuel to a federal repository. A summary
description and the estimated cost for each decommissioning scenario are
shown in Table 6.1below:
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
Table 6.1 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Analysis Scenarios
Scenario Shutdown Decom. 1st Spent Last Spent Cost
Date Alternative Fuel Pickup Fuel Pickup (2006 $)
1 2012 DECON 2017 2042 728,146,000
2 2032 DECON 2017 2057 655,528,000
3 2012 DECON 2057 2082 893,379,000
4 2032 DECON 2042 2082 815,315,000
5 2012 SAFSTOR 2017 2042 803,732,000
6 2032 SAFSTOR 2017 2057 717,372,000
7 2012 SAFSTOR 2057 2082 991,115,000
8 2032 SAFSTOR 2042 2082 932,380,000
Variations in cost in these scenarios are primarily driven by the cost of
spent fuel management. In the above scenarios license termination costs range
from $450,128,000 in scenario 7 to $469,124,000 in scenario 8. The DECON
scenarios (1 – 4) all had license termination costs of approximately
$468,900,000. The site restoration costs for each scenario were also fairly
consistent ranging from $40,053,000 in scenarios 1, 3 and 4 to $44,561,000 in
scenario 2. By contrast, the spent fuel management costs showed significant
variation ranging from $141,986,000 in scenario 2 (the least costly scenario) to
$500,929,000 in scenario 7 (the most costly scenario.) Spent fuel management
costs are driven by the requirement to construct an additional Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in scenarios 1, 3,4,5,7 and 8 and the length of
time that spent fuel remains on the Vermont Yankee site.
6.6 Adequacy of Vermont Yankee decommissioning funding
The adequacy of funding for decommissioning Vermont Yankee depends
on six primary factors. These factors are:
• The balance in the decommissioning fund;
• The estimated cost of decommissioning;
• The earnings rate of the decommissioning fund;
• The rate of escalation of decommissioning costs;
• The period of time until decommissioning begins;
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
• The period of time until decommissioning is completed.
Several variables influence these primary factors including the escalation
of labor rates for decommissioning workers, the escalation of radioactive waste
disposal costs, the date on which the DOE will begin removing spent nuclear fuel
from Vermont Yankee, the date on which the DOE will finish removing spent
nuclear fuel from Vermont Yankee and whether or not the Vermont Yankee
operating license is renewed to permit operation for an additional 20 years until
2032.
10 CFR 50.54(bb) requires that a nuclear plant operator file a report five
years before expiration of the operating license that describes the program by
which Vermont Yankee intends to manage and provide funding for the
management of all irradiated fuel until title to the irradiated fuel is transferred to
the Secretary of Energy. Entergy submitted the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) to the NRC on
March 21, 2007. Entergy describes a scenario in which Vermont Yankee ceases
operation in 2012, the DOE begins to accept spent fuel in 2017 and all spent fuel
is removed from the site by 2042. This scenario is described as Scenario 5 in
the decommissioning cost estimate. In this scenario, decommissioning of the
plant begins in 2042 and is completed in 2050. Entergy discusses financial
assurance on page 5 of the 50.54(bb) report stating:
Assuming a 3% annual growth in the liability, an after-tax rate of
return of 5.59% would be required to meet the distribution
requirements identified in Table 3. At 4% annual rate of growth in
the liability, the required rate of return increases to 6.62%.
The decommissioning trust fund balance for Vermont Yankee was
reported at $416.5 million as of December 31, 2006. Since Entergy
VY acquired Vermont Yankee on July 31, 2002, on an after-tax
basis, funds in the decommissioning have grown at an annual rate
of 6.73%. At this rate, assuming liability growth at 4% or less,
sufficient funds would be available to decommission Vermont
Yankee (including caretaking of the spent fuel) under the scenario
described.128
128
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) Report pursuant to
10 CFR 50.54(bb) dated March 21, 2007, page 5 of 12.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
The report further states:
With the potential for an additional 20 years of fund growth129, there
is a corresponding and significant decrease in the earning
requirements. For example, assuming the plant operates until 2032
and is then placed into SAFSTOR (Scenario 6 in the referenced
analysis), the rate of return required is closer to 4%, assuming a
3% annual growth in the liability.130
6.7 Analysis of Decommissioning Funding
GDS has conducted an analysis of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning
fund and forecast decommissioning costs to determine the required fund earning
rate for the costs identified in the scenarios presented in the most recent
decommissioning cost study by TLG.131 The scenarios analyzed in the TLG
study cover the range of reasonable decommissioning schedules from Scenario
1, prompt decommissioning (DECON) beginning in 2012 with spent fuel delivery
to the DOE in 2017, to delayed decommissioning (SAFSTOR) beginning in 2032
with spent fuel delivery to the DOE beginning in 2057. GDS assumed an
escalation rate of decommissioning costs of 3% and 4% and analyzed each
scenario to determine if the scenario was viable; that is, could it be funded given
the forecast costs and schedule, and if a scenario was determined to be viable,
to determine the fund earnings rate that would be required to fund the annual
expenditures identified in the TLG study.
The schedules of annual decommissioning expenditures (prepared by
TLG Services, Inc. for Entergy) were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The
annual decommissioning expenditures for each year were escalated at rates of
3% and 4% to calculate the yearly expenditures in nominal dollars.
The analysis consisted of calculating the annual rate of return that the
decommissioning fund would be required to earn in order for the fund balance as
of September 30, 2008 ($397.0 million) plus fund earnings to support the
decommissioning expenditures. Annual fund earnings were calculated by
129
This scenario assumes that the Vermont Yankee license is renewed.
130
Ibid.
131
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E11-1559-002,
Rev. 0, Section 5, dated January 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
assuming that all expenditures would occur at mid-year, therefore annual
earnings equal the average annual fund balance multiplied by the rate of return.
The average annual fund balance is equal to the average of the beginning
balance and the ending balance; the ending fund balance is equal to the
beginning balance less annual expenditures.
The rate of return necessary for the fund to cover all expenditures was
determined for each scenario by using the Excel ‘Goal Seek’ command. This
command allows the determination of an input value that is necessary to achieve
a desired result. For this analysis, the desired result is a decommissioning fund
balance equal to zero at the end of the expenditure schedule. The ‘Goal Seek’
feature calculated the rate of return necessary to produce that zero balance.
The decommissioning fund earning rates required to provide the required
funding for the decommissioning scenarios are shown in Table 6.2 below.132 The
detailed analyses including required annual expenditures and yearly
decommissioning fund balances are provided in Attachment 6.1.
Table 6.2 Required Decommissioning Fund Earning Rate
Scenario Shutdown Decom. 1st Spent Last Required Required
Date Alternative Fuel Spent Fund Fund
Pickup Fuel Earning Earning
Pickup Rate at Rate at
3% 4%
Escalation Escalation
1 2012 DECON 2017 2042 12.05% 13.50%
2 2032 DECON 2017 2057 5.07% 6.17%
3 2012 DECON 2057 2082 12.10% 13.53%
4 2032 DECON 2042 2082 5.61% 6.71%
5 2012 SAFSTOR 2017 2042 6.72% 7.89%
6 2032 SAFSTOR 2017 2057 4.60% 5.67%
7 2012 SAFSTOR 2057 2082 6.28% 7.42%
8 2032 SAFSTOR 2042 2082 4.82% 5.89%
As seen from these results, all scenarios except for Scenarios 1 and 3, the
DECON scenarios beginning in 2012, can be funded with reasonably achievable fund
132
The decommissioning fund earning rates shown in Table 6.2 are the rates required to generate sufficient
earnings to fund the decommissioning and spent fuel management activities.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
earning rates, although scenarios 5 and 7 with a decommissioning cost escalation rate
of 4% are at the high end of the range. Scenarios 1 and 3 require unreasonably
high fund earning rates because of the early large expenditures required by the
DECON method before the decommissioning fund has the opportunity for
significant growth. All of the SAFSTOR alternatives at a 3% cost escalation rate
require reasonable decommissioning fund earning rates from 4.60% for Scenario
6 to 6.72% for Scenario 5. At a decommissioning cost escalation rate of 4%,
SAFSTOR scenarios 6 and 8 require reasonable fund earning rates of 5.67%
and 5.89% while scenarios 5 and 7 are at the high end of the range with required
fund earnings of 7.89% and 7.42% respectively.
Note that the required fund earnings rates shown in Table 6.2 above were
calculated based on the value of the decommissioning trust fund on September
30, 2008 of $397,035,937. The unprecedented market decline in October 2008
reduced the value of the decommissioning trust fund to $364,426,383. This
decline in the value of the decommissioning trust fund would result in required
fund earning rates somewhat higher than shown in Table 6.2. While this decline
in the decommissioning trust fund is worrisome, it is reasonable to believe that
over the 60 year life of the decommissioning fund, the earnings would approach
historical rates.
NRC regulations require that unregulated utilities assume a fund earning
rate of not more than 2% real rate of return. That is, the fund cannot be assumed
to earn more than 2% above the assumed escalation rate of decommissioning
costs. In table 6.2 above, the required real rate of return can be determined by
subtracting the assumed escalation rate from the required rate of return shown in
the table. For example, for scenario 6 in Table 6.2, the required real rate of
return with an assumed cost escalation rate of 3% is 1.6%. This is calculated by
subtracting the assumed cost escalation rate of 3% from the required rate of
return of 4.6% to determine the required real rate of return of 1.6%.
Note that the calculations shown in Table 6.2 assume that
decommissioning funds will be eligible for use to fund costs related to spent fuel
management. On March 21, 2007 Entergy submitted its spent fuel management
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
plan to the NRC133 pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(bb), which
requires that licensees of nuclear power plants that are within five years of the
expiration of the reactor operating license submit written notification to the NRC
for its preliminary review and approval of the licensee’s program to manage and
provide funding for management of all spent fuel at the reactor following
permanent cessation of reactor operations. The NRC requested that Entergy
submit a revised spent fuel management plan in part because the plan relied on
withdrawals from the decommissioning trust for spent fuel management
purposes, which is not permitted by regulations, and because Entergy assumed
a rate of return on the decommissioning fund greater than the 2 % allowed by
regulations for a nuclear plant not granted a higher rate of return by a regulating
authority.134 On October 14, 2008, Entergy submitted a revised spent fuel
management plan to the NRC.135 The revised plan is based on shutdown of
Vermont Yankee in 2012 at the expiration of its current operating license. The
plan extends the SAFSTOR period for 60 years such that decommissioning is
completed in 2072. Adequate funding of decommissioning and spent fuel
management is provided assuming a 2% annual real rate of return on the
decommissioning fund and a deposit of $60 million into the decommissioning
trust in the year 2026. Entergy further states that it will make appropriate
submittals for an exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) in order to use the decommissioning
trust funds for spent fuel management expenses. Entergy’s revised spent fuel
management plan is under review by the NRC.
6.8 Reasonableness of Assumed Fund Earning and Cost
Escalation Rates
Assumed fund earning between 4.60% and 7.89% and a
decommissioning cost escalation rate between 3% and 4% appear to be
133
Letter, Entergy to USNRC, Report Pursuant to 10CFR50.54(bb), BVY 07-007, dated March 21, 2007
134
Letter, USNRC to Entergy, Review of the Spent Fuel Management Plan, NVY 08-069, dated July 16,
2008
135
Letter, Entergy to USNRC, Revised Spent Fuel Management Plan Pursuant to 10CFR50.54(bb), BVY
08-077, dated October 14, 2008
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
reasonable and consistent with the assumptions used at other nuclear power
plants although, as mentioned above, the required fund earning rates for
scenarios 5 and 7 at 4% cost escalation are at the high end of the range. A
survey of 14 nuclear plants of similar vintage to Vermont Yankee revealed
assumed fund earning rates from 3.0% to 7.49% and decommissioning cost
escalation rates from 3.0% to 4.09%. The adequacy of decommissioning funds
is driven in part by the difference between the fund earnings rate and the cost
escalation rate. For the 14 nuclear plants described above this difference ranged
from 1.79% to 3.4% with an average of 2.53%. As shown Attachment 6.1, a
difference between fund earning and cost escalation between 1.67 % and 3.42%
is sufficient to fund all but decommissioning scenarios 1, 3 and 5 with an
assumed decommissioning cost escalation rate of 4%.
The Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Trust Fund Report dated
September 30, 2007 provides the rates of return for the Vermont Yankee
qualified and non-qualified decommissioning funds. This report is provided as
Attachment 6.2. Since the inception date of January 31, 2002, these funds have
produced a weighted average after tax rate of return of 6.73%. This rate of
return is sufficient to fund all but decommissioning scenarios 1 and 3 with a 3%
cost escalation rate and all but scenarios 1, 3, 5 and 7 with a cost escalation rate
of 4%. Note that scenarios 1, 3, 5 and 7 are the scenarios based on a 2012
shutdown. All scenarios based on a 2032 shutdown can be funded with
reasonable fund earning rates.
When examining the escalation of estimated decommissioning costs for
Vermont Yankee, one must take care that the comparison is an apples-to-apples
comparison. Recent decommissioning cost estimates have included substantial
sums for spent fuel management until the DOE removes all fuel from the site.
These costs were not included in early decommissioning cost estimates.
Looking at only costs for license termination and site restoration, the Vermont
Yankee decommissioning cost estimate has increased from $312,736,000 for
prompt decommissioning in 1994 to $508,897,000 for a similar scope of
decommissioning activities in 2007. This cost increase represents a 3.82 % per
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
year escalation rate, a rate that is consistent with the assumptions used in
evaluating the adequacy of decommissioning funds.
6.9 Comparison of Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Fund to
Other Nuclear Decommissioning Funds
The current level of funds in the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund
compares reasonably well with other nuclear power plants of similar vintage that
have not yet renewed their operating license. The plant name, license expiration
date and amount in their decommissioning fund as of December 31, 2006 or
(December 2007 if available) is shown in the table below. While the
decommissioning requirements for each plant are unique, the intent of these data
is to show that the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund is in the middle of a
range of funds of similar plants.
Table 6.3. Comparison of Decommissioning Fund Levels136
Plant Name Decommissioning Fund License Expiration Date
($ millions)
Indian Point 1 254.2
Crystal River 3 297.9 2016
Duane Arnold 264.2 2014
Indian Point 2 303.0 2014
Zion 1137 327.7 2013
Zion 2 407.9 2014
Vermont Yankee 427.4 2012
Fitzpatrick 481.5 2014
Pilgrim 582.6 2012
Oyster Creek 650.8 2009
6.10 Impact of license renewal on decommissioning
The most significant impact of the proposed license renewal of Vermont
Yankee on decommissioning of the plant is that more spent fuel will be generated
that must be stored on site until it is transferred off site. The results of the most
recent site-specific decommissioning cost estimate by TLG services Inc. show
that there is little difference in the license termination costs138 or the site
136
Funding levels from 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) filings with the NRC
137
Decommissioning funds for Zion 1 and 2 are for radiological decommissioning only and are reported in
beginning of year 2006 dollars
138
License Termination costs are the costs associated with activities necessary to decommission the plant
and allow the site to be released for public access.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
restoration costs139 if the site is shutdown in 2012 or continues operation to 2032.
License Termination costs and Site Restoration costs for the eight
decommissioning scenarios evaluated by TLG are shown in Table 6.4 below.
The amount of low-level radioactive waste, Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste,
Processed Waste and Scrap Metal for each shutdown scenario are also shown.
Table 6.4. Comparison of 2012 versus 2032 Shutdown140
Scenario Shut- License Site Low- GTCC Processed Scrap
Down Termination Restoration Level Waste Waste Meta
Date Cost Cost Waste Cu.Ft Cu.Ft (tons)l
($ million) ($ million) Cu.Ft (1,000)
(1,000)
1 2012 468.844 40.053 331.405 466 340.035 18,406
2 2032 468.981 44.465 330.212 466 340.035 18,406
3 2012 468.844 40.053 331.404 466 340.035 18,406
4 2032 468.981 40.053 333.062 466 340.035 18,406
5 2012 457.480 41.447 339.372 466 346.312 18,406
6 2032 455.368 41.446 336.113 466 346.312 18,406
7 2012 450.128 40.059 347.921 466 347.487 18,406
8 2032 469.124 43.266 348.220 466 347.487 18,406
These data demonstrate that there is very little difference in terms of cost
or volume of radioactive waste for a shutdown in 2012 compared to a shutdown
in 2032.141
One significant impact of license renewal on decommissioning is the
additional time that the decommissioning fund has to grow before beginning
decommissioning activities. As discussed above, the additional time prior to
decommissioning afforded by license renewal significantly reduces the required
earnings rate of the decommissioning fund to provide the needed funding.
139
Site Restoration costs are costs associated with activities to return the site to the condition it was in prior
to construction of the nuclear plant.
140
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E11-1559-002,
Rev. 0, Section 5, dated January 2007.
141
This table provides the volumes of low level radioactive waste that would be generated during the
decommissioning process. Additional high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) would be generated during
an additional 20 years of plant operation.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
6.11 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the decommissioning cost estimates
for Vermont Yankee and the current funding in the Vermont Yankee
decommissioning fund, GDS has reached the following conclusions:
1. The Vermont Yankee decommissioning cost analysis uses state-of-the-art,
site specific methodology for estimating decommissioning costs at
Vermont Yankee. This methodology is the accepted method used by
most nuclear plant owners and the study was conducted by the firm
recognized as the most experienced in conducting decommissioning cost
studies.
2. The estimated decommissioning costs for the eight scenarios analyzed
are reasonable based on the current knowledge of decommissioning
costs.
3. The Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust fund appears to be adequate
to fund all decommissioning scenarios based upon a plant shutdown in
2032 given reasonable assumptions for fund earnings and
decommissioning cost escalation rates of 3% and 4%. However, recent
experience with the decrease in value of the decommissioning trust fund
and current performance of the equities markets demonstrates the need
for continuous monitoring of fund earnings and the potential for additional
contributions to the fund if conditions warrant. With a plant shutdown in
2012 the Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust fund is adequate to fund
all decommissioning scenarios except for Scenarios 1 and 3 given
reasonable assumptions for fund earnings and decommissioning cost
escalation of 3%. With a decommissioning cost escalation rate of 4%,
scenarios 5 and 7 are at the high end of the reasonable range.
4. A primary cost driver between the decommissioning scenarios is the cost
to store and maintain spent fuel. These costs are driven by the schedule
for the DOE to begin and complete removal of spent fuel from the Vermont
Yankee site.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
5. Renewal of the Vermont Yankee operating license will have little impact
on the cost to decommission the plant or on the amount of low level
radioactive waste requiring disposal during decommissioning. The most
significant impact of license renewal will be the amount of spent fuel
generated and stored at the Vermont Yankee site until removal by the
DOE.
Decommissioning cost estimates and funding analyses are only as
accurate as the underlying assumptions. To ensure that the decommissioning
cost estimates and funding analyses are as accurate as possible, GDS provides
the following recommendations.
1. The owner of Vermont Yankee should conduct periodic reviews of the
assumed decommissioning costs and fund earnings to ensure that the
assumptions used in the cost and funding studies are accurate and reflect
the most recent cost experience in actual plant decommissioning and the
most recent fund earnings rates. These reviews should be conducted
every three years or more frequently when significant changes to
decommissioning costs or fund earnings are identified.
2. The owner of Vermont Yankee should submit to the Public Service Board
and Department of Public Service the periodic analyses of the adequacy
of decommissioning funding that demonstrate that the decommissioning
fund is adequate to address likely decommissioning scenarios. These
analyses should provide the bases and support for the assumed
decommissioning cost escalation and fund earnings.
3. If the periodic decommissioning funding report indicates that the existing
decommissioning fund is not adequate to fund a reasonable
decommissioning scenario, the owner of Vermont Yankee should provide
a course of action to ensure the adequacy of the fund including periodic
contributions to the fund to increase the fund balance to an amount
adequate to fund a reasonable decommissioning scenario.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 6 Nuclear Decommissioning
4. The owner of Vermont Yankee should provide annual reports on the
status of available sites for disposal of low level radioactive waste
including the Texas Compact and other low level waste repositories.
5. The owner of Vermont Yankee should take the necessary actions to
ensure that access to a low level waste repository will be available at the
time of decommissioning.
6. The owner of Vermont Yankee should survey the Vermont Yankee site to
determine the amount of contaminated soil at the site. The costs of
removal of contaminated soil should be included in future
decommissioning cost estimates.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 6-17
Attachment 6.1 to
Exhibit DPS-WRJ-2
Decommissioning Fund Analysis
Required Earnings Rates for Each Scenario
Required Earnings on Differential from
Case Description Fund Escalation Rate
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017 13.50% 9.50%
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017 6.17% 2.17%
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057 13.53% 9.53%
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042 6.71% 2.71%
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017 7.89% 3.89%
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017 5.67% 1.67%
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057 7.42% 3.42%
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042 5.89% 1.89%
Note: Schedule of Annual Expenditures are from
"Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station",
Document E11-1559-002, Rev. 0, dated January
2007.
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 13.50%
Last Year of Expense 2043
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 35,993 7,711 688 40 7,019 51,451
2013 55,067 18,798 1,269 16,261 18,500 109,895
2014 53,516 26,892 808 36,069 9,111 126,396
2015 47,071 18,213 653 16,061 6,523 88,521
2016 46,579 17,426 640 14,176 6,292 85,113
2017 41,612 14,249 546 12,699 6,080 75,186
2018 20,880 2,817 203 2,056 13,621 39,577
2019 20,718 6,079 85 0 3,004 29,886
2020 10,998 2,932 62 0 2,089 16,081
2021 2,845 222 43 0 1,319 4,429
2022 2,845 222 43 0 1,319 4,429
2023 2,824 167 43 0 1,319 4,353
2024 2,811 111 43 0 1,323 4,288
2025 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2026 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2027 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2028 2,811 111 43 0 1,323 4,288
2029 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2030 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2031 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2032 2,769 0 43 0 1,323 4,135
2033 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2034 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2035 2,824 167 43 0 1,319 4,353
2036 2,790 56 43 0 1,323 4,212
2037 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2038 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2039 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2040 2,811 111 43 0 1,323 4,288
2041 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2042 2,887 557 43 3 7,827 11,317
2043 1,444 863 42 377 2,220 4,946
395,647 118,816 5,942 97,742 110,005 728,152
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 45,543 9,757 871 51 8,881 65,102
2013 72,464 24,737 1,670 21,398 24,345 144,614
2014 73,240 36,804 1,106 49,363 12,469 172,982
2015 66,997 25,923 929 22,860 9,284 125,993
2016 68,948 25,795 947 20,984 9,314 125,988
2017 64,060 21,936 841 19,550 9,360 115,745
2018 33,430 4,510 325 3,292 21,808 63,364
2019 34,497 10,122 142 0 5,002 49,762
2020 19,045 5,077 107 0 3,617 27,847
2021 5,124 400 77 0 2,375 7,976
2022 5,329 416 81 0 2,470 8,295
2023 5,501 325 84 0 2,569 8,479
2024 5,695 225 87 0 2,680 8,687
2025 5,905 234 91 0 2,779 9,009
2026 6,142 243 94 0 2,890 9,369
2027 6,387 253 98 0 3,006 9,744
2028 6,662 263 102 0 3,135 10,162
2029 6,857 138 106 0 3,251 10,352
2030 7,185 285 110 0 3,381 10,961
2031 7,472 296 115 0 3,516 11,399
2032 7,677 0 119 0 3,668 11,464
2033 8,022 161 124 0 3,803 12,110
2034 8,342 168 129 0 3,955 12,595
2035 8,807 521 134 0 4,114 13,575
2036 9,049 182 139 0 4,291 13,661
2037 9,455 374 145 0 4,449 14,424
2038 9,833 389 151 0 4,627 15,000
2039 10,226 405 157 0 4,812 15,600
2040 10,666 421 163 0 5,020 16,270
2041 10,978 221 170 0 5,205 16,574
2042 11,848 2,286 176 12 32,121 46,444
2043 6,163 3,683 179 1,609 9,475 21,110
2044 0 0 0 0 0 0
2045 0 0 0 0 0 0
2046 0 0 0 0 0 0
2047 0 0 0 0 0 0
2048 0 0 0 0 0 0
2049 0 0 0 0 0 0
2050 0 0 0 0 0 0
2051 0 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
657,548 176,549 9,769 139,118 221,674 1,204,659
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 599,121 534,019 566,570 76,463 610,482
2013 610,482 465,868 538,175 72,631 538,499
2014 538,499 365,518 452,009 61,002 426,520
2015 426,520 300,527 363,524 49,061 349,588
2016 349,588 223,600 286,594 38,678 262,278
2017 262,278 146,532 204,405 27,586 174,118
2018 174,118 110,754 142,436 19,223 129,977
2019 129,977 80,215 105,096 14,184 94,399
2020 94,399 66,552 80,475 10,861 77,412
2021 77,412 69,436 73,424 9,909 79,345
2022 79,345 71,050 75,197 10,149 81,198
2023 81,198 72,719 76,959 10,386 83,105
2024 83,105 74,419 78,762 10,630 85,048
2025 85,048 76,039 80,544 10,870 86,909
2026 86,909 77,540 82,225 11,097 88,637
2027 88,637 78,893 83,765 11,305 90,198
2028 90,198 80,035 85,117 11,487 91,523
2029 91,523 81,171 86,347 11,653 92,824
2030 92,824 81,863 87,344 11,788 93,651
2031 93,651 82,252 87,952 11,870 94,122
2032 94,122 82,658 88,390 11,929 94,587
2033 94,587 82,476 88,532 11,948 94,424
2034 94,424 81,830 88,127 11,894 93,723
2035 93,723 80,148 86,936 11,733 91,881
2036 91,881 78,219 85,050 11,478 89,698
2037 89,698 75,274 82,486 11,132 86,406
2038 86,406 71,406 78,906 10,649 82,055
2039 82,055 66,454 74,255 10,021 76,476
2040 76,476 60,206 68,341 9,223 69,429
2041 69,429 52,855 61,142 8,252 61,107
2042 61,107 14,663 37,885 5,113 19,776
2043 19,776 (1,334) 9,221 1,334 (0)
2044 0 0 0 0 0
2045 0 0 0 0 0
2046 0 0 0 0 0
2047 0 0 0 0 0
2048 0 0 0 0 0
2049 0 0 0 0 0
2050 0 0 0 0 0
2051 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 6.17%
Last Year of Expense 2058
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 33,738 944 688 40 7,019 42,429
2033 52,185 10,151 1,269 16,291 18,500 98,396
2034 49,472 14,759 808 36,168 9,111 110,318
2035 45,298 12,892 653 16,069 6,523 81,435
2036 45,020 12,747 640 14,176 6,292 78,875
2037 40,506 10,930 546 12,699 6,080 70,761
2038 20,762 2,594 203 2,056 13,621 39,236
2039 19,570 5,441 85 0 2,999 28,095
2040 15,522 4,224 75 0 2,593 22,414
2041 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2042 2,760 0 43 0 1,319 4,122
2043 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2044 2,811 109 43 0 1,323 4,286
2045 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2046 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2047 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2048 2,811 109 43 0 1,323 4,286
2049 2,781 55 43 0 1,319 4,198
2050 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2051 2,760 0 43 0 1,319 4,122
2052 2,811 109 43 0 1,323 4,286
2053 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2054 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2055 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2056 2,789 55 43 0 1,323 4,210
2057 2,890 550 43 2 7,826 11,311
2058 1,223 640 42 298 2,091 4,294
370,936 77,290 5,740 97,799 103,775 655,540
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 93,538 2,617 1,907 111 19,460 117,633
2033 150,469 29,269 3,659 46,973 53,342 283,712
2034 148,352 44,258 2,423 108,457 27,321 330,811
2035 141,269 40,206 2,036 50,114 20,343 253,967
2036 146,018 41,344 2,076 45,978 20,407 255,823
2037 136,632 36,868 1,842 42,835 20,509 238,686
2038 72,834 9,100 712 7,213 47,783 137,642
2039 71,399 19,851 310 0 10,941 102,501
2040 58,895 16,027 285 0 9,839 85,046
2041 11,061 430 170 0 5,205 16,866
2042 11,327 0 176 0 5,413 16,916
2043 11,963 465 184 0 5,630 18,242
2044 12,478 484 191 0 5,873 19,025
2045 12,940 503 199 0 6,089 19,730
2046 13,457 523 206 0 6,333 20,520
2047 13,996 544 215 0 6,586 21,340
2048 14,597 566 223 0 6,870 22,256
2049 15,019 297 232 0 7,123 22,671
2050 15,743 612 242 0 7,408 24,005
2051 16,122 0 251 0 7,705 24,077
2052 17,076 662 261 0 8,037 26,037
2053 17,709 689 272 0 8,333 27,002
2054 18,417 716 283 0 8,667 28,082
2055 19,154 745 294 0 9,013 29,206
2056 19,821 391 306 0 9,402 29,919
2057 21,360 4,065 318 15 57,842 83,599
2058 9,401 4,919 323 2,291 16,073 33,006
2059 0 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,291,044 256,152 19,594 303,986 417,546 2,288,322
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,597,474 1,479,841 1,538,658 94,945 1,574,786
2033 1,574,786 1,291,074 1,432,930 88,421 1,379,495
2034 1,379,495 1,048,684 1,214,090 74,917 1,123,602
2035 1,123,602 869,634 996,618 61,498 931,132
2036 931,132 675,309 803,221 49,564 724,873
2037 724,873 486,187 605,530 37,365 523,552
2038 523,552 385,910 454,731 28,060 413,969
2039 413,969 311,468 362,719 22,382 333,850
2040 333,850 248,805 291,327 17,977 266,781
2041 266,781 249,916 258,349 15,942 265,858
2042 265,858 248,941 257,399 15,883 264,824
2043 264,824 246,582 255,703 15,779 262,361
2044 262,361 243,336 252,849 15,602 258,939
2045 258,939 239,208 249,074 15,369 254,578
2046 254,578 234,058 244,318 15,076 249,134
2047 249,134 227,794 238,464 14,715 242,509
2048 242,509 220,252 231,381 14,278 234,530
2049 234,530 211,859 223,194 13,773 225,631
2050 225,631 201,626 213,629 13,182 214,809
2051 214,809 190,731 202,770 12,512 203,244
2052 203,244 177,207 190,225 11,738 188,945
2053 188,945 161,943 175,444 10,826 172,769
2054 172,769 144,686 158,727 9,795 154,481
2055 154,481 125,275 139,878 8,631 133,906
2056 133,906 103,987 118,947 7,340 111,327
2057 111,327 27,728 69,528 4,290 32,018
2058 32,018 (988) 15,515 988 (0)
2059 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 13.53%
Last Year of Expense 2083
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 35,993 7,711 688 40 7,019 51,451
2013 55,067 18,798 1,269 16,261 18,500 109,895
2014 53,516 26,892 808 36,069 9,111 126,396
2015 47,071 18,213 653 16,061 6,523 88,521
2016 46,579 17,426 640 14,176 6,292 85,113
2017 41,600 14,213 546 12,699 6,080 75,138
2018 20,800 2,578 203 2,056 13,621 39,258
2019 20,698 6,019 85 0 3,004 29,806
2020 10,929 2,737 62 0 2,089 15,817
2021 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2022 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2023 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2024 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2025 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2026 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2027 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2028 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2029 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2030 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2031 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2032 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2033 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2034 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2035 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2036 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2037 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2038 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2039 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2040 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2041 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2042 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2043 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2044 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2045 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2046 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2047 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2048 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2049 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2050 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2051 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2052 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2053 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2054 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2055 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2056 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2057 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2058 2,862 286 43 0 1,319 4,510
2059 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2060 2,831 172 43 0 1,323 4,369
2061 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2062 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2063 2,824 172 43 0 1,319 4,358
2064 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2065 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2066 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2067 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2068 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2069 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2070 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2071 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2072 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2073 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2074 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2075 2,824 172 43 0 1,319 4,358
2076 2,793 57 43 0 1,323 4,216
2077 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2078 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2079 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2080 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2081 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2082 2,882 566 43 3 7,827 11,321
2083 1,444 863 42 377 2,220 4,946
506,402 118,815 7,662 97,742 162,805 893,426
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 45,543 9,757 871 51 8,881 65,102
2013 72,464 24,737 1,670 21,398 24,345 144,614
2014 73,240 36,804 1,106 49,363 12,469 172,982
2015 66,997 25,923 929 22,860 9,284 125,993
2016 68,948 25,795 947 20,984 9,314 125,988
2017 64,041 21,880 841 19,550 9,360 115,671
2018 33,301 4,127 325 3,292 21,808 62,853
2019 34,464 10,022 142 0 5,002 49,629
2020 18,925 4,740 107 0 3,617 27,390
2021 4,983 0 77 0 2,375 7,436
2022 5,183 0 81 0 2,470 7,734
2023 5,390 0 84 0 2,569 8,043
2024 5,620 0 87 0 2,680 8,387
2025 5,830 0 91 0 2,779 8,699
2026 6,063 0 94 0 2,890 9,047
2027 6,305 0 98 0 3,006 9,409
2028 6,574 0 102 0 3,135 9,811
2029 6,820 0 106 0 3,251 10,177
2030 7,093 0 110 0 3,381 10,584
2031 7,376 0 115 0 3,516 11,007
2032 7,691 0 119 0 3,668 11,478
2033 7,978 0 124 0 3,803 11,905
2034 8,297 0 129 0 3,955 12,382
2035 8,629 0 134 0 4,114 12,877
2036 8,997 0 139 0 4,291 13,428
2037 9,333 0 145 0 4,449 13,928
2038 9,707 0 151 0 4,627 14,485
2039 10,095 0 157 0 4,812 15,064
2040 10,525 0 163 0 5,020 15,708
2041 10,919 0 170 0 5,205 16,293
2042 11,356 0 176 0 5,413 16,945
2043 11,810 0 184 0 5,630 17,623
2044 12,313 0 191 0 5,873 18,377
2045 12,773 0 199 0 6,089 19,061
2046 13,284 0 206 0 6,333 19,823
2047 13,816 0 215 0 6,586 20,616
2048 14,405 0 223 0 6,870 21,498
2049 14,943 0 232 0 7,123 22,299
2050 15,541 0 242 0 7,408 23,191
2051 16,163 0 251 0 7,705 24,118
2052 16,852 0 261 0 8,037 25,150
2053 17,481 0 272 0 8,333 26,086
2054 18,181 0 283 0 8,667 27,130
2055 18,908 0 294 0 9,013 28,215
2056 19,714 0 306 0 9,402 29,422
2057 20,451 0 318 0 9,749 30,517
2058 21,999 2,198 331 0 10,139 34,667
2059 22,120 0 344 0 10,544 33,007
2060 23,536 1,430 357 0 10,999 36,323
2061 24,582 1,980 372 0 11,405 38,338
2062 25,565 2,059 387 0 11,861 39,872
2063 26,410 1,609 402 0 12,335 40,756
2064 27,349 1,109 418 0 12,867 41,744
2065 28,373 1,153 435 0 13,342 43,302
2066 29,508 1,199 452 0 13,875 45,035
2067 30,688 1,247 470 0 14,430 46,836
2068 31,995 1,297 489 0 15,053 48,835
2069 32,967 674 509 0 15,608 49,758
2070 34,520 1,403 529 0 16,232 52,684
2071 35,900 1,459 550 0 16,882 54,791
2072 36,924 0 572 0 17,610 55,106
2073 38,567 789 595 0 18,259 58,210
2074 40,110 821 619 0 18,989 60,539
2075 42,283 2,575 644 0 19,749 65,251
2076 43,492 888 670 0 20,601 65,650
2077 45,426 1,846 696 0 21,361 69,329
2078 47,243 1,920 724 0 22,215 72,102
2079 49,132 1,997 753 0 23,104 74,986
2080 51,225 2,077 783 0 24,101 78,186
2081 52,781 1,080 815 0 24,989 79,665
2082 56,784 11,152 847 59 154,216 223,058
2083 29,589 17,684 861 7,725 45,490 101,349
1,814,389 225,430 27,890 145,281 894,563 3,107,554
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 599,787 534,685 567,236 76,773 611,458
2013 611,458 466,844 539,151 72,972 539,816
2014 539,816 366,835 453,325 61,356 428,190
2015 428,190 302,197 365,194 49,428 351,625
2016 351,625 225,637 288,631 39,065 264,702
2017 264,702 149,031 206,867 27,999 177,029
2018 177,029 114,176 145,603 19,707 133,883
2019 133,883 84,254 109,068 14,762 99,016
2020 99,016 71,626 85,321 11,548 83,174
2021 83,174 75,738 79,456 10,754 86,492
2022 86,492 78,758 82,625 11,183 89,941
2023 89,941 81,898 85,920 11,629 93,527
2024 93,527 85,140 89,334 12,091 97,231
2025 97,231 88,532 92,882 12,571 101,103
2026 101,103 92,056 96,580 13,072 105,128
2027 105,128 95,719 100,423 13,592 109,311
2028 109,311 99,499 104,405 14,131 113,630
2029 113,630 103,453 108,542 14,691 118,144
2030 118,144 107,560 112,852 15,274 122,834
2031 122,834 111,827 117,330 15,880 127,707
2032 127,707 116,229 121,968 16,508 132,737
2033 132,737 120,832 126,784 17,160 137,991
2034 137,991 125,610 131,801 17,839 143,448
2035 143,448 130,572 137,010 18,544 149,115
2036 149,115 135,688 142,401 19,274 154,961
2037 154,961 141,034 147,997 20,031 161,064
2038 161,064 146,580 153,822 20,819 167,399
2039 167,399 152,335 159,867 21,637 173,972
2040 173,972 158,264 166,118 22,483 180,747
2041 180,747 164,454 172,600 23,361 187,815
2042 187,815 170,869 179,342 24,273 195,143
2043 195,143 177,520 186,331 25,219 202,739
2044 202,739 184,362 193,551 26,196 210,559
2045 210,559 191,498 201,028 27,208 218,706
2046 218,706 198,883 208,794 28,260 227,142
2047 227,142 206,526 216,834 29,348 235,874
2048 235,874 214,375 225,125 30,470 244,845
2049 244,845 222,547 233,696 31,630 254,176
2050 254,176 230,986 242,581 32,832 263,818
2051 263,818 239,700 251,759 34,075 273,775
2052 273,775 248,625 261,200 35,352 283,978
2053 283,978 257,891 270,934 36,670 294,561
2054 294,561 267,432 280,996 38,032 305,463
2055 305,463 277,249 291,356 39,434 316,682
2056 316,682 287,261 301,972 40,871 328,132
2057 328,132 297,614 312,873 42,346 339,961
2058 339,961 305,294 322,627 43,666 348,960
2059 348,960 315,953 332,457 44,997 360,950
2060 360,950 324,627 342,788 46,395 371,022
2061 371,022 332,684 351,853 47,622 380,306
2062 380,306 340,434 360,370 48,775 389,209
2063 389,209 348,454 368,831 49,920 398,374
2064 398,374 356,630 377,502 51,093 407,723
2065 407,723 364,421 386,072 52,253 416,674
2066 416,674 371,640 394,157 53,348 424,987
2067 424,987 378,151 401,569 54,351 432,502
2068 432,502 383,668 408,085 55,233 438,901
2069 438,901 389,142 414,022 56,036 445,179
2070 445,179 392,495 418,837 56,688 449,183
2071 449,183 394,391 421,787 57,087 451,479
2072 451,479 396,372 423,925 57,377 453,749
2073 453,749 395,539 424,644 57,474 453,013
2074 453,013 392,474 422,743 57,217 449,691
2075 449,691 384,440 417,065 56,448 440,888
2076 440,888 375,238 408,063 55,230 430,468
2077 430,468 361,139 395,804 53,571 414,710
2078 414,710 342,608 378,659 51,250 393,858
2079 393,858 318,873 356,366 48,233 367,105
2080 367,105 288,920 328,013 44,395 333,315
2081 333,315 253,650 293,483 39,722 293,372
2082 293,372 70,314 181,843 24,612 94,926
2083 94,926 (6,424) 44,251 6,424 (0)
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 6.71%
Last Year of Expense 2083
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 38,250 14,481 688 40 7,019 60,478
2033 57,276 25,423 1,269 16,291 18,500 118,759
2034 54,255 29,108 808 36,168 9,111 129,450
2035 45,503 13,508 653 16,069 6,523 82,256
2036 44,784 12,041 640 14,176 6,292 77,933
2037 40,289 10,279 546 12,699 6,080 69,893
2038 20,748 2,422 203 2,056 13,621 39,050
2039 20,698 6,019 85 0 3,004 29,806
2040 10,929 2,737 62 0 2,089 15,817
2041 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2042 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2043 2,862 286 43 0 1,319 4,510
2044 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2045 2,824 172 43 0 1,319 4,358
2046 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2047 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2048 2,831 172 43 0 1,323 4,369
2049 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2050 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2051 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2052 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2053 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2054 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2055 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2056 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2057 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2058 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2059 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2060 2,831 172 43 0 1,323 4,369
2061 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2062 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2063 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2064 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2065 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2066 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2067 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2068 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2069 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2070 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2071 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2072 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2073 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2074 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2075 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2076 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2077 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2078 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2079 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2080 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2081 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2082 2,883 567 43 4 7,828 11,325
2083 1,662 1,023 42 488 2,330 5,545
452,200 121,832 6,802 97,991 136,516 815,341
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 106,047 40,148 1,907 111 19,460 167,673
2033 165,148 73,304 3,659 46,973 53,342 342,426
2034 162,695 87,286 2,423 108,457 27,321 388,182
2035 141,908 42,127 2,036 50,114 20,343 256,528
2036 145,252 39,054 2,076 45,978 20,407 252,768
2037 135,900 34,672 1,842 42,835 20,509 235,758
2038 72,785 8,497 712 7,213 47,783 136,990
2039 75,514 21,960 310 0 10,960 108,744
2040 41,468 10,385 235 0 7,926 60,015
2041 10,919 0 170 0 5,205 16,293
2042 11,356 0 176 0 5,413 16,945
2043 12,215 1,221 184 0 5,630 19,249
2044 12,313 0 191 0 5,873 18,377
2045 13,037 794 199 0 6,089 20,118
2046 13,649 1,099 206 0 6,333 21,288
2047 14,195 1,143 215 0 6,586 22,139
2048 14,701 893 223 0 6,870 22,687
2049 15,148 616 232 0 7,123 23,120
2050 15,754 640 242 0 7,408 24,044
2051 16,384 666 251 0 7,705 25,006
2052 17,082 693 261 0 8,037 26,073
2053 17,721 720 272 0 8,333 27,047
2054 18,305 375 283 0 8,667 27,629
2055 19,168 779 294 0 9,013 29,254
2056 19,984 810 306 0 9,402 30,502
2057 20,451 0 318 0 9,749 30,517
2058 21,415 438 331 0 10,139 32,322
2059 22,271 456 344 0 10,544 33,615
2060 23,536 1,430 357 0 10,999 36,323
2061 24,253 986 372 0 11,405 37,015
2062 25,052 513 387 0 11,861 37,812
2063 26,232 1,066 402 0 12,335 40,036
2064 27,349 1,109 418 0 12,867 41,744
2065 28,373 1,153 435 0 13,342 43,302
2066 29,508 1,199 452 0 13,875 45,035
2067 30,272 0 470 0 14,430 45,173
2068 31,995 1,297 489 0 15,053 48,835
2069 33,192 1,349 509 0 15,608 50,658
2070 34,520 1,403 529 0 16,232 52,684
2071 35,657 730 550 0 16,882 53,819
2072 37,430 1,517 572 0 17,610 57,129
2073 38,830 1,578 595 0 18,259 59,262
2074 40,383 1,641 619 0 18,989 61,633
2075 41,998 1,707 644 0 19,749 64,098
2076 43,196 0 670 0 20,601 64,466
2077 45,426 1,846 696 0 21,361 69,329
2078 47,243 1,920 724 0 22,215 72,102
2079 49,132 1,997 753 0 23,104 74,986
2080 51,225 2,077 783 0 24,101 78,186
2081 52,781 1,080 815 0 24,989 79,665
2082 56,804 11,172 847 79 154,236 223,137
2083 34,056 20,962 861 10,000 47,744 113,624
2084 0 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,241,231 428,506 33,847 311,759 950,016 3,965,360
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,798,597 1,630,923 1,714,760 115,121 1,746,044
2033 1,746,044 1,403,619 1,574,832 105,727 1,509,345
2034 1,509,345 1,121,163 1,315,254 88,300 1,209,463
2035 1,209,463 952,936 1,081,200 72,587 1,025,522
2036 1,025,522 772,755 899,139 60,364 833,119
2037 833,119 597,360 715,240 48,018 645,378
2038 645,378 508,389 576,883 38,729 547,118
2039 547,118 438,374 492,746 33,081 471,455
2040 471,455 411,440 441,448 29,637 441,077
2041 441,077 424,784 432,930 29,065 453,848
2042 453,848 436,903 445,376 29,900 466,804
2043 466,804 447,555 457,179 30,693 478,248
2044 478,248 459,871 469,059 31,490 491,361
2045 491,361 471,243 481,302 32,312 503,556
2046 503,556 482,268 492,912 33,092 515,360
2047 515,360 493,221 504,290 33,856 527,076
2048 527,076 504,389 515,733 34,624 539,013
2049 539,013 515,894 527,453 35,411 551,304
2050 551,304 527,260 539,282 36,205 563,465
2051 563,465 538,459 550,962 36,989 575,448
2052 575,448 549,375 562,411 37,758 587,132
2053 587,132 560,086 573,609 38,509 598,595
2054 598,595 570,966 584,781 39,259 610,226
2055 610,226 580,972 595,599 39,986 620,958
2056 620,958 590,456 605,707 40,664 631,121
2057 631,121 600,603 615,862 41,346 641,949
2058 641,949 609,627 625,788 42,013 651,640
2059 651,640 618,025 634,832 42,620 660,645
2060 660,645 624,322 642,483 43,133 667,455
2061 667,455 630,440 648,947 43,567 674,007
2062 674,007 636,195 655,101 43,980 680,175
2063 680,175 640,140 660,158 44,320 684,460
2064 684,460 642,716 663,588 44,550 687,266
2065 687,266 643,964 665,615 44,686 688,650
2066 688,650 643,615 666,133 44,721 688,336
2067 688,336 643,164 665,750 44,695 687,859
2068 687,859 639,024 663,442 44,540 683,565
2069 683,565 632,907 658,236 44,191 677,098
2070 677,098 624,414 650,756 43,689 668,103
2071 668,103 614,284 641,193 43,047 657,331
2072 657,331 600,201 628,766 42,212 642,414
2073 642,414 583,152 612,783 41,139 624,291
2074 624,291 562,658 593,475 39,843 602,501
2075 602,501 538,403 570,452 38,298 576,701
2076 576,701 512,234 544,467 36,553 548,787
2077 548,787 479,459 514,123 34,516 513,974
2078 513,974 441,873 477,924 32,086 473,958
2079 473,958 398,972 436,465 29,302 428,275
2080 428,275 350,089 389,182 26,128 376,217
2081 376,217 296,552 336,385 22,583 319,136
2082 319,136 95,998 207,567 13,935 109,933
2083 109,933 (3,690) 53,122 3,690 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 7.89%
Last Year of Expense 2050
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 29,849 7,376 688 40 7,019 44,972
2013 32,429 13,384 646 1,353 15,546 63,358
2014 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2015 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2016 13,403 13,710 171 33 4,244 31,561
2017 10,591 9,537 144 32 3,342 23,646
2018 4,506 592 85 31 1,355 6,569
2019 4,402 315 85 31 1,355 6,188
2020 4,476 482 85 31 1,358 6,432
2021 4,485 537 85 31 1,355 6,493
2022 4,485 537 85 31 1,355 6,493
2023 4,464 481 85 31 1,355 6,416
2024 4,456 427 85 31 1,358 6,357
2025 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2026 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2027 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2028 4,456 427 85 31 1,358 6,357
2029 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2030 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2031 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2032 4,414 316 85 31 1,358 6,204
2033 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2034 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2035 4,464 481 85 31 1,355 6,416
2036 4,435 371 85 31 1,358 6,280
2037 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2038 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2039 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2040 4,456 427 85 31 1,358 6,357
2041 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2042 4,593 650 87 31 1,359 6,720
2043 28,682 1,102 851 61 2,797 33,493
2044 48,333 14,124 832 29,333 11,531 104,153
2045 40,148 8,595 682 23,884 8,751 82,060
2046 35,585 3,897 638 14,091 5,578 59,789
2047 35,585 3,897 638 14,091 5,578 59,789
2048 20,388 1,851 280 3,386 12,971 38,876
2049 18,898 6,192 85 0 1,926 27,101
2050 9,009 2,952 41 0 918 12,920
460,970 124,892 8,163 87,145 122,564 803,734
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 37,769 9,333 871 51 8,881 56,904
2013 42,674 17,612 850 1,780 20,457 83,375
2014 18,294 18,711 233 45 5,793 43,076
2015 19,025 19,460 242 47 6,025 44,799
2016 19,840 20,294 253 49 6,282 46,718
2017 16,304 14,682 222 49 5,145 36,402
2018 7,214 948 136 50 2,169 10,517
2019 7,330 524 142 52 2,256 10,303
2020 7,751 835 147 54 2,352 11,138
2021 8,077 967 153 56 2,440 11,694
2022 8,400 1,006 159 58 2,538 12,161
2023 8,695 937 166 60 2,639 12,498
2024 9,027 865 172 63 2,751 12,878
2025 9,363 898 179 65 2,855 13,360
2026 9,737 933 186 68 2,969 13,894
2027 10,127 971 194 71 3,088 14,450
2028 10,560 1,012 201 73 3,218 15,066
2029 10,901 912 210 76 3,340 15,439
2030 11,391 1,092 218 79 3,473 16,254
2031 11,847 1,136 227 83 3,612 16,904
2032 12,238 876 236 86 3,765 17,200
2033 12,753 1,067 245 89 3,907 18,061
2034 13,263 1,110 255 93 4,063 18,784
2035 13,922 1,500 265 97 4,226 20,009
2036 14,384 1,203 276 101 4,405 20,369
2037 14,990 1,437 287 105 4,571 21,389
2038 15,590 1,494 298 109 4,753 22,245
2039 16,213 1,554 310 113 4,944 23,134
2040 16,907 1,620 323 118 5,153 24,120
2041 17,454 1,460 335 122 5,347 24,718
2042 18,849 2,668 357 127 5,577 27,578
2043 122,417 4,703 3,632 260 11,938 142,951
2044 214,541 62,694 3,693 130,204 51,184 462,316
2045 185,338 39,678 3,148 110,257 40,398 378,819
2046 170,844 18,710 3,063 67,651 26,780 287,048
2047 177,678 19,458 3,186 70,357 27,851 298,530
2048 105,870 9,612 1,454 17,583 67,356 201,875
2049 102,059 33,440 459 0 10,401 146,359
2050 50,599 16,580 230 0 5,156 72,565
2051 0 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,580,239 333,990 27,211 400,401 384,059 2,725,900
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 508,223 451,319 479,771 37,867 489,186
2013 489,186 405,811 447,498 35,320 441,131
2014 441,131 398,055 419,593 33,117 431,172
2015 431,172 386,374 408,773 32,263 418,637
2016 418,637 371,919 395,278 31,198 403,117
2017 403,117 366,715 384,916 30,380 397,095
2018 397,095 386,578 391,837 30,927 417,505
2019 417,505 407,201 412,353 32,546 439,747
2020 439,747 428,609 434,178 34,268 462,877
2021 462,877 451,184 457,031 36,072 487,256
2022 487,256 475,095 481,175 37,978 513,072
2023 513,072 500,575 506,824 40,002 540,577
2024 540,577 527,699 534,138 42,158 569,857
2025 569,857 556,497 563,177 44,450 600,947
2026 600,947 587,053 594,000 46,883 633,936
2027 633,936 619,486 626,711 49,464 668,951
2028 668,951 653,885 661,418 52,204 706,089
2029 706,089 690,650 698,370 55,120 745,770
2030 745,770 729,516 737,643 58,220 787,736
2031 787,736 770,832 779,284 61,507 832,339
2032 832,339 815,139 823,739 65,015 880,154
2033 880,154 862,093 871,123 68,755 930,848
2034 930,848 912,064 921,456 72,728 984,792
2035 984,792 964,783 974,787 76,937 1,041,720
2036 1,041,720 1,021,351 1,031,535 81,416 1,102,767
2037 1,102,767 1,081,378 1,092,073 86,194 1,167,572
2038 1,167,572 1,145,328 1,156,450 91,275 1,236,603
2039 1,236,603 1,213,469 1,225,036 96,689 1,310,157
2040 1,310,157 1,286,037 1,298,097 102,455 1,388,492
2041 1,388,492 1,363,774 1,376,133 108,614 1,472,388
2042 1,472,388 1,444,809 1,458,598 115,123 1,559,932
2043 1,559,932 1,416,981 1,488,457 117,480 1,534,461
2044 1,534,461 1,072,145 1,303,303 102,866 1,175,011
2045 1,175,011 796,192 985,601 77,791 873,983
2046 873,983 586,934 730,458 57,653 644,587
2047 644,587 346,057 495,322 39,094 385,152
2048 385,152 183,277 284,214 22,432 205,709
2049 205,709 59,350 132,530 10,460 69,810
2050 69,810 (2,755) 33,528 2,755 (0)
2051 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 5.67%
Last Year of Expense 2065
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 27,594 609 688 40 7,019 35,950
2033 30,036 6,204 646 1,353 15,546 53,785
2034 10,946 6,409 170 33 4,233 21,791
2035 10,946 6,409 170 33 4,233 21,791
2036 10,976 6,427 171 33 4,244 21,851
2037 8,921 4,526 144 32 3,342 16,965
2038 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2039 4,427 381 85 31 1,355 6,279
2040 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2041 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2042 4,406 325 85 31 1,355 6,202
2043 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2044 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2045 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2046 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2047 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2048 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2049 4,427 381 85 31 1,355 6,279
2050 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2051 4,406 325 85 31 1,355 6,202
2052 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2053 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2054 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2055 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2056 4,439 382 85 31 1,358 6,295
2057 4,597 661 87 31 1,359 6,735
2058 28,682 1,102 851 61 2,797 33,493
2059 48,187 14,068 830 29,576 11,490 104,151
2060 40,262 8,642 685 24,214 8,794 82,597
2061 35,541 3,877 638 14,069 5,564 59,689
2062 35,541 3,877 638 14,069 5,564 59,689
2063 20,325 1,827 280 3,381 12,962 38,775
2064 18,889 6,108 85 0 1,903 26,985
2065 8,980 2,904 41 0 905 12,830
424,848 81,552 7,739 87,514 115,715 717,368
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 76,504 1,688 1,907 111 19,460 99,670
2033 86,605 17,888 1,863 3,901 44,825 155,082
2034 32,824 19,219 510 99 12,694 65,345
2035 34,137 19,987 530 103 13,201 67,959
2036 35,600 20,845 555 107 13,765 70,871
2037 30,092 15,267 486 108 11,273 57,225
2038 15,604 1,530 298 109 4,753 22,294
2039 16,151 1,390 310 113 4,944 22,908
2040 16,923 1,658 323 118 5,153 24,174
2041 17,552 1,720 335 122 5,347 25,077
2042 18,082 1,334 349 127 5,561 25,453
2043 18,984 1,861 363 132 5,783 27,124
2044 19,797 1,940 377 138 6,028 28,280
2045 20,534 2,013 392 143 6,255 29,337
2046 21,355 2,093 408 149 6,505 30,510
2047 22,209 2,177 424 155 6,766 31,731
2048 23,160 2,269 441 161 7,052 33,083
2049 23,908 2,058 459 167 7,318 33,910
2050 24,982 2,449 477 174 7,610 35,693
2051 25,736 1,898 496 181 7,915 36,227
2052 27,094 2,655 516 188 8,250 38,703
2053 28,102 2,755 537 196 8,561 40,150
2054 29,226 2,865 558 204 8,903 41,756
2055 30,395 2,979 581 212 9,259 43,426
2056 31,547 2,715 604 220 9,651 44,737
2057 33,976 4,885 643 229 10,044 49,778
2058 220,467 8,471 6,541 469 21,499 257,447
2059 385,209 112,460 6,635 236,432 91,852 832,589
2060 334,731 71,848 5,695 201,311 73,112 686,696
2061 307,301 33,522 5,516 121,646 48,108 516,093
2062 319,593 34,863 5,737 126,512 50,033 536,737
2063 190,078 17,086 2,619 31,619 121,219 362,620
2064 183,714 59,406 827 0 18,509 262,456
2065 90,833 29,374 415 0 9,154 129,776
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,793,001 507,168 48,729 725,655 690,361 4,764,914
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,432,594 1,332,923 1,382,758 78,463 1,411,386
2033 1,411,386 1,256,304 1,333,845 75,687 1,331,991
2034 1,331,991 1,266,646 1,299,319 73,728 1,340,374
2035 1,340,374 1,272,416 1,306,395 74,129 1,346,545
2036 1,346,545 1,275,674 1,311,109 74,397 1,350,071
2037 1,350,071 1,292,845 1,321,458 74,984 1,367,830
2038 1,367,830 1,345,536 1,356,683 76,983 1,422,519
2039 1,422,519 1,399,611 1,411,065 80,069 1,479,679
2040 1,479,679 1,455,506 1,467,593 83,276 1,538,782
2041 1,538,782 1,513,705 1,526,244 86,604 1,600,309
2042 1,600,309 1,574,857 1,587,583 90,085 1,664,942
2043 1,664,942 1,637,818 1,651,380 93,705 1,731,523
2044 1,731,523 1,703,243 1,717,383 97,450 1,800,694
2045 1,800,694 1,771,357 1,786,025 101,345 1,872,702
2046 1,872,702 1,842,192 1,857,447 105,398 1,947,590
2047 1,947,590 1,915,859 1,931,724 109,613 2,025,472
2048 2,025,472 1,992,389 2,008,930 113,994 2,106,382
2049 2,106,382 2,072,473 2,089,428 118,562 2,191,034
2050 2,191,034 2,155,341 2,173,188 123,314 2,278,656
2051 2,278,656 2,242,429 2,260,542 128,271 2,370,700
2052 2,370,700 2,331,997 2,351,348 133,424 2,465,421
2053 2,465,421 2,425,271 2,445,346 138,758 2,564,029
2054 2,564,029 2,522,273 2,543,151 144,307 2,666,580
2055 2,666,580 2,623,155 2,644,867 150,079 2,773,234
2056 2,773,234 2,728,497 2,750,865 156,094 2,884,591
2057 2,884,591 2,834,813 2,859,702 162,270 2,997,082
2058 2,997,082 2,739,636 2,868,359 162,761 2,902,396
2059 2,902,396 2,069,808 2,486,102 141,070 2,210,878
2060 2,210,878 1,524,182 1,867,530 105,970 1,630,152
2061 1,630,152 1,114,059 1,372,106 77,858 1,191,917
2062 1,191,917 655,181 923,549 52,405 707,586
2063 707,586 344,966 526,276 29,863 374,828
2064 374,828 112,373 243,601 13,823 126,195
2065 126,195 (3,580) 61,308 3,580 (0)
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 7.42%
Last Year of Expense 2083
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 29,849 7,376 688 40 7,019 44,972
2013 32,429 13,384 646 1,353 15,546 63,358
2014 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2015 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2016 13,403 13,710 171 33 4,244 31,561
2017 10,590 9,528 144 32 3,342 23,636
2018 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2019 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2020 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2021 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2022 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2023 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2024 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2025 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2026 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2027 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2028 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2029 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2030 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2031 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2032 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2033 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2034 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2035 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2036 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2037 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2038 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2039 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2040 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2041 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2042 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2043 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2044 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2045 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2046 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2047 4,361 47 85 0 1,103 5,596
2048 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2049 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2050 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2051 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2052 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2053 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2054 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2055 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2056 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2057 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2058 4,418 342 85 31 1,355 6,231
2059 4,418 342 85 31 1,355 6,231
2060 4,472 453 85 31 1,358 6,399
2061 4,439 397 85 31 1,355 6,307
2062 4,418 342 85 31 1,355 6,231
2063 4,439 397 85 31 1,355 6,307
2064 4,451 398 85 31 1,358 6,323
2065 4,439 397 85 31 1,355 6,307
2066 23,533 1,117 687 39 2,688 28,064
2067 42,968 9,671 839 17,985 6,025 77,488
2068 44,052 12,575 721 32,024 7,136 96,508
2069 35,482 3,842 638 13,946 5,108 59,016
2070 35,482 3,842 638 13,946 5,108 59,016
2071 25,244 2,360 383 6,363 11,370 45,720
2072 19,424 5,104 102 7 5,655 30,292
2073 14,761 4,301 72 0 2,487 21,621
2074 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2075 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2076 2,768 0 43 0 1,323 4,134
2077 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2078 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2079 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2080 2,810 111 43 0 1,323 4,287
2081 2,782 55 43 0 1,319 4,199
2082 2,888 555 43 3 7,827 11,316
2083 1,444 863 42 377 2,220 4,946
592,116 130,572 10,578 87,671 169,625 990,562
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 37,769 9,333 871 51 8,881 56,904
2013 42,674 17,612 850 1,780 20,457 83,375
2014 18,294 18,711 233 45 5,793 43,076
2015 19,025 19,460 242 47 6,025 44,799
2016 19,840 20,294 253 49 6,282 46,718
2017 16,303 14,668 222 49 5,145 36,387
2018 7,040 458 136 50 2,169 9,853
2019 7,321 476 142 52 2,256 10,247
2020 7,635 497 147 54 2,352 10,684
2021 7,919 515 153 56 2,440 11,083
2022 8,235 536 159 58 2,538 11,526
2023 8,565 557 166 60 2,639 11,987
2024 8,932 581 172 63 2,751 12,499
2025 9,264 603 179 65 2,855 12,966
2026 9,634 627 186 68 2,969 13,484
2027 10,020 652 194 71 3,088 14,024
2028 10,449 680 201 73 3,218 14,622
2029 10,837 705 210 76 3,340 15,168
2030 11,271 733 218 79 3,473 15,775
2031 11,722 762 227 83 3,612 16,406
2032 12,224 796 236 86 3,765 17,106
2033 12,678 825 245 89 3,907 17,744
2034 13,185 858 255 93 4,063 18,454
2035 13,713 892 265 97 4,226 19,192
2036 14,300 931 276 101 4,405 20,012
2037 14,832 965 287 105 4,571 20,758
2038 15,425 1,003 298 109 4,753 21,589
2039 16,042 1,043 310 113 4,944 22,452
2040 16,729 1,089 323 118 5,153 23,411
2041 17,351 1,129 335 122 5,347 24,284
2042 18,045 1,174 349 127 5,561 25,256
2043 18,767 1,221 363 132 5,783 26,266
2044 19,571 1,274 377 138 6,028 27,387
2045 20,298 1,320 392 143 6,255 28,409
2046 21,110 1,373 408 149 6,505 29,545
2047 21,775 235 424 0 5,507 27,941
2048 22,895 1,490 441 161 7,052 32,039
2049 23,746 1,545 459 167 7,318 33,235
2050 24,696 1,606 477 174 7,610 34,564
2051 25,684 1,671 496 181 7,915 35,947
2052 26,784 1,743 516 188 8,250 37,482
2053 27,779 1,807 537 196 8,561 38,880
2054 28,891 1,879 558 204 8,903 40,435
2055 30,046 1,954 581 212 9,259 42,052
2056 31,333 2,040 604 220 9,651 43,848
2057 32,498 2,114 628 229 10,015 45,484
2058 33,959 2,629 653 238 10,415 47,895
2059 35,318 2,734 679 248 10,832 49,811
2060 37,179 3,766 707 258 11,290 53,200
2061 38,381 3,433 735 268 11,716 54,533
2062 39,728 3,075 764 279 12,184 56,031
2063 41,513 3,713 795 290 12,672 58,982
2064 43,290 3,871 827 302 13,208 61,497
2065 44,901 4,016 860 314 13,706 63,795
2066 247,558 11,750 7,227 410 28,277 295,223
2067 470,088 105,805 9,179 196,763 65,916 847,751
2068 501,225 143,079 8,204 364,370 81,194 1,098,071
2069 419,864 45,463 7,550 165,025 60,444 698,345
2070 436,658 47,281 7,852 171,626 62,861 726,279
2071 323,091 30,205 4,902 81,438 145,522 585,158
2072 258,547 67,938 1,358 93 75,272 403,207
2073 204,338 59,539 997 0 34,428 299,302
2074 40,354 1,598 619 0 18,989 61,561
2075 41,969 1,662 644 0 19,749 64,023
2076 43,102 0 670 0 20,601 64,373
2077 45,393 1,798 696 0 21,361 69,248
2078 47,209 1,869 724 0 22,215 72,018
2079 49,097 1,944 753 0 23,104 74,898
2080 51,189 2,022 783 0 24,101 78,095
2081 52,706 1,042 815 0 24,989 79,551
2082 56,902 10,935 847 59 154,216 222,960
2083 29,589 17,684 861 7,725 45,490 101,349
4,456,294 721,286 76,301 996,289 1,282,341 7,532,511
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 500,967 444,063 472,515 35,043 479,106
2013 479,106 395,732 437,419 32,441 428,172
2014 428,172 385,096 406,634 30,158 415,254
2015 415,254 370,455 392,855 29,136 399,591
2016 399,591 352,873 376,232 27,903 380,776
2017 380,776 344,389 362,582 26,890 371,279
2018 371,279 361,427 366,353 27,170 388,597
2019 388,597 378,350 383,473 28,440 406,790
2020 406,790 396,105 401,448 29,773 425,878
2021 425,878 414,795 420,337 31,174 445,969
2022 445,969 434,443 440,206 32,647 467,090
2023 467,090 455,103 461,096 34,197 489,299
2024 489,299 476,800 483,050 35,825 512,625
2025 512,625 499,659 506,142 37,537 537,197
2026 537,197 523,712 530,454 39,340 563,053
2027 563,053 549,029 556,041 41,238 590,267
2028 590,267 575,645 582,956 43,234 618,879
2029 618,879 603,711 611,295 45,336 649,047
2030 649,047 633,273 641,160 47,551 680,824
2031 680,824 664,418 672,621 49,884 714,302
2032 714,302 697,196 705,749 52,341 749,537
2033 749,537 731,793 740,665 54,930 786,723
2034 786,723 768,269 777,496 57,662 825,931
2035 825,931 806,739 816,335 60,542 867,282
2036 867,282 847,270 857,276 63,579 910,849
2037 910,849 890,090 900,470 66,782 956,873
2038 956,873 935,284 946,078 70,165 1,005,449
2039 1,005,449 982,997 994,223 73,735 1,056,732
2040 1,056,732 1,033,321 1,045,026 77,503 1,110,824
2041 1,110,824 1,086,540 1,098,682 81,482 1,168,022
2042 1,168,022 1,142,767 1,155,394 85,688 1,228,455
2043 1,228,455 1,202,189 1,215,322 90,133 1,292,322
2044 1,292,322 1,264,934 1,278,628 94,828 1,359,762
2045 1,359,762 1,331,353 1,345,558 99,792 1,431,145
2046 1,431,145 1,401,599 1,416,372 105,043 1,506,643
2047 1,506,643 1,478,702 1,492,672 110,702 1,589,404
2048 1,589,404 1,557,364 1,573,384 116,688 1,674,052
2049 1,674,052 1,640,818 1,657,435 122,922 1,763,739
2050 1,763,739 1,729,175 1,746,457 129,524 1,858,699
2051 1,858,699 1,822,753 1,840,726 136,515 1,959,268
2052 1,959,268 1,921,786 1,940,527 143,917 2,065,703
2053 2,065,703 2,026,823 2,046,263 151,759 2,178,582
2054 2,178,582 2,138,147 2,158,364 160,072 2,298,219
2055 2,298,219 2,256,166 2,277,193 168,885 2,425,052
2056 2,425,052 2,381,203 2,403,128 178,225 2,559,428
2057 2,559,428 2,513,944 2,536,686 188,130 2,702,075
2058 2,702,075 2,654,180 2,678,127 198,620 2,852,799
2059 2,852,799 2,802,989 2,827,894 209,727 3,012,716
2060 3,012,716 2,959,516 2,986,116 221,462 3,180,977
2061 3,180,977 3,126,445 3,153,711 233,891 3,360,336
2062 3,360,336 3,304,305 3,332,320 247,137 3,551,443
2063 3,551,443 3,492,460 3,521,951 261,201 3,753,661
2064 3,753,661 3,692,164 3,722,912 276,105 3,968,269
2065 3,968,269 3,904,473 3,936,371 291,936 4,196,409
2066 4,196,409 3,901,187 4,048,798 300,274 4,201,461
2067 4,201,461 3,353,710 3,777,585 280,160 3,633,870
2068 3,633,870 2,535,799 3,084,835 228,783 2,764,582
2069 2,764,582 2,066,237 2,415,409 179,136 2,245,373
2070 2,245,373 1,519,094 1,882,233 139,593 1,658,687
2071 1,658,687 1,073,529 1,366,108 101,316 1,174,845
2072 1,174,845 771,637 973,241 72,179 843,817
2073 843,817 544,515 694,166 51,482 595,997
2074 595,997 534,436 565,216 41,919 576,354
2075 576,354 512,331 544,343 40,371 552,702
2076 552,702 488,329 520,515 38,603 526,932
2077 526,932 457,684 492,308 36,511 494,196
2078 494,196 422,178 458,187 33,981 456,159
2079 456,159 381,261 418,710 31,053 412,314
2080 412,314 334,219 373,267 27,683 361,902
2081 361,902 282,351 322,127 23,890 306,241
2082 306,241 83,281 194,761 14,444 97,726
2083 97,726 (3,624) 47,051 3,624 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 4.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 5.89%
Last Year of Expense 2090
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 32,106 14,145 688 40 7,019 53,998
2033 34,140 18,517 646 1,353 15,546 70,202
2034 12,456 10,940 170 33 4,233 27,832
2035 12,456 10,940 170 33 4,233 27,832
2036 12,490 10,970 171 33 4,244 27,908
2037 9,960 7,637 144 32 3,342 21,115
2038 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2039 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2040 4,404 272 85 31 1,358 6,150
2041 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2042 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2043 4,488 557 85 31 1,355 6,516
2044 4,404 272 85 31 1,358 6,150
2045 4,450 443 85 31 1,355 6,364
2046 4,469 500 85 31 1,355 6,440
2047 4,469 500 85 31 1,355 6,440
2048 4,462 443 85 31 1,358 6,379
2049 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2050 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2051 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2052 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2053 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2054 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2055 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2056 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2057 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2058 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2059 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2060 4,462 443 85 31 1,358 6,379
2061 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2062 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2063 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2064 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2065 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2066 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2067 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2068 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2069 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2070 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2071 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2072 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2073 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2074 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2075 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2076 4,404 272 85 31 1,358 6,150
2077 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2078 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2079 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2080 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2081 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2082 4,573 617 87 31 1,359 6,667
2083 28,682 1,102 851 61 2,797 33,493
2084 48,332 14,113 832 29,261 11,495 104,033
2085 40,193 8,600 682 23,863 8,727 82,065
2086 35,645 3,913 638 14,114 5,570 59,880
2087 35,645 3,913 638 14,114 5,570 59,880
2088 21,329 1,855 280 3,391 12,969 39,824
2089 20,135 6,232 85 0 1,926 28,378
2090 9,598 2,971 41 0 918 13,528
552,561 132,639 9,863 87,723 149,601 932,387
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 89,013 39,217 1,907 111 19,460 149,708
2033 98,438 53,391 1,863 3,901 44,825 202,418
2034 37,352 32,806 510 99 12,694 83,460
2035 38,846 34,118 530 103 13,201 86,798
2036 40,510 35,580 555 107 13,765 90,517
2037 33,596 25,761 486 108 11,273 71,224
2038 15,407 951 298 109 4,753 21,518
2039 16,024 989 310 113 4,944 22,379
2040 16,710 1,032 323 118 5,153 23,335
2041 17,331 1,069 335 122 5,347 24,205
2042 18,024 1,112 349 127 5,561 25,174
2043 19,155 2,377 363 132 5,783 27,811
2044 19,549 1,207 377 138 6,028 27,299
2045 20,543 2,045 392 143 6,255 29,379
2046 21,456 2,401 408 149 6,505 30,919
2047 22,314 2,497 424 155 6,766 32,155
2048 23,170 2,300 441 161 7,052 33,125
2049 23,930 2,085 459 167 7,318 33,958
2050 24,887 2,168 477 174 7,610 35,317
2051 25,882 2,255 496 181 7,915 36,729
2052 26,990 2,345 516 188 8,250 38,290
2053 27,994 2,439 537 196 8,561 39,726
2054 28,989 2,155 558 204 8,903 40,810
2055 30,279 2,638 581 212 9,259 42,968
2056 31,575 2,743 604 220 9,651 44,793
2057 32,461 2,003 628 229 10,015 45,336
2058 33,913 2,521 653 238 10,415 47,741
2059 35,270 2,622 679 248 10,832 49,651
2060 37,096 3,683 707 258 11,290 53,034
2061 38,312 3,337 735 268 11,716 54,368
2062 39,674 2,949 764 279 12,184 55,851
2063 41,438 3,610 795 290 12,672 58,805
2064 43,213 3,754 827 302 13,208 61,303
2065 44,820 3,904 860 314 13,706 63,603
2066 46,612 4,061 894 326 14,254 66,147
2067 48,050 2,965 930 339 14,824 67,108
2068 50,553 4,392 967 353 15,451 71,716
2069 52,433 4,568 1,006 367 16,034 74,407
2070 54,530 4,750 1,046 382 16,675 77,383
2071 56,468 4,198 1,088 397 17,342 79,493
2072 59,139 5,138 1,131 413 18,076 83,897
2073 61,339 5,343 1,177 429 18,757 87,045
2074 63,792 5,557 1,224 446 19,508 90,527
2075 66,344 5,779 1,273 464 20,288 94,148
2076 68,577 4,235 1,324 483 21,146 95,765
2077 71,758 6,251 1,377 502 21,944 101,831
2078 74,628 6,501 1,432 522 22,821 105,904
2079 77,613 6,761 1,489 543 23,734 110,140
2080 80,936 7,032 1,548 565 24,738 114,819
2081 83,586 6,214 1,610 587 25,671 117,669
2082 90,102 12,157 1,714 611 26,776 131,360
2083 587,728 22,581 17,438 1,250 57,314 686,311
2084 1,029,995 300,760 17,731 623,576 244,968 2,217,030
2085 890,808 190,604 15,115 528,882 193,419 1,818,829
2086 821,610 90,194 14,706 325,325 128,387 1,380,222
2087 854,474 93,802 15,294 338,338 133,523 1,435,431
2088 531,746 46,246 6,981 84,540 323,326 992,839
2089 522,058 161,583 2,204 0 49,937 735,782
2090 258,810 80,113 1,106 0 24,754 364,783
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
7,717,854 1,367,849 132,553 1,919,502 1,846,537 12,984,295
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,501,262 1,351,555 1,426,409 83,978 1,435,533
2033 1,435,533 1,233,114 1,334,323 78,557 1,311,671
2034 1,311,671 1,228,211 1,269,941 74,766 1,302,977
2035 1,302,977 1,216,179 1,259,578 74,156 1,290,335
2036 1,290,335 1,199,818 1,245,076 73,302 1,273,120
2037 1,273,120 1,201,897 1,237,509 72,857 1,274,753
2038 1,274,753 1,253,235 1,263,994 74,416 1,327,651
2039 1,327,651 1,305,272 1,316,461 77,505 1,382,777
2040 1,382,777 1,359,442 1,371,109 80,722 1,440,164
2041 1,440,164 1,415,959 1,428,061 84,075 1,500,034
2042 1,500,034 1,474,860 1,487,447 87,572 1,562,432
2043 1,562,432 1,534,621 1,548,527 91,167 1,625,789
2044 1,625,789 1,598,490 1,612,139 94,913 1,693,402
2045 1,693,402 1,664,024 1,678,713 98,832 1,762,856
2046 1,762,856 1,731,937 1,747,397 102,876 1,834,813
2047 1,834,813 1,802,658 1,818,735 107,076 1,909,734
2048 1,909,734 1,876,609 1,893,171 111,458 1,988,067
2049 1,988,067 1,954,108 1,971,088 116,045 2,070,154
2050 2,070,154 2,034,837 2,052,495 120,838 2,155,675
2051 2,155,675 2,118,946 2,137,310 125,831 2,244,777
2052 2,244,777 2,206,487 2,225,632 131,031 2,337,519
2053 2,337,519 2,297,792 2,317,656 136,449 2,434,241
2054 2,434,241 2,393,432 2,413,836 142,111 2,535,543
2055 2,535,543 2,492,575 2,514,059 148,012 2,640,587
2056 2,640,587 2,595,794 2,618,190 154,143 2,749,936
2057 2,749,936 2,704,600 2,727,268 160,564 2,865,165
2058 2,865,165 2,817,423 2,841,294 167,277 2,984,701
2059 2,984,701 2,935,050 2,959,875 174,259 3,109,308
2060 3,109,308 3,056,275 3,082,791 181,495 3,237,770
2061 3,237,770 3,183,402 3,210,586 189,019 3,372,421
2062 3,372,421 3,316,570 3,344,495 196,903 3,513,473
2063 3,513,473 3,454,668 3,484,070 205,120 3,659,788
2064 3,659,788 3,598,485 3,629,137 213,661 3,812,146
2065 3,812,146 3,748,543 3,780,344 222,563 3,971,105
2066 3,971,105 3,904,958 3,938,032 231,847 4,136,805
2067 4,136,805 4,069,696 4,103,250 241,574 4,311,270
2068 4,311,270 4,239,554 4,275,412 251,709 4,491,263
2069 4,491,263 4,416,856 4,454,060 262,227 4,679,083
2070 4,679,083 4,601,700 4,640,392 273,197 4,874,897
2071 4,874,897 4,795,404 4,835,151 284,663 5,080,068
2072 5,080,068 4,996,170 5,038,119 296,613 5,292,783
2073 5,292,783 5,205,738 5,249,260 309,043 5,514,781
2074 5,514,781 5,424,254 5,469,517 322,011 5,746,265
2075 5,746,265 5,652,116 5,699,190 335,532 5,987,649
2076 5,987,649 5,891,883 5,939,766 349,696 6,241,579
2077 6,241,579 6,139,748 6,190,664 364,467 6,504,216
2078 6,504,216 6,398,311 6,451,264 379,810 6,778,121
2079 6,778,121 6,667,981 6,723,051 395,811 7,063,792
2080 7,063,792 6,948,973 7,006,382 412,492 7,361,464
2081 7,361,464 7,243,795 7,302,630 429,933 7,673,728
2082 7,673,728 7,542,368 7,608,048 447,914 7,990,282
2083 7,990,282 7,303,971 7,647,126 450,215 7,754,185
2084 7,754,185 5,537,155 6,645,670 391,255 5,928,410
2085 5,928,410 4,109,582 5,018,996 295,487 4,405,069
2086 4,405,069 3,024,847 3,714,958 218,713 3,243,560
2087 3,243,560 1,808,129 2,525,845 148,706 1,956,835
2088 1,956,835 963,996 1,460,416 85,980 1,049,976
2089 1,049,976 314,195 682,086 40,157 354,352
2090 354,352 (10,431) 171,960 10,431 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Decommissioning Fund Analysis
Required Earnings Rates for Each Scenario
Required Earnings on Differential from
Case Description Fund Escalation Rate
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017 12.05% 9.05%
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017 5.07% 2.07%
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057 12.10% 9.10%
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042 5.61% 2.61%
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017 6.72% 3.72%
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017 4.60% 1.60%
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057 6.28% 3.28%
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042 4.82% 1.82%
Note: Schedule of Annual Expenditures are from
"Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station",
Document E11-1559-002, Rev. 0, dated January
2007.
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 12.05%
Last Year of Expense 2043
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 35,993 7,711 688 40 7,019 51,451
2013 55,067 18,798 1,269 16,261 18,500 109,895
2014 53,516 26,892 808 36,069 9,111 126,396
2015 47,071 18,213 653 16,061 6,523 88,521
2016 46,579 17,426 640 14,176 6,292 85,113
2017 41,612 14,249 546 12,699 6,080 75,186
2018 20,880 2,817 203 2,056 13,621 39,577
2019 20,718 6,079 85 0 3,004 29,886
2020 10,998 2,932 62 0 2,089 16,081
2021 2,845 222 43 0 1,319 4,429
2022 2,845 222 43 0 1,319 4,429
2023 2,824 167 43 0 1,319 4,353
2024 2,811 111 43 0 1,323 4,288
2025 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2026 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2027 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2028 2,811 111 43 0 1,323 4,288
2029 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2030 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2031 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2032 2,769 0 43 0 1,323 4,135
2033 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2034 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2035 2,824 167 43 0 1,319 4,353
2036 2,790 56 43 0 1,323 4,212
2037 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2038 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2039 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2040 2,811 111 43 0 1,323 4,288
2041 2,782 56 43 0 1,319 4,200
2042 2,887 557 43 3 7,827 11,317
2043 1,444 863 42 377 2,220 4,946
395,647 118,816 5,942 97,742 110,005 728,152
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 42,978 9,207 822 48 8,381 61,435
2013 67,725 23,119 1,561 19,999 22,753 135,157
2014 67,792 34,066 1,024 45,691 11,542 160,115
2015 61,417 23,764 852 20,956 8,511 115,500
2016 62,598 23,419 860 19,051 8,456 114,385
2017 57,601 19,724 756 17,578 8,416 104,075
2018 29,770 4,016 289 2,931 19,420 56,427
2019 30,425 8,927 125 0 4,411 43,889
2020 16,635 4,435 94 0 3,160 24,324
2021 4,432 346 67 0 2,055 6,900
2022 4,565 356 69 0 2,117 7,107
2023 4,668 276 71 0 2,180 7,195
2024 4,786 189 73 0 2,252 7,300
2025 4,915 195 75 0 2,313 7,498
2026 5,063 200 78 0 2,382 7,723
2027 5,214 206 80 0 2,454 7,955
2028 5,386 213 82 0 2,535 8,216
2029 5,491 111 85 0 2,603 8,289
2030 5,698 226 87 0 2,681 8,692
2031 5,869 232 90 0 2,762 8,953
2032 5,972 0 93 0 2,853 8,918
2033 6,180 124 96 0 2,930 9,329
2034 6,365 128 98 0 3,018 9,609
2035 6,655 394 101 0 3,108 10,258
2036 6,772 136 104 0 3,211 10,224
2037 7,008 278 108 0 3,298 10,690
2038 7,218 286 111 0 3,397 11,011
2039 7,434 294 114 0 3,498 11,341
2040 7,679 303 117 0 3,614 11,714
2041 7,828 158 121 0 3,711 11,818
2042 8,367 1,614 125 9 22,685 32,800
2043 4,311 2,576 125 1,125 6,627 14,765
2044 0 0 0 0 0 0
2045 0 0 0 0 0 0
2046 0 0 0 0 0 0
2047 0 0 0 0 0 0
2048 0 0 0 0 0 0
2049 0 0 0 0 0 0
2050 0 0 0 0 0 0
2051 0 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
574,817 159,519 8,553 127,389 183,335 1,053,613
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 1, DECON 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 574,733 513,298 544,016 65,575 578,873
2013 578,873 443,716 511,294 61,631 505,346
2014 505,346 345,232 425,289 51,264 396,495
2015 396,495 280,996 338,746 40,832 321,827
2016 321,827 207,443 264,635 31,899 239,341
2017 239,341 135,266 187,304 22,577 157,843
2018 157,843 101,416 129,630 15,625 117,041
2019 117,041 73,153 95,097 11,463 84,616
2020 84,616 60,292 72,454 8,733 69,025
2021 69,025 62,125 65,575 7,904 70,029
2022 70,029 62,922 66,476 8,013 70,935
2023 70,935 63,740 67,337 8,117 71,857
2024 71,857 64,557 68,207 8,222 72,778
2025 72,778 65,280 69,029 8,321 73,601
2026 73,601 65,878 69,739 8,406 74,284
2027 74,284 66,330 70,307 8,475 74,804
2028 74,804 66,588 70,696 8,522 75,110
2029 75,110 66,821 70,965 8,554 75,375
2030 75,375 66,682 71,029 8,562 75,244
2031 75,244 66,291 70,768 8,530 74,821
2032 74,821 65,904 70,363 8,481 74,385
2033 74,385 65,056 69,720 8,404 73,460
2034 73,460 63,850 68,655 8,276 72,126
2035 72,126 61,868 66,997 8,076 69,944
2036 69,944 59,720 64,832 7,815 67,535
2037 67,535 56,844 62,189 7,496 64,340
2038 64,340 53,329 58,835 7,092 60,421
2039 60,421 49,080 54,751 6,600 55,679
2040 55,679 43,965 49,822 6,005 49,970
2041 49,970 38,152 44,061 5,311 43,463
2042 43,463 10,663 27,063 3,262 13,926
2043 13,926 (839) 6,543 839 (0)
2044 0 0 0 0 0
2045 0 0 0 0 0
2046 0 0 0 0 0
2047 0 0 0 0 0
2048 0 0 0 0 0
2049 0 0 0 0 0
2050 0 0 0 0 0
2051 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 5.07%
Last Year of Expense 2058
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 33,738 944 688 40 7,019 42,429
2033 52,185 10,151 1,269 16,291 18,500 98,396
2034 49,472 14,759 808 36,168 9,111 110,318
2035 45,298 12,892 653 16,069 6,523 81,435
2036 45,020 12,747 640 14,176 6,292 78,875
2037 40,506 10,930 546 12,699 6,080 70,761
2038 20,762 2,594 203 2,056 13,621 39,236
2039 19,570 5,441 85 0 2,999 28,095
2040 15,522 4,224 75 0 2,593 22,414
2041 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2042 2,760 0 43 0 1,319 4,122
2043 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2044 2,811 109 43 0 1,323 4,286
2045 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2046 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2047 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2048 2,811 109 43 0 1,323 4,286
2049 2,781 55 43 0 1,319 4,198
2050 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2051 2,760 0 43 0 1,319 4,122
2052 2,811 109 43 0 1,323 4,286
2053 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2054 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2055 2,803 109 43 0 1,319 4,274
2056 2,789 55 43 0 1,323 4,210
2057 2,890 550 43 2 7,826 11,311
2058 1,223 640 42 298 2,091 4,294
370,936 77,290 5,740 97,799 103,775 655,540
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 72,759 2,036 1,484 86 15,137 91,502
2033 115,918 22,548 2,819 36,187 41,094 218,566
2034 113,188 33,768 1,849 82,750 20,845 252,400
2035 106,748 30,381 1,539 37,868 15,372 191,907
2036 109,275 30,940 1,553 34,409 15,272 191,450
2037 101,268 27,326 1,365 31,749 15,200 176,908
2038 53,464 6,680 523 5,294 35,075 101,036
2039 51,906 14,431 225 0 7,954 74,517
2040 42,405 11,540 205 0 7,084 61,233
2041 7,887 307 121 0 3,711 12,026
2042 7,999 0 125 0 3,823 11,947
2043 8,368 325 128 0 3,938 12,759
2044 8,643 335 132 0 4,068 13,179
2045 8,877 345 136 0 4,177 13,536
2046 9,143 356 140 0 4,303 13,942
2047 9,418 366 144 0 4,432 14,360
2048 9,728 377 149 0 4,579 14,833
2049 9,913 196 153 0 4,702 14,964
2050 10,291 400 158 0 4,843 15,692
2051 10,437 0 163 0 4,988 15,588
2052 10,949 425 167 0 5,153 16,694
2053 11,245 437 173 0 5,292 17,147
2054 11,583 450 178 0 5,450 17,661
2055 11,930 464 183 0 5,614 18,191
2056 12,227 241 189 0 5,800 18,456
2057 13,050 2,483 194 9 35,338 51,074
2058 5,688 2,977 195 1,386 9,725 19,971
2059 0 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
944,308 190,134 14,390 229,737 292,968 1,671,538
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 2, DECON 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,253,331 1,161,829 1,207,580 61,206 1,223,035
2033 1,223,035 1,004,469 1,113,752 56,451 1,060,920
2034 1,060,920 808,520 934,720 47,376 855,897
2035 855,897 663,990 759,943 38,518 702,507
2036 702,507 511,057 606,782 30,755 541,812
2037 541,812 364,904 453,358 22,978 387,882
2038 387,882 286,846 337,364 17,099 303,945
2039 303,945 229,428 266,687 13,517 242,945
2040 242,945 181,712 212,329 10,762 192,474
2041 192,474 180,447 186,461 9,451 189,898
2042 189,898 177,952 183,925 9,322 187,274
2043 187,274 174,515 180,894 9,169 183,684
2044 183,684 170,505 177,094 8,976 179,481
2045 179,481 165,945 172,713 8,754 174,699
2046 174,699 160,757 167,728 8,501 169,258
2047 169,258 154,898 162,078 8,215 163,113
2048 163,113 148,281 155,697 7,891 156,172
2049 156,172 141,208 148,690 7,536 148,745
2050 148,745 133,053 140,899 7,141 140,194
2051 140,194 124,607 132,400 6,711 131,317
2052 131,317 114,623 122,970 6,233 120,856
2053 120,856 103,709 112,282 5,691 109,400
2054 109,400 91,739 100,569 5,097 96,836
2055 96,836 78,645 87,741 4,447 83,092
2056 83,092 64,636 73,864 3,744 68,380
2057 68,380 17,306 42,843 2,171 19,477
2058 19,477 (494) 9,492 494 (0)
2059 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 12.10%
Last Year of Expense 2083
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 35,993 7,711 688 40 7,019 51,451
2013 55,067 18,798 1,269 16,261 18,500 109,895
2014 53,516 26,892 808 36,069 9,111 126,396
2015 47,071 18,213 653 16,061 6,523 88,521
2016 46,579 17,426 640 14,176 6,292 85,113
2017 41,600 14,213 546 12,699 6,080 75,138
2018 20,800 2,578 203 2,056 13,621 39,258
2019 20,698 6,019 85 0 3,004 29,806
2020 10,929 2,737 62 0 2,089 15,817
2021 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2022 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2023 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2024 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2025 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2026 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2027 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2028 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2029 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2030 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2031 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2032 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2033 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2034 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2035 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2036 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2037 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2038 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2039 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2040 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2041 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2042 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2043 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2044 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2045 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2046 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2047 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2048 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2049 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2050 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2051 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2052 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2053 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2054 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2055 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2056 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2057 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2058 2,862 286 43 0 1,319 4,510
2059 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2060 2,831 172 43 0 1,323 4,369
2061 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2062 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2063 2,824 172 43 0 1,319 4,358
2064 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2065 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2066 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2067 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2068 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2069 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2070 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2071 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2072 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2073 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2074 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2075 2,824 172 43 0 1,319 4,358
2076 2,793 57 43 0 1,323 4,216
2077 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2078 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2079 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2080 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2081 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2082 2,882 566 43 3 7,827 11,321
2083 1,444 863 42 377 2,220 4,946
506,402 118,815 7,662 97,742 162,805 893,426
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 42,978 9,207 822 48 8,381 61,435
2013 67,725 23,119 1,561 19,999 22,753 135,157
2014 67,792 34,066 1,024 45,691 11,542 160,115
2015 61,417 23,764 852 20,956 8,511 115,500
2016 62,598 23,419 860 19,051 8,456 114,385
2017 57,584 19,674 756 17,578 8,416 104,009
2018 29,656 3,676 289 2,931 19,420 55,973
2019 30,396 8,839 125 0 4,411 43,771
2020 16,531 4,140 94 0 3,160 23,925
2021 4,311 0 67 0 2,055 6,433
2022 4,440 0 69 0 2,117 6,626
2023 4,573 0 71 0 2,180 6,825
2024 4,723 0 73 0 2,252 7,048
2025 4,852 0 75 0 2,313 7,240
2026 4,998 0 78 0 2,382 7,457
2027 5,147 0 80 0 2,454 7,681
2028 5,315 0 82 0 2,535 7,933
2029 5,461 0 85 0 2,603 8,149
2030 5,625 0 87 0 2,681 8,393
2031 5,793 0 90 0 2,762 8,645
2032 5,982 0 93 0 2,853 8,928
2033 6,146 0 96 0 2,930 9,172
2034 6,331 0 98 0 3,018 9,447
2035 6,521 0 101 0 3,108 9,730
2036 6,733 0 104 0 3,211 10,049
2037 6,918 0 108 0 3,298 10,323
2038 7,125 0 111 0 3,397 10,633
2039 7,339 0 114 0 3,498 10,951
2040 7,578 0 117 0 3,614 11,310
2041 7,786 0 121 0 3,711 11,618
2042 8,020 0 125 0 3,823 11,967
2043 8,260 0 128 0 3,938 12,326
2044 8,529 0 132 0 4,068 12,730
2045 8,763 0 136 0 4,177 13,077
2046 9,026 0 140 0 4,303 13,469
2047 9,297 0 144 0 4,432 13,873
2048 9,600 0 149 0 4,579 14,327
2049 9,863 0 153 0 4,702 14,718
2050 10,159 0 158 0 4,843 15,159
2051 10,464 0 163 0 4,988 15,614
2052 10,805 0 167 0 5,153 16,125
2053 11,101 0 173 0 5,292 16,565
2054 11,434 0 178 0 5,450 17,062
2055 11,777 0 183 0 5,614 17,574
2056 12,161 0 189 0 5,800 18,149
2057 12,494 0 194 0 5,956 18,644
2058 13,311 1,330 200 0 6,135 20,975
2059 13,255 0 206 0 6,319 19,780
2060 13,969 849 212 0 6,528 21,557
2061 14,449 1,164 219 0 6,703 22,534
2062 14,882 1,199 225 0 6,904 23,210
2063 15,226 927 232 0 7,112 23,497
2064 15,616 633 239 0 7,347 23,835
2065 16,045 652 246 0 7,545 24,487
2066 16,526 672 253 0 7,771 25,222
2067 17,022 692 261 0 8,004 25,979
2068 17,576 713 269 0 8,269 26,827
2069 17,936 367 277 0 8,492 27,071
2070 18,600 756 285 0 8,746 28,388
2071 19,158 779 294 0 9,009 29,239
2072 19,515 0 302 0 9,307 29,124
2073 20,187 413 312 0 9,557 30,469
2074 20,793 425 321 0 9,844 31,383
2075 21,709 1,322 331 0 10,139 33,501
2076 22,114 451 340 0 10,475 33,382
2077 22,876 930 351 0 10,757 34,913
2078 23,562 958 361 0 11,080 35,960
2079 24,269 986 372 0 11,412 37,039
2080 25,059 1,016 383 0 11,790 38,248
2081 25,572 523 395 0 12,107 38,597
2082 27,247 5,351 407 28 73,999 107,032
2083 14,062 8,404 409 3,671 21,618 48,164
1,212,663 181,415 18,515 129,955 538,107 2,080,655
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 3, Decon 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 575,520 514,085 544,802 65,926 580,011
2013 580,011 444,854 512,433 62,009 506,864
2014 506,864 346,749 426,806 51,648 398,397
2015 398,397 282,897 340,647 41,222 324,118
2016 324,118 209,734 266,926 32,301 242,034
2017 242,034 138,026 190,030 22,996 161,021
2018 161,021 105,049 133,035 16,099 121,147
2019 121,147 77,376 99,262 12,012 89,388
2020 89,388 65,463 77,426 9,369 74,833
2021 74,833 68,400 71,616 8,666 77,066
2022 77,066 70,440 73,753 8,925 79,365
2023 79,365 72,540 75,953 9,191 81,731
2024 81,731 74,683 78,207 9,464 84,147
2025 84,147 76,907 80,527 9,745 86,652
2026 86,652 79,194 82,923 10,034 89,229
2027 89,229 81,547 85,388 10,333 91,880
2028 91,880 83,948 87,914 10,638 94,586
2029 94,586 86,437 90,512 10,953 97,390
2030 97,390 88,996 93,193 11,277 100,274
2031 100,274 91,628 95,951 11,611 103,240
2032 103,240 94,311 98,775 11,953 106,264
2033 106,264 97,092 101,678 12,304 109,396
2034 109,396 99,950 104,673 12,666 112,616
2035 112,616 102,886 107,751 13,039 115,925
2036 115,925 105,876 110,900 13,420 119,296
2037 119,296 108,973 114,134 13,811 122,784
2038 122,784 112,152 117,468 14,215 126,367
2039 126,367 115,415 120,891 14,629 130,044
2040 130,044 118,734 124,389 15,052 133,786
2041 133,786 122,168 127,977 15,486 137,654
2042 137,654 125,687 131,671 15,933 141,621
2043 141,621 129,295 135,458 16,392 145,686
2044 145,686 132,957 139,322 16,859 149,816
2045 149,816 136,739 143,278 17,338 154,078
2046 154,078 140,609 147,343 17,830 158,439
2047 158,439 144,565 151,502 18,333 162,899
2048 162,899 148,571 155,735 18,845 167,417
2049 167,417 152,699 160,058 19,369 172,068
2050 172,068 156,908 164,488 19,905 176,813
2051 176,813 161,199 169,006 20,451 181,650
2052 181,650 165,524 173,587 21,006 186,530
2053 186,530 169,965 178,248 21,570 191,535
2054 191,535 174,473 183,004 22,145 196,618
2055 196,618 179,044 187,831 22,729 201,774
2056 201,774 183,624 192,699 23,318 206,943
2057 206,943 188,298 197,621 23,914 212,212
2058 212,212 191,237 201,725 24,411 215,648
2059 215,648 195,868 205,758 24,899 220,767
2060 220,767 199,210 209,988 25,411 224,620
2061 224,620 202,086 213,353 25,818 227,904
2062 227,904 204,693 216,299 26,174 230,868
2063 230,868 207,371 219,119 26,516 233,886
2064 233,886 210,051 221,969 26,860 236,912
2065 236,912 212,424 224,668 27,187 239,611
2066 239,611 214,389 227,000 27,469 241,859
2067 241,859 215,880 228,869 27,695 243,576
2068 243,576 216,749 230,162 27,852 244,601
2069 244,601 217,529 231,065 27,961 245,490
2070 245,490 217,103 231,297 27,989 245,092
2071 245,092 215,853 230,472 27,889 243,742
2072 243,742 214,618 229,180 27,733 242,351
2073 242,351 211,882 227,116 27,483 239,365
2074 239,365 207,982 223,673 27,067 235,049
2075 235,049 201,548 218,298 26,416 227,964
2076 227,964 194,582 211,273 25,566 220,149
2077 220,149 185,235 202,692 24,528 209,763
2078 209,763 173,803 191,783 23,208 197,010
2079 197,010 159,971 178,491 21,599 181,570
2080 181,570 143,322 162,446 19,658 162,979
2081 162,979 124,382 143,680 17,387 141,769
2082 141,769 34,736 88,252 10,679 45,416
2083 45,416 (2,748) 21,334 2,748 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 5.61%
Last Year of Expense 2083
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 38,250 14,481 688 40 7,019 60,478
2033 57,276 25,423 1,269 16,291 18,500 118,759
2034 54,255 29,108 808 36,168 9,111 129,450
2035 45,503 13,508 653 16,069 6,523 82,256
2036 44,784 12,041 640 14,176 6,292 77,933
2037 40,289 10,279 546 12,699 6,080 69,893
2038 20,748 2,422 203 2,056 13,621 39,050
2039 20,698 6,019 85 0 3,004 29,806
2040 10,929 2,737 62 0 2,089 15,817
2041 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2042 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2043 2,862 286 43 0 1,319 4,510
2044 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2045 2,824 172 43 0 1,319 4,358
2046 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2047 2,843 229 43 0 1,319 4,434
2048 2,831 172 43 0 1,323 4,369
2049 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2050 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2051 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2052 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2053 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2054 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2055 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2056 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2057 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2058 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2059 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2060 2,831 172 43 0 1,323 4,369
2061 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2062 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2063 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2064 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2065 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2066 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2067 2,767 0 43 0 1,319 4,129
2068 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2069 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2070 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2071 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2072 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2073 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2074 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2075 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2076 2,774 0 43 0 1,323 4,140
2077 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2078 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2079 2,805 114 43 0 1,319 4,281
2080 2,812 114 43 0 1,323 4,292
2081 2,786 57 43 0 1,319 4,205
2082 2,883 567 43 4 7,828 11,325
2083 1,662 1,023 42 488 2,330 5,545
452,200 121,832 6,802 97,991 136,516 815,341
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 82,490 31,230 1,484 86 15,137 130,426
2033 127,227 56,472 2,819 36,187 41,094 263,798
2034 124,132 66,597 1,849 82,750 20,845 296,172
2035 107,231 31,832 1,539 37,868 15,372 193,842
2036 108,703 29,227 1,553 34,409 15,272 189,164
2037 100,726 25,698 1,365 31,749 15,200 174,738
2038 53,428 6,237 523 5,294 35,075 100,557
2039 54,898 15,964 225 0 7,968 79,056
2040 29,857 7,477 169 0 5,707 43,211
2041 7,786 0 121 0 3,711 11,618
2042 8,020 0 125 0 3,823 11,967
2043 8,544 854 128 0 3,938 13,463
2044 8,529 0 132 0 4,068 12,730
2045 8,944 545 136 0 4,177 13,802
2046 9,274 747 140 0 4,303 14,464
2047 9,552 769 144 0 4,432 14,898
2048 9,797 595 149 0 4,579 15,120
2049 9,998 406 153 0 4,702 15,260
2050 10,298 419 158 0 4,843 15,717
2051 10,607 431 163 0 4,988 16,189
2052 10,953 444 167 0 5,153 16,718
2053 11,253 457 173 0 5,292 17,175
2054 11,512 236 178 0 5,450 17,376
2055 11,939 485 183 0 5,614 18,221
2056 12,328 500 189 0 5,800 18,816
2057 12,494 0 194 0 5,956 18,644
2058 12,957 265 200 0 6,135 19,557
2059 13,346 273 206 0 6,319 20,144
2060 13,969 849 212 0 6,528 21,557
2061 14,255 579 219 0 6,703 21,757
2062 14,584 298 225 0 6,904 22,012
2063 15,124 615 232 0 7,112 23,082
2064 15,616 633 239 0 7,347 23,835
2065 16,045 652 246 0 7,545 24,487
2066 16,526 672 253 0 7,771 25,222
2067 16,791 0 261 0 8,004 25,056
2068 17,576 713 269 0 8,269 26,827
2069 18,058 734 277 0 8,492 27,561
2070 18,600 756 285 0 8,746 28,388
2071 19,028 389 294 0 9,009 28,720
2072 19,782 802 302 0 9,307 30,194
2073 20,325 826 312 0 9,557 31,020
2074 20,935 851 321 0 9,844 31,950
2075 21,563 876 331 0 10,139 32,909
2076 21,964 0 340 0 10,475 32,780
2077 22,876 930 351 0 10,757 34,913
2078 23,562 958 361 0 11,080 35,960
2079 24,269 986 372 0 11,412 37,039
2080 25,059 1,016 383 0 11,790 38,248
2081 25,572 523 395 0 12,107 38,597
2082 27,257 5,361 407 38 74,008 107,070
2083 16,184 9,962 409 4,752 22,689 53,997
2084 0 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,452,342 308,141 21,860 233,132 560,548 2,576,022
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 4, Decon 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,412,476 1,282,050 1,347,263 75,583 1,357,633
2033 1,357,633 1,093,835 1,225,734 68,765 1,162,600
2034 1,162,600 866,427 1,014,513 56,915 923,342
2035 923,342 729,501 826,422 46,363 775,864
2036 775,864 586,700 681,282 38,221 624,921
2037 624,921 450,182 537,551 30,157 480,340
2038 480,340 379,783 430,061 24,127 403,909
2039 403,909 324,854 364,382 20,442 345,296
2040 345,296 302,086 323,691 18,159 320,245
2041 320,245 308,626 314,436 17,640 326,267
2042 326,267 314,300 320,283 17,968 332,268
2043 332,268 318,804 325,536 18,263 337,067
2044 337,067 324,338 330,703 18,553 342,890
2045 342,890 329,089 335,990 18,849 347,938
2046 347,938 333,474 340,706 19,114 352,588
2047 352,588 337,690 345,139 19,363 357,053
2048 357,053 341,933 349,493 19,607 361,540
2049 361,540 346,280 353,910 19,855 366,135
2050 366,135 350,417 358,276 20,100 370,517
2051 370,517 354,328 362,423 20,332 374,660
2052 374,660 357,943 366,301 20,550 378,493
2053 378,493 361,318 369,905 20,752 382,070
2054 382,070 364,694 373,382 20,947 385,641
2055 385,641 367,420 376,530 21,124 388,543
2056 388,543 369,728 379,136 21,270 390,998
2057 390,998 372,353 381,676 21,412 393,766
2058 393,766 374,209 383,987 21,542 395,751
2059 395,751 375,607 385,679 21,637 397,244
2060 397,244 375,687 386,466 21,681 397,368
2061 397,368 375,611 386,490 21,682 397,294
2062 397,294 375,282 386,288 21,671 396,953
2063 396,953 373,872 385,413 21,622 395,494
2064 395,494 371,659 383,576 21,519 393,178
2065 393,178 368,690 380,934 21,371 390,061
2066 390,061 364,839 377,450 21,175 386,014
2067 386,014 360,958 373,486 20,953 381,911
2068 381,911 355,084 368,498 20,673 375,757
2069 375,757 348,197 361,977 20,307 368,504
2070 368,504 340,116 354,310 19,877 359,994
2071 359,994 331,273 345,633 19,390 350,664
2072 350,664 320,470 335,567 18,826 339,296
2073 339,296 308,276 323,786 18,165 326,441
2074 326,441 294,490 310,465 17,417 311,908
2075 311,908 278,999 295,453 16,575 295,574
2076 295,574 262,794 279,184 15,662 278,457
2077 278,457 243,543 261,000 14,642 258,186
2078 258,186 222,225 240,206 13,476 235,701
2079 235,701 198,662 217,181 12,184 210,846
2080 210,846 172,597 191,722 10,756 183,353
2081 183,353 144,756 164,055 9,204 153,959
2082 153,959 46,890 100,424 5,634 52,523
2083 52,523 (1,473) 25,525 1,473 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 6.72%
Last Year of Expense 2050
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 29,849 7,376 688 40 7,019 44,972
2013 32,429 13,384 646 1,353 15,546 63,358
2014 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2015 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2016 13,403 13,710 171 33 4,244 31,561
2017 10,591 9,537 144 32 3,342 23,646
2018 4,506 592 85 31 1,355 6,569
2019 4,402 315 85 31 1,355 6,188
2020 4,476 482 85 31 1,358 6,432
2021 4,485 537 85 31 1,355 6,493
2022 4,485 537 85 31 1,355 6,493
2023 4,464 481 85 31 1,355 6,416
2024 4,456 427 85 31 1,358 6,357
2025 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2026 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2027 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2028 4,456 427 85 31 1,358 6,357
2029 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2030 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2031 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2032 4,414 316 85 31 1,358 6,204
2033 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2034 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2035 4,464 481 85 31 1,355 6,416
2036 4,435 371 85 31 1,358 6,280
2037 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2038 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2039 4,444 426 85 31 1,355 6,341
2040 4,456 427 85 31 1,358 6,357
2041 4,423 370 85 31 1,355 6,264
2042 4,593 650 87 31 1,359 6,720
2043 28,682 1,102 851 61 2,797 33,493
2044 48,333 14,124 832 29,333 11,531 104,153
2045 40,148 8,595 682 23,884 8,751 82,060
2046 35,585 3,897 638 14,091 5,578 59,789
2047 35,585 3,897 638 14,091 5,578 59,789
2048 20,388 1,851 280 3,386 12,971 38,876
2049 18,898 6,192 85 0 1,926 27,101
2050 9,009 2,952 41 0 918 12,920
460,970 124,892 8,163 87,145 122,564 803,734
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 35,641 8,807 822 48 8,381 53,699
2013 39,884 16,461 794 1,664 19,120 77,922
2014 16,933 17,319 215 42 5,362 39,872
2015 17,441 17,839 222 43 5,523 41,068
2016 18,013 18,425 230 44 5,704 42,415
2017 14,660 13,201 199 44 4,626 32,732
2018 6,424 844 121 44 1,932 9,366
2019 6,464 463 125 46 1,990 9,087
2020 6,770 729 129 47 2,054 9,729
2021 6,987 837 132 48 2,111 10,116
2022 7,197 862 136 50 2,174 10,419
2023 7,378 795 140 51 2,240 10,605
2024 7,586 727 145 53 2,312 10,822
2025 7,793 747 149 54 2,376 11,119
2026 8,026 769 154 56 2,447 11,453
2027 8,267 792 158 58 2,521 11,796
2028 8,538 818 163 59 2,602 12,181
2029 8,729 730 168 61 2,674 12,363
2030 9,034 866 173 63 2,754 12,890
2031 9,305 892 178 65 2,837 13,277
2032 9,519 681 183 67 2,929 13,379
2033 9,825 822 189 69 3,010 13,914
2034 10,120 847 194 71 3,100 14,332
2035 10,520 1,134 200 73 3,193 15,120
2036 10,765 901 206 75 3,296 15,243
2037 11,110 1,065 213 78 3,388 15,853
2038 11,444 1,097 219 80 3,489 16,329
2039 11,787 1,130 225 82 3,594 16,818
2040 12,173 1,167 232 85 3,710 17,367
2041 12,446 1,041 239 87 3,813 17,626
2042 13,312 1,884 252 90 3,939 19,476
2043 85,622 3,290 2,540 182 8,350 99,984
2044 148,614 43,428 2,558 90,193 35,455 320,248
2045 127,150 27,221 2,160 75,641 27,715 259,886
2046 116,080 12,712 2,081 45,965 18,196 195,034
2047 119,562 13,094 2,144 47,344 18,742 200,885
2048 70,557 6,406 969 11,718 44,889 134,538
2049 67,362 22,071 303 0 6,865 96,602
2050 33,076 10,838 151 0 3,370 47,435
2051 0 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,142,114 253,751 19,812 274,540 282,782 1,972,999
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 5, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 490,558 436,859 463,708 31,183 468,042
2013 468,042 390,119 429,080 28,854 418,973
2014 418,973 379,102 399,038 26,834 405,936
2015 405,936 364,868 385,402 25,917 390,785
2016 390,785 348,369 369,577 24,853 373,222
2017 373,222 340,491 356,856 23,997 364,488
2018 364,488 355,122 359,805 24,196 379,318
2019 379,318 370,230 374,774 25,202 395,433
2020 395,433 385,704 390,568 26,264 411,968
2021 411,968 401,852 406,910 27,363 429,215
2022 429,215 418,796 424,006 28,513 447,309
2023 447,309 436,704 442,006 29,723 466,428
2024 466,428 455,605 461,016 31,002 486,607
2025 486,607 475,488 481,047 32,349 507,837
2026 507,837 496,384 502,110 33,765 530,149
2027 530,149 518,353 524,251 35,254 553,607
2028 553,607 541,426 547,517 36,819 578,245
2029 578,245 565,882 572,064 38,469 604,352
2030 604,352 591,462 597,907 40,207 631,669
2031 631,669 618,392 625,030 42,031 660,423
2032 660,423 647,044 653,733 43,961 691,005
2033 691,005 677,091 684,048 46,000 723,091
2034 723,091 708,759 715,925 48,143 756,902
2035 756,902 741,783 749,343 50,391 792,173
2036 792,173 776,930 784,552 52,758 829,688
2037 829,688 813,835 821,762 55,261 869,096
2038 869,096 852,767 860,932 57,895 910,662
2039 910,662 893,844 902,253 60,673 954,517
2040 954,517 937,150 945,833 63,604 1,000,754
2041 1,000,754 983,128 991,941 66,705 1,049,832
2042 1,049,832 1,030,356 1,040,094 69,943 1,100,299
2043 1,100,299 1,000,315 1,050,307 70,629 1,070,944
2044 1,070,944 750,696 910,820 61,249 811,945
2045 811,945 552,059 682,002 45,862 597,921
2046 597,921 402,887 500,404 33,650 436,538
2047 436,538 235,653 336,095 22,601 258,254
2048 258,254 123,716 190,985 12,843 136,559
2049 136,559 39,957 88,258 5,935 45,892
2050 45,892 (1,543) 22,175 1,543 (0)
2051 0 0 0 0 0
2052 0 0 0 0 0
2053 0 0 0 0 0
2054 0 0 0 0 0
2055 0 0 0 0 0
2056 0 0 0 0 0
2057 0 0 0 0 0
2058 0 0 0 0 0
2059 0 0 0 0 0
2060 0 0 0 0 0
2061 0 0 0 0 0
2062 0 0 0 0 0
2063 0 0 0 0 0
2064 0 0 0 0 0
2065 0 0 0 0 0
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 4.60%
Last Year of Expense 2065
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 27,594 609 688 40 7,019 35,950
2033 30,036 6,204 646 1,353 15,546 53,785
2034 10,946 6,409 170 33 4,233 21,791
2035 10,946 6,409 170 33 4,233 21,791
2036 10,976 6,427 171 33 4,244 21,851
2037 8,921 4,526 144 32 3,342 16,965
2038 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2039 4,427 381 85 31 1,355 6,279
2040 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2041 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2042 4,406 325 85 31 1,355 6,202
2043 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2044 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2045 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2046 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2047 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2048 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2049 4,427 381 85 31 1,355 6,279
2050 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2051 4,406 325 85 31 1,355 6,202
2052 4,460 437 85 31 1,358 6,371
2053 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2054 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2055 4,448 436 85 31 1,355 6,355
2056 4,439 382 85 31 1,358 6,295
2057 4,597 661 87 31 1,359 6,735
2058 28,682 1,102 851 61 2,797 33,493
2059 48,187 14,068 830 29,576 11,490 104,151
2060 40,262 8,642 685 24,214 8,794 82,597
2061 35,541 3,877 638 14,069 5,564 59,689
2062 35,541 3,877 638 14,069 5,564 59,689
2063 20,325 1,827 280 3,381 12,962 38,775
2064 18,889 6,108 85 0 1,903 26,985
2065 8,980 2,904 41 0 905 12,830
424,848 81,552 7,739 87,514 115,715 717,368
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 59,509 1,313 1,484 86 15,137 77,529
2033 66,719 13,781 1,435 3,005 34,532 119,472
2034 25,044 14,663 389 76 9,685 49,856
2035 25,795 15,103 401 78 9,975 51,352
2036 26,642 15,600 415 80 10,301 53,038
2037 22,303 11,315 360 80 8,355 42,414
2038 11,454 1,123 219 80 3,489 16,365
2039 11,742 1,011 225 82 3,594 16,654
2040 12,184 1,194 232 85 3,710 17,405
2041 12,516 1,227 239 87 3,813 17,882
2042 12,770 942 246 90 3,927 17,975
2043 13,278 1,302 254 93 4,045 18,971
2044 13,714 1,344 261 95 4,176 19,589
2045 14,087 1,381 269 98 4,291 20,126
2046 14,510 1,422 277 101 4,420 20,730
2047 14,945 1,465 286 104 4,553 21,352
2048 15,435 1,512 294 107 4,700 22,048
2049 15,780 1,358 303 111 4,830 22,382
2050 16,331 1,601 312 114 4,975 23,332
2051 16,662 1,229 321 117 5,124 23,453
2052 17,372 1,702 331 121 5,289 24,815
2053 17,845 1,749 341 124 5,436 25,496
2054 18,380 1,802 351 128 5,599 26,260
2055 18,932 1,856 362 132 5,767 27,048
2056 19,460 1,675 373 136 5,953 27,597
2057 20,757 2,985 393 140 6,136 30,411
2058 133,397 5,125 3,958 284 13,009 155,772
2059 230,836 67,392 3,976 141,681 55,042 498,926
2060 198,658 42,641 3,380 119,475 43,391 407,544
2061 180,625 19,703 3,242 71,501 28,277 303,348
2062 186,043 20,295 3,340 73,646 29,125 312,449
2063 109,585 9,851 1,510 18,229 69,887 209,061
2064 104,898 33,920 472 0 10,568 149,859
2065 51,366 16,611 235 0 5,177 73,388
2066 0 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,729,571 317,191 30,486 430,366 436,289 2,943,902
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 6, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2017
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,130,421 1,052,892 1,091,657 50,250 1,103,142
2033 1,103,142 983,670 1,043,406 48,029 1,031,699
2034 1,031,699 981,843 1,006,771 46,343 1,028,185
2035 1,028,185 976,833 1,002,509 46,146 1,022,980
2036 1,022,980 969,942 996,461 45,868 1,015,810
2037 1,015,810 973,396 994,603 45,783 1,019,179
2038 1,019,179 1,002,814 1,010,996 46,537 1,049,351
2039 1,049,351 1,032,697 1,041,024 47,919 1,080,616
2040 1,080,616 1,063,211 1,071,914 49,341 1,112,553
2041 1,112,553 1,094,671 1,103,612 50,800 1,145,471
2042 1,145,471 1,127,496 1,136,483 52,313 1,179,809
2043 1,179,809 1,160,838 1,170,324 53,871 1,214,709
2044 1,214,709 1,195,120 1,204,914 55,463 1,250,583
2045 1,250,583 1,230,457 1,240,520 57,102 1,287,559
2046 1,287,559 1,266,829 1,277,194 58,790 1,325,619
2047 1,325,619 1,304,267 1,314,943 60,528 1,364,795
2048 1,364,795 1,342,747 1,353,771 62,315 1,405,062
2049 1,405,062 1,382,681 1,393,872 64,161 1,446,842
2050 1,446,842 1,423,510 1,435,176 66,063 1,489,573
2051 1,489,573 1,466,119 1,477,846 68,027 1,534,146
2052 1,534,146 1,509,330 1,521,738 70,047 1,579,378
2053 1,579,378 1,553,882 1,566,630 72,113 1,625,995
2054 1,625,995 1,599,735 1,612,865 74,242 1,673,977
2055 1,673,977 1,646,928 1,660,453 76,432 1,723,361
2056 1,723,361 1,695,764 1,709,562 78,693 1,774,457
2057 1,774,457 1,744,045 1,759,251 80,980 1,825,025
2058 1,825,025 1,669,253 1,747,139 80,423 1,749,676
2059 1,749,676 1,250,750 1,500,213 69,056 1,319,806
2060 1,319,806 912,262 1,116,034 51,372 963,634
2061 963,634 660,286 811,960 37,375 697,661
2062 697,661 385,212 541,437 24,923 410,135
2063 410,135 201,074 305,604 14,067 215,141
2064 215,141 65,283 140,212 6,454 71,737
2065 71,737 (1,651) 35,043 1,651 (0)
2066 0 0 0 0 0
2067 0 0 0 0 0
2068 0 0 0 0 0
2069 0 0 0 0 0
2070 0 0 0 0 0
2071 0 0 0 0 0
2072 0 0 0 0 0
2073 0 0 0 0 0
2074 0 0 0 0 0
2075 0 0 0 0 0
2076 0 0 0 0 0
2077 0 0 0 0 0
2078 0 0 0 0 0
2079 0 0 0 0 0
2080 0 0 0 0 0
2081 0 0 0 0 0
2082 0 0 0 0 0
2083 0 0 0 0 0
2084 0 0 0 0 0
2085 0 0 0 0 0
2086 0 0 0 0 0
2087 0 0 0 0 0
2088 0 0 0 0 0
2089 0 0 0 0 0
2090 0 0 0 0 0
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 6.28%
Last Year of Expense 2083
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 29,849 7,376 688 40 7,019 44,972
2013 32,429 13,384 646 1,353 15,546 63,358
2014 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2015 13,367 13,672 170 33 4,233 31,475
2016 13,403 13,710 171 33 4,244 31,561
2017 10,590 9,528 144 32 3,342 23,636
2018 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2019 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2020 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2021 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2022 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2023 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2024 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2025 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2026 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2027 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2028 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2029 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2030 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2031 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2032 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2033 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2034 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2035 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2036 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2037 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2038 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2039 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2040 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2041 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2042 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2043 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2044 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2045 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2046 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2047 4,361 47 85 0 1,103 5,596
2048 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2049 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2050 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2051 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2052 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2053 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2054 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2055 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2056 4,409 287 85 31 1,358 6,170
2057 4,397 286 85 31 1,355 6,154
2058 4,418 342 85 31 1,355 6,231
2059 4,418 342 85 31 1,355 6,231
2060 4,472 453 85 31 1,358 6,399
2061 4,439 397 85 31 1,355 6,307
2062 4,418 342 85 31 1,355 6,231
2063 4,439 397 85 31 1,355 6,307
2064 4,451 398 85 31 1,358 6,323
2065 4,439 397 85 31 1,355 6,307
2066 23,533 1,117 687 39 2,688 28,064
2067 42,968 9,671 839 17,985 6,025 77,488
2068 44,052 12,575 721 32,024 7,136 96,508
2069 35,482 3,842 638 13,946 5,108 59,016
2070 35,482 3,842 638 13,946 5,108 59,016
2071 25,244 2,360 383 6,363 11,370 45,720
2072 19,424 5,104 102 7 5,655 30,292
2073 14,761 4,301 72 0 2,487 21,621
2074 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2075 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2076 2,768 0 43 0 1,323 4,134
2077 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2078 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2079 2,803 111 43 0 1,319 4,276
2080 2,810 111 43 0 1,323 4,287
2081 2,782 55 43 0 1,319 4,199
2082 2,888 555 43 3 7,827 11,316
2083 1,444 863 42 377 2,220 4,946
592,116 130,572 10,578 87,671 169,625 990,562
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2012 35,641 8,807 822 48 8,381 53,699
2013 39,884 16,461 794 1,664 19,120 77,922
2014 16,933 17,319 215 42 5,362 39,872
2015 17,441 17,839 222 43 5,523 41,068
2016 18,013 18,425 230 44 5,704 42,415
2017 14,659 13,189 199 44 4,626 32,718
2018 6,269 408 121 44 1,932 8,774
2019 6,457 420 125 46 1,990 9,037
2020 6,669 434 129 47 2,054 9,333
2021 6,850 446 132 48 2,111 9,588
2022 7,056 459 136 50 2,174 9,875
2023 7,268 473 140 51 2,240 10,172
2024 7,506 489 145 53 2,312 10,504
2025 7,710 502 149 54 2,376 10,791
2026 7,941 517 154 56 2,447 11,115
2027 8,180 532 158 58 2,521 11,448
2028 8,448 550 163 59 2,602 11,822
2029 8,678 564 168 61 2,674 12,145
2030 8,938 581 173 63 2,754 12,510
2031 9,206 599 178 65 2,837 12,885
2032 9,508 619 183 67 2,929 13,306
2033 9,767 635 189 69 3,010 13,670
2034 10,060 654 194 71 3,100 14,080
2035 10,362 674 200 73 3,193 14,502
2036 10,702 697 206 75 3,296 14,976
2037 10,993 715 213 78 3,388 15,385
2038 11,323 736 219 80 3,489 15,847
2039 11,662 759 225 82 3,594 16,322
2040 12,045 784 232 85 3,710 16,856
2041 12,373 805 239 87 3,813 17,317
2042 12,744 829 246 90 3,927 17,836
2043 13,126 854 254 93 4,045 18,371
2044 13,557 882 261 95 4,176 18,971
2045 13,925 906 269 98 4,291 19,490
2046 14,343 933 277 101 4,420 20,075
2047 14,653 158 286 0 3,706 18,802
2048 15,258 993 294 107 4,700 21,352
2049 15,673 1,019 303 111 4,830 21,936
2050 16,143 1,050 312 114 4,975 22,594
2051 16,628 1,082 321 117 5,124 23,272
2052 17,173 1,118 331 121 5,289 24,032
2053 17,640 1,147 341 124 5,436 24,689
2054 18,170 1,182 351 128 5,599 25,430
2055 18,715 1,217 362 132 5,767 26,193
2056 19,329 1,258 373 136 5,953 27,049
2057 19,854 1,291 384 140 6,118 27,788
2058 20,548 1,591 395 144 6,302 28,980
2059 21,164 1,638 407 149 6,491 29,849
2060 22,065 2,235 419 153 6,701 31,573
2061 22,560 2,018 432 158 6,886 32,053
2062 23,127 1,790 445 162 7,093 32,617
2063 23,934 2,140 458 167 7,306 34,005
2064 24,718 2,210 472 172 7,542 35,114
2065 25,391 2,271 486 177 7,751 36,076
2066 138,647 6,581 4,048 230 15,837 165,342
2067 260,745 58,687 5,091 109,139 36,562 470,224
2068 275,343 78,599 4,507 200,163 44,603 603,214
2069 228,430 24,734 4,107 89,783 32,885 379,940
2070 235,283 25,476 4,231 92,477 33,871 391,338
2071 172,416 16,119 2,616 43,459 77,657 312,267
2072 136,646 35,906 718 49 39,782 213,101
2073 106,957 31,165 522 0 18,021 156,664
2074 20,920 828 321 0 9,844 31,913
2075 21,547 853 331 0 10,139 32,870
2076 21,917 0 340 0 10,475 32,732
2077 22,859 905 351 0 10,757 34,872
2078 23,545 932 361 0 11,080 35,918
2079 24,252 960 372 0 11,412 36,996
2080 25,042 989 383 0 11,790 38,204
2081 25,536 505 395 0 12,107 38,542
2082 27,304 5,247 407 28 73,999 106,985
2083 14,062 8,404 409 3,671 21,618 48,164
2,580,427 434,796 44,643 545,396 732,128 4,337,391
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 7, SAFSTOR 2012, Spent Fuel 2057
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2012 483,937 430,238 457,087 28,702 458,940
2013 458,940 381,018 419,979 26,372 407,390
2014 407,390 367,518 387,454 24,330 391,848
2015 391,848 350,780 371,314 23,316 374,096
2016 374,096 331,681 352,888 22,159 353,840
2017 353,840 321,122 337,481 21,192 342,313
2018 342,313 333,539 337,926 21,220 354,759
2019 354,759 345,722 350,240 21,993 367,714
2020 367,714 358,382 363,048 22,797 381,179
2021 381,179 371,591 376,385 23,635 395,225
2022 395,225 385,350 390,288 24,508 409,858
2023 409,858 399,686 404,772 25,417 425,103
2024 425,103 414,599 419,851 26,364 440,963
2025 440,963 430,172 435,567 27,351 457,523
2026 457,523 446,408 451,965 28,380 474,788
2027 474,788 463,340 469,064 29,454 492,794
2028 492,794 480,972 486,883 30,573 511,545
2029 511,545 499,399 505,472 31,740 531,140
2030 531,140 518,630 524,885 32,959 551,589
2031 551,589 538,704 545,147 34,232 572,936
2032 572,936 559,630 566,283 35,559 595,188
2033 595,188 581,519 588,354 36,945 618,463
2034 618,463 604,384 611,423 38,393 642,777
2035 642,777 628,275 635,526 39,907 668,181
2036 668,181 653,205 660,693 41,487 694,693
2037 694,693 679,307 687,000 43,139 722,446
2038 722,446 706,599 714,523 44,867 751,466
2039 751,466 735,144 743,305 46,675 781,819
2040 781,819 764,963 773,391 48,564 813,527
2041 813,527 796,210 804,868 50,540 846,751
2042 846,751 828,915 837,833 52,610 881,525
2043 881,525 863,154 872,339 54,777 917,931
2044 917,931 898,960 908,445 57,044 956,004
2045 956,004 936,514 946,259 59,419 995,933
2046 995,933 975,859 985,896 61,908 1,037,766
2047 1,037,766 1,018,964 1,028,365 64,575 1,083,539
2048 1,083,539 1,062,187 1,072,863 67,369 1,129,555
2049 1,129,555 1,107,619 1,118,587 70,240 1,177,859
2050 1,177,859 1,155,265 1,166,562 73,252 1,228,518
2051 1,228,518 1,205,246 1,216,882 76,412 1,281,658
2052 1,281,658 1,257,626 1,269,642 79,725 1,337,351
2053 1,337,351 1,312,662 1,325,006 83,202 1,395,863
2054 1,395,863 1,370,433 1,383,148 86,853 1,457,286
2055 1,457,286 1,431,093 1,444,190 90,686 1,521,779
2056 1,521,779 1,494,730 1,508,255 94,709 1,589,439
2057 1,589,439 1,561,651 1,575,545 98,934 1,660,585
2058 1,660,585 1,631,605 1,646,095 103,364 1,734,969
2059 1,734,969 1,705,120 1,720,045 108,008 1,813,128
2060 1,813,128 1,781,554 1,797,341 112,861 1,894,415
2061 1,894,415 1,862,362 1,878,389 117,951 1,980,313
2062 1,980,313 1,947,696 1,964,004 123,327 2,071,023
2063 2,071,023 2,037,017 2,054,020 128,979 2,165,996
2064 2,165,996 2,130,882 2,148,439 134,908 2,265,790
2065 2,265,790 2,229,714 2,247,752 141,144 2,370,858
2066 2,370,858 2,205,516 2,288,187 143,683 2,349,200
2067 2,349,200 1,878,975 2,114,087 132,751 2,011,726
2068 2,011,726 1,408,512 1,710,119 107,384 1,515,897
2069 1,515,897 1,135,957 1,325,927 83,260 1,219,216
2070 1,219,216 827,878 1,023,547 64,272 892,150
2071 892,150 579,883 736,017 46,217 626,100
2072 626,100 413,000 519,550 32,624 445,624
2073 445,624 288,960 367,292 23,064 312,023
2074 312,023 280,110 296,067 18,591 298,701
2075 298,701 265,831 282,266 17,724 283,555
2076 283,555 250,823 267,189 16,778 267,601
2077 267,601 232,728 250,165 15,709 248,437
2078 248,437 212,519 230,478 14,473 226,991
2079 226,991 189,995 208,493 13,092 203,087
2080 203,087 164,883 183,985 11,553 176,436
2081 176,436 137,894 157,165 9,869 147,763
2082 147,763 40,778 94,270 5,920 46,698
2083 46,698 (1,466) 22,616 1,466 (0)
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
Fund Balance at 9/30/2008 ($000) 397,035.94
Expense Escalation Rate (%) 3.00%
Earnings Rate Required to Fund Decommissioning (%) 4.82%
Last Year of Expense 2090
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(2006 Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 32,106 14,145 688 40 7,019 53,998
2033 34,140 18,517 646 1,353 15,546 70,202
2034 12,456 10,940 170 33 4,233 27,832
2035 12,456 10,940 170 33 4,233 27,832
2036 12,490 10,970 171 33 4,244 27,908
2037 9,960 7,637 144 32 3,342 21,115
2038 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2039 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2040 4,404 272 85 31 1,358 6,150
2041 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2042 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2043 4,488 557 85 31 1,355 6,516
2044 4,404 272 85 31 1,358 6,150
2045 4,450 443 85 31 1,355 6,364
2046 4,469 500 85 31 1,355 6,440
2047 4,469 500 85 31 1,355 6,440
2048 4,462 443 85 31 1,358 6,379
2049 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2050 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2051 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2052 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2053 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2054 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2055 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2056 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2057 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2058 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2059 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2060 4,462 443 85 31 1,358 6,379
2061 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2062 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2063 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2064 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2065 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2066 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2067 4,392 271 85 31 1,355 6,134
2068 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2069 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2070 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2071 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2072 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2073 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2074 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2075 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2076 4,404 272 85 31 1,358 6,150
2077 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2078 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2079 4,431 386 85 31 1,355 6,288
2080 4,443 386 85 31 1,358 6,303
2081 4,412 328 85 31 1,355 6,211
2082 4,573 617 87 31 1,359 6,667
2083 28,682 1,102 851 61 2,797 33,493
2084 48,332 14,113 832 29,261 11,495 104,033
2085 40,193 8,600 682 23,863 8,727 82,065
2086 35,645 3,913 638 14,114 5,570 59,880
2087 35,645 3,913 638 14,114 5,570 59,880
2088 21,329 1,855 280 3,391 12,969 39,824
2089 20,135 6,232 85 0 1,926 28,378
2090 9,598 2,971 41 0 918 13,528
552,561 132,639 9,863 87,723 149,601 932,387
Schedule of Annual Expenditures
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Equipment & Yearly
Year Labor Energy Burial Other
Materials Totals
2032 69,240 30,505 1,484 86 15,137 116,452
2033 75,835 41,132 1,435 3,005 34,532 155,939
2034 28,498 25,030 389 76 9,685 63,678
2035 29,353 25,781 401 78 9,975 65,588
2036 30,317 26,627 415 80 10,301 67,740
2037 24,901 19,093 360 80 8,355 52,789
2038 11,310 698 219 80 3,489 15,796
2039 11,649 719 225 82 3,594 16,269
2040 12,031 743 232 85 3,710 16,801
2041 12,358 763 239 87 3,813 17,260
2042 12,729 785 246 90 3,927 17,778
2043 13,398 1,663 254 93 4,045 19,452
2044 13,541 836 261 95 4,176 18,910
2045 14,093 1,403 269 98 4,291 20,155
2046 14,578 1,631 277 101 4,420 21,008
2047 15,015 1,680 286 104 4,553 21,638
2048 15,442 1,533 294 107 4,700 22,076
2049 15,794 1,376 303 111 4,830 22,414
2050 16,268 1,417 312 114 4,975 23,086
2051 16,756 1,460 321 117 5,124 23,779
2052 17,306 1,503 331 121 5,289 24,550
2053 17,777 1,549 341 124 5,436 25,227
2054 18,231 1,355 351 128 5,599 25,665
2055 18,859 1,643 362 132 5,767 26,763
2056 19,478 1,692 373 136 5,953 27,632
2057 19,832 1,224 384 140 6,118 27,698
2058 20,520 1,525 395 144 6,302 28,887
2059 21,135 1,571 407 149 6,491 29,753
2060 22,016 2,186 419 153 6,701 31,475
2061 22,519 1,962 432 158 6,886 31,957
2062 23,095 1,717 445 162 7,093 32,512
2063 23,890 2,081 458 167 7,306 33,903
2064 24,674 2,144 472 172 7,542 35,003
2065 25,345 2,208 486 177 7,751 35,967
2066 26,106 2,274 501 183 7,983 37,046
2067 26,652 1,645 516 188 8,223 37,223
2068 27,771 2,413 531 194 8,488 39,396
2069 28,526 2,485 547 200 8,723 40,482
2070 29,382 2,560 564 206 8,985 41,696
2071 30,134 2,240 581 212 9,255 42,421
2072 31,256 2,715 598 218 9,553 44,341
2073 32,107 2,797 616 225 9,818 45,562
2074 33,070 2,881 634 231 10,113 46,929
2075 34,062 2,967 653 238 10,416 48,337
2076 34,870 2,154 673 245 10,752 48,695
2077 36,136 3,148 693 253 11,051 51,281
2078 37,220 3,242 714 260 11,382 52,819
2079 38,337 3,340 735 268 11,723 54,404
2080 39,594 3,440 757 276 12,102 56,170
2081 40,497 3,011 780 285 12,437 57,010
2082 43,234 5,833 823 293 12,848 63,032
2083 279,303 10,731 8,287 594 27,237 326,152
2084 484,773 141,554 8,345 293,490 115,296 1,043,457
2085 415,232 88,846 7,046 246,528 90,158 847,810
2086 379,295 41,638 6,789 150,186 59,270 637,177
2087 390,673 42,887 6,993 154,691 61,048 656,292
2088 240,781 20,941 3,161 38,281 146,406 449,570
2089 234,121 72,463 988 0 22,395 329,968
2090 114,950 35,582 491 0 10,994 162,017
2091 0 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0 0
3,855,869 713,021 66,896 894,575 944,523 6,474,885
Decommissioning Fund Balance
Scenario 8, SAFSTOR 2032, Spent Fuel 2042
(Nominal Dollars $000)
Ending
Beginning Ending Balance Average
Earnings Balance after
Balance before Earnings Balance
Earnings
2032 1,186,555 1,070,104 1,128,330 54,401 1,124,505
2033 1,124,505 968,566 1,046,535 50,457 1,019,023
2034 1,019,023 955,346 987,184 47,596 1,002,941
2035 1,002,941 937,353 970,147 46,774 984,128
2036 984,128 916,388 950,258 45,815 962,203
2037 962,203 909,414 935,809 45,119 954,533
2038 954,533 938,737 946,635 45,641 984,378
2039 984,378 968,108 976,243 47,068 1,015,177
2040 1,015,177 998,375 1,006,776 48,540 1,046,916
2041 1,046,916 1,029,656 1,038,286 50,060 1,079,715
2042 1,079,715 1,061,937 1,070,826 51,628 1,113,566
2043 1,113,566 1,094,114 1,103,840 53,220 1,147,334
2044 1,147,334 1,128,424 1,137,879 54,861 1,183,285
2045 1,183,285 1,163,130 1,173,208 56,565 1,219,695
2046 1,219,695 1,198,688 1,209,191 58,300 1,256,987
2047 1,256,987 1,235,349 1,246,168 60,082 1,295,432
2048 1,295,432 1,273,356 1,284,394 61,925 1,335,281
2049 1,335,281 1,312,868 1,324,074 63,838 1,376,706
2050 1,376,706 1,353,620 1,365,163 65,820 1,419,439
2051 1,419,439 1,395,661 1,407,550 67,863 1,463,524
2052 1,463,524 1,438,973 1,451,249 69,970 1,508,943
2053 1,508,943 1,483,717 1,496,330 72,144 1,555,860
2054 1,555,860 1,530,195 1,543,028 74,395 1,604,590
2055 1,604,590 1,577,827 1,591,208 76,718 1,654,545
2056 1,654,545 1,626,913 1,640,729 79,106 1,706,018
2057 1,706,018 1,678,321 1,692,170 81,586 1,759,907
2058 1,759,907 1,731,020 1,745,463 84,155 1,815,175
2059 1,815,175 1,785,422 1,800,298 86,799 1,872,221
2060 1,872,221 1,840,746 1,856,483 89,508 1,930,254
2061 1,930,254 1,898,297 1,914,276 92,294 1,990,592
2062 1,990,592 1,958,079 1,974,335 95,190 2,053,269
2063 2,053,269 2,019,367 2,036,318 98,178 2,117,545
2064 2,117,545 2,082,542 2,100,043 101,251 2,183,793
2065 2,183,793 2,147,825 2,165,809 104,422 2,252,247
2066 2,252,247 2,215,201 2,233,724 107,696 2,322,897
2067 2,322,897 2,285,673 2,304,285 111,098 2,396,771
2068 2,396,771 2,357,375 2,377,073 114,607 2,471,982
2069 2,471,982 2,431,501 2,451,742 118,207 2,549,708
2070 2,549,708 2,508,012 2,528,860 121,926 2,629,938
2071 2,629,938 2,587,517 2,608,727 125,776 2,713,293
2072 2,713,293 2,668,952 2,691,123 129,749 2,798,701
2073 2,798,701 2,753,139 2,775,920 133,837 2,886,976
2074 2,886,976 2,840,047 2,863,511 138,060 2,978,107
2075 2,978,107 2,929,770 2,953,938 142,420 3,072,190
2076 3,072,190 3,023,495 3,047,843 146,948 3,170,443
2077 3,170,443 3,119,162 3,144,803 151,622 3,270,785
2078 3,270,785 3,217,965 3,244,375 156,423 3,374,389
2079 3,374,389 3,319,985 3,347,187 161,380 3,481,365
2080 3,481,365 3,425,195 3,453,280 166,495 3,591,690
2081 3,591,690 3,534,680 3,563,185 171,794 3,706,474
2082 3,706,474 3,643,443 3,674,958 177,183 3,820,626
2083 3,820,626 3,494,474 3,657,550 176,344 3,670,817
2084 3,670,817 2,627,360 3,149,089 151,829 2,779,189
2085 2,779,189 1,931,379 2,355,284 113,557 2,044,936
2086 2,044,936 1,407,759 1,726,348 83,234 1,490,993
2087 1,490,993 834,701 1,162,847 56,065 890,766
2088 890,766 441,196 665,981 32,109 473,306
2089 473,306 143,338 308,322 14,865 158,203
2090 158,203 (3,814) 77,195 3,814 (0)
2091 0 0 0 0 0
2092 0 0 0 0 0
2093 0 0 0 0 0
2094 0 0 0 0 0
2095 0 0 0 0 0
2096 0 0 0 0 0
2097 0 0 0 0 0
2098 0 0 0 0 0
2099 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0
2101 0 0 0 0 0
2102 0 0 0 0 0
2103 0 0 0 0 0
Attachment 6.2
Vermont Yankee Decommissioning
Trust Fund Report
September 30, 2007
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
7.0 Nuclear Waste Management
The nuclear waste generated at Vermont Yankee is of two basic types –
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Because of
important differences in their radiological characteristics, comparative risks to
public health and the environment, and relative volumes generated, the legal
obligations and management strategies associated with these two types of waste
also differ significantly. Accordingly, this Report will discuss separately the
management of these two types of waste at Vermont Yankee.
7.1 Spent Nuclear Fuel
7.1.1 Background
7.1.1.1 Characteristics
Nuclear fuel used in power reactors is packaged in long, thin, metal-clad
rods, which are then bundled in assemblies. While there is considerable
variation in individual assemblies, a typical fuel assembly is about fourteen to
fifteen feet long, about nine inches square in a pressurized-water reactor, and
about five inches square in a boiling-water reactor.142 In a boiling-water reactor,
there are typically 63 fuel rods per fuel assembly, with each assembly weighing
320 kg (705 lbs), having a nominal volume of 0.0864 m3 (3.05 ft3) containing
0.183 metric tons of uranium (MTU).143 In a pressurized-water reactor, there are
typically 264 fuel rods per assembly, with each assembly weighing 658 kg (1451
lbs), having a nominal volume of 0.1860 m3 (6.57 ft3) and containing 0.461
MTU.144
Spent nuclear fuel results from the nuclear fission process which takes
place in power reactors. There are more than thirty elements which are
142 See DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, OCWRM
TRANSPORTATION REPORT 1 (1995).
143 See DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, CIVILIAN
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: TOTAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 6 (1997).
144 See id.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
produced by the fission process and found in spent nuclear fuel.145 Spent
nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and thermally very hot. At discharge, each
metric ton initially produces nearly 180 million curies of radioactivity and
generates 1.6 megawatts of heat.146 Because many of the radioactive isotopes
in spent fuel decay quickly, its level of radioactivity falls to 693,000 curies and its
thermal output to 12,500 watts per ton a year after removal from the reactor.147
However, even after 10,000 years, each ton of spent fuel still emits hazardous
levels (470 curies) of radioactivity and measurable amounts (fourteen watts) of
heat.148
Spent nuclear fuel is perhaps the most dangerous radioactive waste of all
in terms of its threat to human health and the environment, absent appropriate
measures for its safe storage and disposal.149 Even though it accounts for less
than one percent of the volume of all radioactive waste in the United States, it
contains 95 percent of the radioactivity from all civilian and military sources
combined.150 Each radioactive isotope in spent fuel has its own characteristic
duration and level of radioactivity, emitting varying levels of alpha and beta
particles and gamma rays for varying lengths of time.151 It is these particles and
rays which cause harm to living tissue and threat to the environment.
Typically, the level of radiation at a point in time is measured in curies and
duration of radioactivity over time is measured in “half-lives,” where a half-life is
the amount of time it takes for 50 percent of the isotope’s current level of
radioactivity to decay.152 Generally, the radioactive isotopes in spent fuel are
considered dangerous to human health and the environment for at least ten and,
145 See Richard Ausness, High-Level Radioactive Waste Management: The Nuclear Dilemma, 1979 WIS.
L. REV. 707, 727-30.
146 See NICHOLAS LENSSEN, WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE, NUCLEAR WASTE: THE PROBLEM THAT WON’T
GO AWAY 9 (1991).
147 See id. at 9-10.
148 See id.
149 See id.
150 See id.
151 See id.
152 See LENSSEN, supra note 5, at 9.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
in some cases, as many as twenty half-lives.153 Thus, shorter-lived fission
products, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137 with 30-year half-lives, require
isolation from the environment for 600 years before being considered safe.154 By
contrast, long-lived transuranics, such as plutonium-239, remain hazardous for at
least 240,000 and perhaps as many as 500,000 years.155
7.1.1.2 Temporary Storage
Based on the last comprehensive survey publicly reported by the
Department of Energy, there were approximately 47,000 MTU of spent fuel from
commercial nuclear plants in temporary storage at the end of 2002.156
Additional spent fuel is currently being generated at the rate of approximately
2,150 MTU per year.157 Thus, the Congressional Research Service has
projected that, by 2010, there will be approximately 62,000 MTU of commercially-
generated spent fuel in temporary storage. Including 7,000 metric tons of DOE
spent fuel and high-level waste that is also planned for disposal at Yucca
Mountain, this projection means that the total high level waste inventory would
nearly reach the NWPA’s 70,000-metric-ton limit by 2010.158 Longer term, DOE
recently updated its estimate of the total amount of commercial spent fuel that
may eventually require disposal from 105,000 metric tons159 to 130,000 metric
tons.160
Currently, spent fuel discharged from U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is
stored at 72 power plant sites around the nation, plus two small central storage
153 See Ausness, supra note 4, at 746; LENSSEN, supra note 5, at 9.
154 See Ausness, supra note 4, at 746.
155 See id.
156 See ANTHONY ANDREWS, SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE LOCATIONS & INVENTORY,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REPORT RS22001, 3 (December 21, 2004).
157 See id.
158 MARK HOLT, CIVILIAN NUCLEAR WASTE, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REPORT RL33461, 8
(November 26, 2007).
159 See DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, OCRWM
ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS, FISCAL YEAR 2002, DOE/RW-0560, October 2003, Appendix C.
160 See DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NYE COUNTY,
NEVADA, SUMMARY, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D, October 2007, p. S-47.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
facilities.161 Most commercial spent fuel is being stored in steel-lined, water-filled
pools below ground-level at the site of the generating reactor. However, a small
but increasing amount of spent fuel is being stored in heavy, thick-walled metal
or concrete casks above-ground on pads at reactor sites. At the end of 2002, for
example, approximately 41,600 MTU were stored in spent fuel pools and an
additional 5,400 MTU were stored in casks.162
7.1.1.3 Permanent Disposal
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a program for
developing a geologic repository for the permanent disposal of up to 70,000
metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. DOE’s Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) was created to carry out the
program. The Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds receipts from a fee on
commercial nuclear power to dispose of its waste and federal contributions for
emplacement of high-level defense waste, was established to pay for the
program. DOE was required to select three candidate sites for the first national
high-level waste repository. After much controversy over DOE’s implementation
of NWPA, the Act was substantially modified by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1987. Under the amendments, the only candidate site DOE
may consider for a permanent highlevel waste repository is at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. If that site cannot be licensed, DOE must return to Congress for further
instructions.163
7.1.1.4 Current Status of Yucca Mountain
Repository
Under the NWPA, a geologic repository was scheduled to be completed
so that DOE could begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors
beginning in 1998. However, numerous political, technical, financial and legal
problems have significantly delayed the characterization, licensing and
161 See HOLT, supra note 17, at 8.
162 See ANDREWS, supra note 15, at 5.
163 See HOLT, supra note 17, at 9.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
construction of the Yucca Mountain repository. As a result, DOE announced on
July 19, 2006, that it would submit a license application to the NRC for the
planned Yucca Mountain repository by June 30, 2008. At the same time, DOE
announced that its new goal for starting nuclear waste shipments to Yucca
Mountain would be early 2017 -- nineteen years later than required by the
NWPA.164 This is DOE’s “best achievable” schedule and assumes satisfaction
of several preconditions,165 of which two (Congressional approval of the Bush
Administration’s 2007 and 2008 budget requests and Yucca Mountain legislation)
have already not been met and two more (no litigation or licensing delays) are
most unlikely to occur as required. As a result, this schedule is now “in serious
jeopardy,” according to OCRWM’s director.166 In particular, the opening of a
Yucca Mountain repository could be delayed until 2020.167
7.1.1.5 Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Between
Nuclear Utilities and DOE
When Yucca Mountain delays had made clear that DOE would not be able
to accept spent fuel by January 31, 1998, the agency issued its Final
Interpretation of Nuclear Waste Acceptance Issues in May, 1995, stating that it
did not have an unconditional obligation to accept spent fuel in the absence of a
repository or an interim storage facility constructed under the NWPA.168 The
agency also determined that it had no authority under the NWPA to provide
interim storage in the absence of a facility authorized, constructed, and licensed
in accordance with the Act.169 Finally, DOE ruled that, even if it did have an
unconditional obligation to accept waste beginning January 31, 1998, the Delays
Clause of its Standard Contract for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel would
164 See id., at 10.
165 See DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, ANNUAL
REPORT TO CONGRESS, FISCAL YEAR 2006, 2 (March 8, 2007).
166 Erica Werner, Official: More Yucca Mountain Layoffs Ahead, Schedule in Doubt, SAN DIEGO UNION-
TRIBUNE, January 14, 2008, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/ 20080114-1739-nv-
yuccamountain.html.
167 Erica Werner, Yucca Head Defends '09 Budget Request, KOLO-TV Channel 8, Reno, NV, February
5, 2008, http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/15314246.html.
168 See 60 Fed. Reg. 21,793, 21,793-94 (1995).
169 See id., at 21,797.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
provide an administrative remedy for the agency’s failure to meet the
obligation.170
A number of nuclear utilities, states, and state public utility commissions
sought judicial review of DOE’s Final Interpretation of Nuclear Waste Acceptance
Issues. In Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Department of Energy,171 the D. C.
Circuit rejected DOE’s interpretation of the NWPA and held that the agency did
have an unconditional obligation to begin to accept spent fuel no later than
January 31, 1998, even in the absence of a repository or interim storage facility
authorized, constructed, and licensed under the NWPA.172 However, the court
also ruled that it was premature to determine the appropriate remedy, as DOE
had not yet defaulted on its obligation.173
The prospect of DOE default on its waste acceptance obligation and
indefinite at-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel became a reality for nuclear
utilities in December, 1996 when DOE sent letters to all holders of its Standard
Contract formally notifying them that the Department would be unable to begin
accepting spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998.174 The agency also invited
the utilities to share their views as to how the indefinite delay in waste
acceptance could best be accommodated. In response, much the same group of
utilities, states, and state commissions which had sued in Indiana Michigan
Power Co. petitioned the D. C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel
DOE to begin to accept spent fuel by the January 31, 1998 deadline. DOE
opposed the writ on the grounds that the petitioners had an adequate remedy
under the Delays Clause of the Standard Contract. In Northern States Power
Co. v. Department of Energy,175 the court denied the writ sought by petitioners,
but did issue one to compel DOE to comply with the court’s prior mandate in
170 See id.
171 88 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
172 See id. at 1277.
173 See id.
174 See DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, FISCAL
YEAR 1996 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS Summary at 4 (1997).
175 128 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
Indiana Michigan Power Co.176 Specifically, the court ordered DOE to proceed
with contractual remedies in a manner consistent with its unconditional NWPA
obligation to begin acceptance of spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998, and
precluded DOE from concluding that any delay in acceptance was unavoidable
“on the ground that it has not yet prepared a permanent repository or that it has
no authority to provide storage in the interim.”177
Both the petitioners and DOE sought Supreme Court review of the
Northern States Power decision, but the Court denied certiorari.178 The
petitioners also sought a “move fuel” order from the D.C. Circuit to implement its
mandate in Northern States Power, but the court denied that relief on the
grounds that the NWPA “requires the DOE to include an unconditional obligation
in the Standard Contract, [but] it does not itself require performance,” so
“[b]reach by DOE does not violate a statutory duty [or] provide a basis for a
move-fuel order.”179 Subsequently, on August 31, 2000, the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals decided two cases regarding the nuclear utilities’ remedies for
DOE’s breach of its Standard Contract: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v.
United States180 and Northern States Power Co. v. United States.181 In these two
cases, the court held that four nuclear power companies could sue the DOE for
breach of contract for its failure to dispose of the companies' nuclear waste by
the January 31, 1998 contractual deadline.
As a result of the Maine Yankee and Northern States decisions, over sixty
utilities have filed suits in the Court of Federal Claims seeking, in the aggregate,
176 See id. at 759.
177 Id. at 760.
178 See Department of Energy v. Northern States Power Co., 119 S.Ct. 540, 142 L.Ed.2d 449 (1998).
179 Northern States Power Co. v. Department of Energy, 1998 WL 276581, at *2 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
180 225 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (involving three New England power companies: Maine Yankee
Atomic Power Company, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Electric
Company).
181 224 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
billions of dollars in damages.182 The Washington Post has quoted industry
predictions that owners of all of the nation’s nuclear plants will eventually sue for
damages totaling between $31 billion and $53 billion.183 By comparison, DOE
estimates that the federal government will be liable for $7 billion in damages if
Yucca Mountain begins operating by 2017 as currently planned, with the liability
growing by $500 million for each year of additional delay.184
Through 2007, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had ordered more than
$400 million in payments to utilities in nuclear waste delay cases. For example,
during 2006, TVA was awarded $34.9 million in January, three New England
power companies were awarded $142 million in September, Pacific Gas &
Electric Company was awarded $42.7 million in October, and the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District was awarded $39 million in December. In 2007, Xcel
Energy was awarded $116 million in September and Entergy was awarded $58.7
million in October.185
In addition, DOE has reached settlements with at least two utilities.
Exelon announced a settlement with the Department of Justice in August, 2004,
which that utility calculated would result in payments of $300 million if DOE
began taking waste by its previous goal of 2010, and up to $600 million if the
schedule slipped to 2015. As previously noted, DOE now does not expect to
begin taking waste until 2017 at the earliest, so the Exelon payments will
certainly be even larger. Duke Energy also announced a settlement with DOE on
March 6, 2007, under which the company will receive an initial payment of $56
million and annual reimbursements for its future storage costs as they are
182 See Comment, Recent Decisions Concerning the DOE’s Commercial Radioactive Waste Disposal
Program, 19 ENERGY L. J. 387, 394 (1998).
183 See Michael Grunwald, Lawsuit Surge May Cost U.S. Billions, WASH. POST, Aug. 10, 1998, at A1.
184 See Elaine Hiruo, Duke Receives $56 Million in Spent Fuel Settlement Agreement, NUCLEAR FUEL,
March 12, 2007, at 11.
185 See HOLT, supra note 17, at 4.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
incurred.186
7.1.1.6 Reprocessing and Other Alternatives to
Geologic Disposal
In the past, DOE and its predecessor agencies have studied several
alternatives to the geologic disposal of spent fuel, as well as technologies that
might make waste disposal easier. However, most of these technologies involve
large technical obstacles, uncertain costs, and potential public opposition.
Among the primary long-term disposal alternatives to geologic repositories are
disposal in deep ocean trenches and transport into space, neither of which is
currently being studied by DOE. Other technologies have been studied that,
while probably not replacing geologic disposal entirely, might reduce the volumes
of high-level waste requiring geologic disposal and make geologic disposal safer
and more predictable. Chief among these technologies is the “reprocessing” or
“recycling” of spent fuel.187
With reprocessing, plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived radionuclides
are either separated from other fission products for reuse as nuclear fuel or
converted to faster-decaying fission products in special nuclear reactors or
particle accelerators. The other fission products remaining following
reprocessing are not subject to reuse and are therefore wastes. They are
primarily liquid, highly radioactive, and very unstable, being quite prone to fire
and explosion. To improve their stability and safety, these high-level wastes are
sometimes changed into solid forms intended for geologic disposal.188
In a few countries other than the United States, notably France, Great
Britain and Russia, reprocessing has been used extensively. However, no
commercially generated spent fuel has been reprocessed in the United States
186 See id.; see also Elaine Hiruo, Court Awards PG&E Less Than Sought for Spent Fuel Storage Costs,
NUCLEONICS WEEK, October 19, 2006, at 9, and Court Awards $39 Million to SMUD, NUCLEAR FUEL,
December 18, 2006, at 13.
187 See HOLT, supra note 17, at 16.
188 See Michael B. Gerrard, Fear and Loathing in the Siting of Hazardous and Radioactive Waste
Facilities: A Comprehensive Approach to a Misperceived Crisis, 68 TUL. L. REV. 1047, 1075 (1994).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
since 1976 and American national policy since the Carter Administration has
disfavored reprocessing, primarily because of the nuclear proliferation risks it
poses.189 The spent fuel recycling provisions in recent Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bills and the Bush Administration’s Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative seem to indicate renewed interest in this
area.190 But, this interest has been focused on research and development of a
“new generation” of reactor and reprocessing technologies which do not currently
exist and would likely require several decades to develop to the point where they
would have commercial application.191
7.2 Vermont Yankee’s Current Situation
7.2.1 Spent Fuel Storage
Through 2002, there were approximately 500 metric tons of spent fuel
stored at Vermont Yankee.192 Similar to the situation at many other nuclear
plants, the protracted and continuing delays in DOE’s acceptance of spent fuel
for transportation to and emplacement at the Yucca Mountain repository has
meant that the amounts of spent fuel projected to accumulate at Vermont Yankee
during its current license period would exceed the capacity of the plant’s spent
fuel pool. As a result, ENVY sought and obtained approval from the NRC and
PSB to construct and operate a dry cask storage facility at the plant.
In particular, in its April 26, 2006 Final Order in Docket 7082 conditionally
approving the new facility, the PSB found as follows193:
2. Currently, Vermont Yankee has sufficient spent fuel
189 In addition to the nuclear proliferation risks it poses, commercial reprocessing proved both
economically unattractive and environmentally problematic in the United States. Of the three reprocessing
plants constructed in the United States, one (West Valley, N.Y.) operated for six years but left a legacy of
contamination, fires and accidents; the second (Morris, Ill.) was completed but never opened because it did
not work; and the third (Barnwell, S.C.) was never finished because of massive cost overruns. See id., at
1075-76 & n.190.
190 See HOLT, supra note 17, at 16.
191 See INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES, RADIOACTIVE WASTES AND THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY
PARTNERSHIP, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, at 1 (2007).
192 See ANDREWS, supra note 15, at 5.
193 See PSB Final Order, Docket 7082, April 26, 2006, at 16-17, 22.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
storage capacity (in the spent fuel pool in the Reactor
Building) to operate with full-core discharge capability
until the 2007 outage. Without additional storage
capacity, such as the ISFSI proposed by Entergy VY,
Vermont Yankee would likely shut down no later than
2008.
3. If Entergy VY shuts down Vermont Yankee, it is likely
that Entergy VY will commence decommissioning,
which will require construction of an ISFSI to store the
fuel now in the spent fuel pool.
4. Entergy VY now proposes to install a dry cask storage
facility at Vermont Yankee to temporarily store a
portion of the spent nuclear fuel generated by
Vermont Yankee. The Project consists of a number of
modifications to Vermont Yankee that will permit
Entergy VY to store spent nuclear fuel in dry casks.
5. Dry cask storage has been in use at nuclear plants
since 1986. There are more than 30 such installations
in the United States. As of July 7, 2005, there were
118 loaded HI-STORM dry casks (the type Entergy
VY plans to use) at eight nuclear plant sites.
6. If construction commences in late April as planned by
Entergy VY, construction of the dry fuel storage
facilities should be completed in 2007. Entergy VY
would then conduct a "dry run" for loading of spent
nuclear fuel in the summer and fall of that year and
undertake the first loading campaign in early 2008.
7. During the first loading campaign, Entergy VY expects
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
to move enough spent nuclear fuel to load six dry
cask units.
8. If Vermont Yankee’s operating license is not renewed
in 2012 and Entergy VY removed all of the spent
nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pool and placed it in
casks, 60 casks would be required. However, the
proposed ISFSI could only store 36 casks.
9. Under the proposed schedule, Entergy VY will not
have sufficient capacity in the existing spent fuel pool
to maintain full-core discharge until the ISFSI is
complete. Entergy anticipates operation of Vermont
Yankee without full-core discharge capability will last
for approximately twelve months. . . .
42. An ISFSI with the proposed capacity, up to 36
overpacks, does not commit Entergy VY or the state
to plant operation beyond the current licensed life
(until March 2012).
43. An ISFSI large enough to accept all of the fuel from
plant operations and to accommodate full offload of
the spent-fuel pool would require space for
approximately 60 overpacks (for a 2012 plant
shutdown) and 80 overpacks (for a 2032 plant
shutdown); an ISFSI of sufficient size to meet these
needs would not fit within the plant’s existing, highly
protected security area.
The process of transferring spent fuel from the VY spent fuel pool to dry
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
cask storage began in the spring of 2008. During the transfer of the initial cask to
the ISFSI, ENVY experienced a reactor building crane problem on May 12, 2008.
Specifically, while lowering a spent fuel transfer cask, the crane operator
attempted to stop movement of the crane when the transfer cask was
approximately four inches above the refueling floor. However, the crane motion
did not stop as expected, and the fuel cask continued to be lowered at the normal
rate of speed to the refueling floor. The spent fuel transfer cask was set down on
the refueling floor in an acceptable location and supplemental cooling was
established per procedure. However, ENVY suspended the transfer process
through May 22, 2008. No further equipment problems were noted subsequent
to the resumption of the spent fuel transfer activities on May 23, 2008. ENVY
completed the transfer of the initial cask of spent fuel to the ISFSI on May 29,
2008.194 Subsequently, ENVY completed the transfer of four more casks on July
29, 2008.195 On August 5, 2008, the NRC concluded that the crane problem had
been the result of neglected maintenance but the resulting incident had not had
any impact on public health and safety.196
7.3 Spent Fuel Litigation with DOE
Like the other nuclear utilities, VYNPC filed suit against DOE in the
Federal Court of Claims for breach of its spent fuel disposal contract. Following
its purchase of VYNPS, ENVY did also. The two suits were then consolidated by
194 See VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, (UPDATE) TRANSFER OF SPENT FUEL FROM SPENT
FUEL STORAGE POOL TO ONSITE INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION (ISFSI), PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PNO-I-08-006A, available at www.nrc.gov,ADAMS
Accession No. ML081510695.
195 See Susan Smallheer, NRC: Entergy Neglect Led to Crane Crash, RUTLAND HERALD, September 5,
2008.
196 See id.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
the Court of Claims.197 In October, 2006, in response to cross-motions for
summary judgment from the parties, the Court of Claims ruled that DOE was
liable to VYNPS and ENVY for their damages caused by the Department’s
breach of the spent fuel disposal contract, with the respective amounts of those
damages to be determined at trial.198 Pending completion of discovery and the
filing of any further dispositive motions, the trial of the damages issues has yet to
be scheduled.
7.4 ENVY’s Spent Fuel Management Obligations under Federal
Law
Pursuant to 10 CFR § 72.210, ENVY notified the NRC of its plans to
construct and operate a dry cask spent fuel storage facility at VYNPS and, on
June 15, 2006, the agency published notice in the Federal Register that it had
issued a general license to ENVY for the facility. This notice was accompanied
by two orders modifying the VYNPS operating license to impose certain specified
but confidential security measures on the facility required by NRC regulations.199
Pursuant to 10 CFR § 72.212, ENVY’s general license to construct and operate
its dry cask storage facility is limited to storage only of the spent fuel authorized
by the VYNPS operating license and only in casks certificated by the NRC for an
initial period of twenty years. The general license is also subject to the additional
conditions imposed by 10 CFR Part 72 Subpart K, including compliance with the
requirement imposed by 10 CFR § 50.54(bb) to submit a plan for the
management and removal of spent fuel from the reactor site.
Because of the scheduled expiration of the VYNPS operating license on
March 21, 2012, ENVY submitted to the NRC on March 21, 2007 the initial plan
required by 10 CFR § 50.54(bb). Generally, the plan contemplates the following
197 See Federal Court of Claims Cause Nos. 02-898C and 03-2663C.
198 See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. U.S., 73 Fed. Cl. 236 (2006).
199 See Issuance of Order for Implementation of Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory
Measures, Docket 72-59, EA-06-116, June 15, 2006, available in the NRC’s ADAMS database as
ML061640284 and Issuance of Order for Implementation of Additional Security Measures Associated with
Access Authorization, Docket 72-59, EA-06-117, June 15, 2006, available in the NRC’s ADAMS
database as ML06164313.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
schedule of activities for VYNPS:
1. Completion in 2008 of a first, smaller dry cask storage facility within
the existing VYNPS protected area;
2. Expiration of the VYNPS operating license as scheduled on March
21, 2012;
3. Completion in early 2015 of a second, larger dry cask storage
facility within an enlarged VYNPS protected area.;
4. Transfer of casks from first facility to second facility during 2015;
5. Completion of the Yucca Mountain repository and acceptance by
DOE of spent fuel beginning in March, 2017;
6. Completion of transfer of spent fuel from reactor pool to second
storage facility during 2017;
7. First VYNPS spent fuel assembly removed from site in fourth
quarter of 2017;
8. Last VYNPS spent fuel assembly removed from site in December,
2042;
9. Second storage facility (along with rest of site) decommissioned
and decontaminated between April 2045 and March 2048; and
10. Second storage facility (along with rest of site structures)
demolished between December 2048 and June 2050.200
On March 12, 2008, the NRC sent ENVY a Request for Additional
Information regarding its spent fuel management plan. Specifically, the NRC
requested ENVY to explain how it would fund the plan “recognizing the
decommissioning trust fund is required by NRC regulation, 10 CFR § 50.75, for
radiological decommissioning and not for spent fuel management costs or other
200 See ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION PROGRAM
FOR MAINTENANCE OF IRRADIATED FUEL, dated Mar. 21, 2007, available at www.nrc.gov, ADAMS
Accession No. ML070860696.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
non-radiological costs.”201 Entergy’s response to the NRC staff’s RAIs stated,
“Entergy VY plans to use funds from the decommissioning trust fund to cover
spent fuel management costs.” 10 CFR § 50.75 requires that licensees provide
decommissioning funding assurance for decommissioning costs. However, such
costs do not include spent fuel management costs under 10 CFR § 50.54 (bb).
Funds placed in the decommissioning trust fund may only be used for
decommissioning, unless the funds are in addition to decommissioning funds and
have been earmarked for spent fuel management. Entergy has not earmarked
such funds and does not have a separate subaccount to address spent fuel
management costs. Furthermore, 10 CFR § 50.75 generally allows a licensee
who has submitted a site-specific cost estimate to take credit for projected
earnings on the decommissioning trust fund only up to a two percent annual real
rate of return through the decommissioning period. A licensee may use a credit
of greater than two percent up to the time of license expiration, but only if the
licensee’s rate-setting authority has specifically authorized a higher rate. This is
not the case for ENVY. ENVY’s plan uses a real rate of return of greater than
two percent through the specified SAFSTOR period, based on Entergy’s position
that it is reasonable to consider historical performance of the fund, and Entergy’s
pending request for license renewal. ENVY’s use of greater than two percent
has not been authorized by a rate-setting authority and no licensee may use a
greater than a two percent real rate of return after its license expiration. For
these reasons, it is unacceptable for VY to use greater than a two percent real
rate of return. Thus, the NRC Staff disapproved ENVY’s initial spent fuel
management program and requested the Company to submit a revised plan
within 90 days.202
201 See NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE REVIEW OF THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN, dated Mar. 12, 2008, available at www.nrc.gov., ADAMS Accession
No. ML 080710307.
202 See NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, VERMONT
YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION-REVIEW OF THE SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN , dated July 16,
2008, available at www.nrc.gov., ADAMS Accession No. ML081700564.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
ENVY submitted its revised plan to the NRC Staff on October 14, 2008.203
In its revised plan, ENVY attempts to address the concerns of the NRC Staff with
several significant changes, including:
1. While still using Decommissioning Scenario 5 as the basis for its
proposed SNF Management Plan, altering that Scenario to extend
completion of decommissioning until 2072;
2. Escalating the year-end decommissioning trust fund balance at a
rate of 2% per year, the maximum permitted by NRC regulations;
3. Committing to make an additional deposit of $60 million to the
decommissioning trust in 2026; and
4. Requesting, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, an exemption from the
requirements of §50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) in order to permit use of the funds in the
decommissioning trust for both decommissioning and spent fuel management.
For purposes of its revised plan and supporting financial analysis, ENVY
continued to use a decommissioning trust balance as of 12/31/07 rather than the
significantly lower balance as of 9/30/08 as the starting point for future fund
balance escalation. It also assumed a 2017 start date for Yucca Mountain
operations, future expansion of Yucca Mountain capacity beyond the current
70,000 MTU limit, and acceptance and transport of VY spent fuel on the
schedule set out in a DOE plan published in 2004. All of these assumptions are
subject to significant debate at the present time.
7.5 Vermont Yankee’s Spent Fuel Management Plan in the Event
of License Extension
Spent fuel management has been a major issue in the NRC proceedings
203
See ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., REVISED SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO 10
CFR 50.54(BB), dated Oct. 14, 2008, available at www.nrc.gov., ADAMS Accession No. ML082910294.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
on ENVY’s application for license extension. In particular, the State of
Massachusetts asserted that ENVY should significantly reduce the number and
density of spent fuel assemblies stored in the VYNPS reactor storage pool and
transfer a significant number of those assemblies to dry cask storage in order to
reduce the risks of pool fires due to accidents or malicious acts.204 In addition,
the State of Vermont contended that the ENVY application fails to adequately
assess the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage at the VYNPS site lasting
for a period of time that will be significantly longer than contemplated in the
Generic EIS and perhaps even indefinitely.205
Both of these contentions were deemed inadmissible in the VYNPS
relicensing proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board because they
conflicted with generic rules of the NRC.206 On appeal by the Massachusetts
Attorney General, the Board’s decision was upheld by the Commission.207
Massachusetts subsequently filed both a petition for rulemaking with the NRC
and a petition for judicial review with the First Circuit.208 The First Circuit ruled
that Massachusetts’ only available means of relief was its petition for
rulemaking.209 Subsequently, the NRC approved Massachusetts participation as
a state in the Vermont Yankee license renewal proceeding in order to protect its
petition for rulemaking.210 However, on August 1, 2008, the NRC denied the
204 See Massachusetts Attorney General's Request For a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene With
Respect To Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.'s Application For Renewal Of The Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Plant Operating License and Petition For Backfit Order Requiring New Design Features To Protect
Against Spent Fuel Pool Accidents, with supporting declarations, expert reports, and attachments, Docket
No. 50-271, filed May 26, 2006.
205 See Vermont Department of Public Service Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene
with Exhibits and Declaration, Docket No. 50-271, filed May 26, 2006.
206 See Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 64 N.R.C. 131 (2006), 2006 WL 5365836 (N.R.C.).
207 See Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station), 65 NRC 113, 2007 WL 172517 (N.R.C.).
208 See Massachusetts Attorney General's Petition for Rulemaking To Amend 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Docket
No. PRM-51-10, 71 Fed. Reg. 64,169 (Aug. 25, 2006) (public notice) and Commonwealth of
Massachusetts v. U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n, No. 07-1482 (1st Cir., filed March 22, 2007).
209 See Massachusetts v. United States, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008).
210 See Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., No. 50-271 (Nuc.
Reg. Comm’n May 12, 2008), available at www.nrc.gov, ADAMS Accession No. ML081330431.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-18
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
Massachusetts petition for rulemaking.211 On September 29, 2008,
Massachusetts sought judicial review of the NRC decision in the First Circuit.212
On November 6, 2008, this case was consolidated with a similar case filed by the
State of Connecticut in the Second Circuit.213 The State of Vermont and DPS are
seeking to intervene in the consolidated cases.
Spent fuel management was also a significant issue in the so-called Dry
Cask Storage Docket before the PSB, where the New England Coalition adopted
a position very similar to that advanced by the State of Massachusetts in the
NRC license renewal docket.214 The Citizens Awareness Network raised
additional issues regarding spent fuel management, particularly issues
associated with transfer of spent fuel assemblies from wet to dry storage and the
duration and extent of spent fuel storage and the VYNPS site.215
Thus, it is readily foreseeable that spent fuel management will be a major
issue in the consideration of the extension of VYNPS commercial operation by
both the Vermont legislature and the PSB. Furthermore, whether or not the
VYNPS license extension is approved by the NRC and a Certificate of Public
Good for extended commercial operation is approved by Vermont authorities,
spent fuel management will certainly be a major issue in the Certificate of Public
Good proceeding for the second VYNPS dry cask storage facility projected by
ENVY to come into service in 2015. This appears certain because the second
dry cask storage facility will be necessary even if VYNPS is shut down in 2012.216
As a result, it would seem that the principal difference between shut down and
continued operation scenarios for VYNPS in 2012 will not be the existence but
instead the capacity, configuration, manner of operation, and life expectancy of
211 See NRC Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking, Docket Nos. 51-10 & 51-12 (Aug. 1, 2008), available at
www.nrc.gov, ADAMS Accession No. ML081890124.
212
See Massachusetts v. United States, No. 08-2267 (1st Cir., filed Sept. 29, 2008).
213
See Blumenthal v. United States, No. 08-4833 (2nd Cir., filed Oct. 1, 2008).
214 See PSB Final Order, Docket 7082, April 26, 2006, at 9-10.
215 See id., at 10.
216 See VYNPS Report pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(bb) re Program for Maintenance of Irradiated Fuel,
Docket No. 50-271, filed March 21, 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-19
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
the second dry cask storage facility.
These are, of course, still very important and likely quite controversial
issues. They are also complex issues, with significant technical, economic, legal,
and political implications in their own right. The complexity inherent in these
issues is compounded by their interplay with another set of issues affecting spent
fuel management at every nuclear reactor and spent fuel storage facility in the
nation – the profound uncertainties associated with the Yucca Mountain
repository and the evolving federal policy response to the continuing conundrum
of what to do with spent nuclear fuel and other high level nuclear waste. This
interplay has many ramifications.
For instance, the 2012 shutdown scenario envisioned in ENVY’s 10 CFR §
50.54(bb) Report would appear to be too optimistic regarding the opening of the
Yucca Mountain repository and the initiation of spent fuel removal from VYNPS
to be relied upon for planning purposes. Based on the best available information
at this time, it would appear that the earliest plausible date for the opening of
Yucca Mountain is 2020 and not 2017.217 Moreover, there are significant
uncertainties regarding the funding, licensing, construction and operation of the
Yucca Mountain repository which would make it prudent to use both a “base
case” and a “contingency case” for Vermont planning purposes. A 2020 date
would be appropriate for the opening of Yucca Mountain in the “base case,” but a
considerably later date would be appropriate for the “contingency case” in order
to analyze the effects of an extended Yucca Mountain delay.
There are even more ramifications in a 2032 shutdown scenario. In
particular, it is evident that an inherent ramification of the widespread license
extensions being approved for existing nuclear plants will be significant additional
amounts of spent fuel being generated. As a result, at this point in time, it is
debatable whether the “contingency case” for a 2032 shutdown scenario should
217 See Werner, supra note 25.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-20
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
be based on the assumption of significantly expanded capacity for Yucca
Mountain or on the presumed existence and operation of a second repository,
but one or the other would clearly be appropriate. In addition, the existence of
additional spent fuel combined with repository uncertainties would appear to
entail longer periods of at-reactor storage. For example, the Department of
Energy’s recently proposed update for its Waste Confidence Rule would appear
to contemplate the need for at-reactor storage periods following plant shutdowns
of up to 50 to 60 years.218 Similarly, an inherent ramification of a Vermont
Yankee license extension will be significant additional amounts of spent fuel
being generated by the plant, with necessary implications for both the required
capacity and life expectancy of spent fuel management facilities at the site.
The extended life expectancy of spent fuel management facilities in even
a 2012 but especially a 2032 shutdown scenario makes comprehensive analysis
of the sources and amounts of funding for spent fuel management very
important. Arguably, such information is currently required by 10 CFR §
50.54(bb) as that regulation now reads, but only at a point in time five years
before the expected shutdown of an operating plant like Vermont Yankee.
However, the NRC has recently proposed a new rule intended to obtain
information regarding the future funding of spent fuel management on a timetable
more comparable to the information currently provided for decommissioning, with
the express recognition that such information is required sooner to assure the
availability and adequacy of the required funding later.219
This financial information is especially important where, as here, funds
previously collected from ratepayers for both decommissioning and spent fuel
management are commingled in the same trust funds and where most, if not all
of ENVY’s spent fuel management costs – at least for waste generated through
218 See Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of
Reactor Operation, 73 Fed. Reg. 59547 (proposed October 9, 2008) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R., pt. 51),
available at www.nrc.gov, ADAMS Accession No. ML082600597, esp. p. 11.
219 See Proposed Rule, Decommissioning Planning, 73 FR 3812-01, 2008 WL 166867 (F.R.) (January 22,
2008).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-21
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
2012 – would presumably be paid by DOE as damages in the pending spent fuel
litigation. But, such may well not be the case for spent fuel generated after
2012. Damage awards by the Court of Claims in the spent fuel litigation between
the nuclear utilities and DOE have been exclusively retrospective; prospective
payments have been involved only in settlements. In addition, of course, no
damage award to date has involved reimbursement of storage costs for spent
fuel generated during a license extension. Indeed, there would be a legal issue
of whether DOE’s breach of the Standard Contract would be the proximate cause
of the storage costs for spent fuel generated during a license extension –
especially if the original 70,000 MTU capacity of Yucca Mountain contemplated in
the NWPA has been exhausted as anticipated by spent fuel generated by 2010.
In the case of Vermont Yankee, of course, spent fuel associated with a license
extension would not begin to be generated until 2012 and would not be ready for
transport until 2017, even assuming that Yucca Mountain was completed and
accepting waste by that time.
7.6 Vermont Yankee’s Spent Fuel Management Plan in the Event
the Enexus Transaction Occurs
The effect of the proposed Enexus transaction on ENVY’s spent fuel
management plan is necessarily speculative at this time. In summary, the
proposal would transfer the ultimate ownership and control of VYNPS through
ENVY from Entergy to Enexus. As such, it requires the approval of the PSB in
addition to the NRC. The implications of this transfer, if it occurs, will not be
determinable until the pending Enexus proceedings before the PSB have
concluded and the terms and conditions of any approval of the Enexus
transaction are known.
7.7 Vermont Yankee’s Spent Fuel Management Plan in the Event
of an ENVY Bankruptcy Filing
The effect on Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel management plan of a
bankruptcy filing by ENVY would be much less uncertain than the effects on
contractual commitments discussed in Chapter 5 of this Report. This is because
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-22
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
a bankruptcy filing is generally not a bar to enforcement by federal agencies of
ongoing regulatory obligations, especially where the obligations in question
involve protection of public health and safety as they do with spent fuel
management. Of particular comfort with respect to spent fuel management
obligations would be that they typically involve compliance with regulations that
specify actions other than the payment of money. Additionally, the extent to
which spent fuel management funds are held in dedicated trust funds
disbursement from which are subject to NRC approval would also provide
protection for Vermont interests. However, any damage awards paid by DOE to
ENVY as reimbursement for spent fuel management costs incurred at VY would
likely be considered general assets of the bankruptcy estate.220 As a result, they
cannot be assumed to be available to fund any shortfall which may otherwise
exist with respect to future spent fuel management funding.
7.8 Spent Fuel Management Recommendations
In view of the discussion above, the following recommendations would
appear to be appropriate:
2012 Shutdown Scenario
1. The “base case” for Vermont planning purposes should include a date
of 2020 for the initial acceptance, transportation and shipment of spent
fuel to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository;
2. There should also be a “contingency case” for planning purposes
which should include a much later date for the initial acceptance,
transportation and shipment of spent fuel to the proposed Yucca
220 See, e.g., In re Torwico Electronics, Inc., 8 F.3d 146 (3d Cir.1993), cert. denied, Torwico Electronics,
Inc. v. New Jersey Dept. of Envt’l Protection & Energy, 511 U.S. 1046 (1994); In re Chateaugay Corp.,
944 F.2d 997 (2nd Cir. 1991); In re Coporacion de Servicios Medicos Hospitalarios de Fajardo, 805 F.2d
440 (1st Cir. 1986); Penn Terra, Ltd. v. Department of Envt’l Resources, Comm. of Pa., 733 F.2d 267 (3d
Cir.1984); New York v. Mirant New York, Inc., 300 B.R. 174 (S.D.N.Y.2003); In re Gandy, 327 B.R. 796
(Bankr. S.D.Tex. 2005); and In re Psychotherapy and Counseling Center, Inc., 195 B.R. 522, 36 Collier
Bankr.Cas.2d 1, 50 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 836, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 44,417 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1996).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-23
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
Mountain repository in order to assess the effects of such an extended
delay;
3. ENVY should be requested for its assessment of the effects these
changed assumptions would have on the spent fuel management and
decommissioning plans incorporated in its October, 2008 10 CFR
50.54(bb) Report to the NRC; and
4. ENVY should also be requested to make its analyses for a 2012
shutdown scenario to be more explicit than its March, 2007 and
October, 2008 10 CFR 50.54(bb) Reports to the NRC with respect to
the sources and amounts of funding required for spent fuel
management.
2032 Shutdown Scenario
1. The “base case” for Vermont planning purposes should include a date
of 2020 for the initial acceptance, transportation and shipment of spent
fuel to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository;
2. There should also be a “contingency case” for planning purposes
which should include a much later date for the initial acceptance,
transportation and shipment of spent fuel to the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository in order to assess the effects of such an extended
delay;
3. Serious consideration should also be given to the “contingency case”
for planning purposes assuming the need for either a significantly
expanded Yucca Mountain or a second repository in an alternate
location in order to accommodate the additional spent fuel associated
with the numerous license extensions which have been or will be
approved for existing nuclear plants;
4. ENVY should be asked to prepare a spent fuel management analysis
for a 2032 shutdown scenario comparable to the one it has prepared
for a 2012 shutdown scenario because the results of such an
alternative analysis are not at all obvious; and
5. ENVY should also be requested to make its analyses for a 2032
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-24
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
shutdown scenario to be explicit with respect to the sources and
amounts of funding required for spent fuel management.
7.9 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management
When it comes to radioactive waste, not all waste is created equal. High-
level waste, including spent nuclear fuel, garners the most attention because of
its long-term, lethal levels of radiotoxicity. Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW),
on the other hand, typically attracts less attention. However, the much larger
volumes of LLRW requiring disposal and the recent closing to most generators of
a critical disposal facility in South Carolina is focusing increased attention on the
LLRW issue, both nationally and in Vermont, notwithstanding the lower levels
and shorter durations of its radiotoxicity.
7.9.1 Definition of Low Level Radioactive Waste
Low level radioactive waste contains lower levels of radioactivity than
spent nuclear fuel and is classified in three categories: A, B and C. 221 Class A
waste is nominally safe after 100 years, Class B waste after 300 years, and
Class C waste after 500 years. Nuclear power plants generate significant
quantities of LLRW each year, through daily maintenance activities, reactor
cleanup systems, and disposable protective clothing. Class A waste comprises
the bulk of LLRW from nuclear power plants, about 85 to 90 percent. 222
7.9.2 Vermont’s LLRW Generation
Vermont Yankee is, by far, the largest LLRW generator in Vermont. For
recent years, the following table identifies volumes of low-level radioactive waste
created by Vermont generators.223
221 LLRW classifications are formally defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule found at 10
C.F.R. ' 61.55. Generally, Class A has the lowest radioactivity and Class C has the highest radioactivity.
222 The “Other” Waste Disposal Issue, 112 Power Engineering 3 (March, 2008), at 8, available at 2008
WLNR 7767414.
223 Uldis Vanags, Vermont Member, Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact
Commission, Report to the House and Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Energy Status of the
Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, January 31, 2008, at 3.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-25
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
Vermont Waste Volumes
(Prepared for Shipment)
(Cubic feet)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Vermont Yankee 1543 833 943 10,806* 2,154 2,153
University of Vermont 15.0 5.5 6.6 6.0 4.1 0
VA Medical Center 1.0 1.7 0.88 1.8 1.1 1.7
Middlebury College 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 5
VT Dept of Health 0 0 0 0 0 0
* The increase in Vermont Yankee volume in 2004 was the result of the major outage work
required for a power uprate intended to increase the plant’s output by 20%.
By comparison, in its last completed decommissioning study (January 2007),
Vermont Yankee projected it will have 267,578 cubic feet of low-level
decommissioning waste.224
7.9.3 Vermont’s LLRW Storage and Disposal Efforts
In the 1980s there was a prolonged effort to address Vermont=s need for
disposal of low-level radioactive waste by the Vermont Low-level Nuclear Waste
Advisory Committee. Then, in 1990, in order to meet mandates of federal law,
the Vermont General Assembly passed legislation that required Vermont to
search for an in-state disposal location for low-level radioactive waste, while at
the same time negotiating with other states to form a compact for disposal. In
negotiations conducted by the Agency of Natural Resources, the state of Texas
indicated a willingness to enter into compact discussions with Vermont, and in
1993, the Texas and Maine legislatures approved compact legislation, followed
by an affirmative statewide referendum in Maine in November 1993. The
Vermont General Assembly approved Vermont=s entry into the compact in April
224 Id., at 3 n. 2
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-26
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
1994. An interstate compact requires Congressional approval. Bills to establish
the compact were introduced in the 103rd (1994), 104th (1995-6) and 105th (1997-
8) Congresses. The compact was passed in 1998, and President Clinton signed
the compact into law on September 20, 1998. In April 2002, with the shutdown
and decommissioning of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant, the state of Maine
elected to withdraw from the Compact, as allowed by Compact sections 7.03 and
7.05. The withdrawal became effective in April 2004.225
7.9.4 National LLRW Storage and Disposal Developments
The Texas compact is the 10th compact that has been ratified by
Congress. The compacts are:
Texas Maine-Vermont Compact (Texas host) Central-Midwest (Illinois
host)
Atlantic (South Carolina host) Midwest (Ohio host)
Rocky Mountain (using Northwest facilities) Appalachian
(Pennsylvania host)
Southwest (California host) Southeast (North
Carolina host)
Northwest (Washington host) Central
States (Nebraska host)
The development of disposal facilities by individual compacts envisioned
by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 has not
occurred. States selected to host new compact facilities have all experienced
difficulties developing sites, and efforts to locate sites are stopped or stalled in all
compacts. Only the Northwest and Atlantic compacts remain secure with usage
of the existing Hanford, Washington and Barnwell, South Carolina sites as
disposal facilities.
A prime driving force for the lack of compact progress was the continued
225 Id., at 2.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-27
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
availability until recently of the Barnwell site, and the emergence of the private
(non-compact) Envirocare of Utah facility in Clive, Utah (now called Energy
Solutions). With considerably lower disposal prices, Energy Solutions has
become the disposal facility of choice for Class A waste. Barnwell=s higher
prices have resulted in its use primarily for Class B and C waste and special
requirement disposal items which Energy Solutions does not currently accept.
South Carolina, host state for the Atlantic Compact=s Barnwell site, began
to exclude access to non-compact members as of July 1, 2008. The Energy
Solutions facility had considered expanding its acceptance to include Class B
and C waste, but has abandoned this plan. Therefore, the Texas Compact
facility appears to be the only future disposal option for Class B and C Vermont
wastes.
7.9.5 Changes in Federal Law and Regulation
No changes have occurred in federal law or regulation during the past
year. The controlling law is the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985 that established the compact system. The law created
incentives for states to join multi-state compacts which could exclude wastes
from states outside the compact. Although compacts have been formed, the law
has not yet resulted in development of additional disposal facilities. Because of
this, there are calls for congressional intervention to revise the low-level
radioactive waste law. However, currently there is no active proposed legislation
in this area. Since Vermont has invested $12.5 million in the Texas Compact,
Vermont will want to monitor future developments in this area in the Congress.226
7.9.6 Status of Licensing the Texas Compact Facility
The State of Texas is required by the compact, which is federal law, to act
in good faith to develop a disposal facility. The former Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) (now the Texas Commission on
226 Id., at 4.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-28
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
Environmental Quality B TCEQ), the licensing body for the state of Texas,
completed its work reviewing the Hudspeth County Sierra Blanca site. In July
1998, the Texas Office of Administrative Hearings recommended the license
application for the Sierra Blanca site be rejected based on lack of information for
inferred faulting at the site and failure to address potentially adverse
socioeconomic impacts. Though exceptions to this opinion were filed based on
the record developed in the case, the full Commission accepted the
administrative law judges= recommendations and rejected the site on October
22, 1998.
Following rejection of the proposed Hudspeth County site, other possible
sites emerged. However, a new location needed approval of the Texas
legislature. Proposals for a disposal facility were strongly debated in the 1999
and 2001 Texas legislative sessions, but these sessions adjourned without
passing legislation. A major issue debated in the Texas legislature was whether
the disposal facility could accept waste from the Department of Energy (DOE) in
addition to Compact waste, a proposal supported by developer WCS.227 In 1999,
the legislature terminated the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Authority and assigned its responsibilities to TCEQ.
In May 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature passed HB 1567 which signaled a
policy shift in the statutory framework governing low-level radioactive waste
disposal in Texas. Significant changes in the law included the privatization of the
disposal facility, the authorization for such a facility to accept federal waste as
well as waste from Texas Compact participants, and the requirement that fees on
waste received at the proposed facility would be deposited in the State=s general
revenue fund. The development of the compact facility by a private developer,
regulated by the state of Texas, is a change from the plan anticipated when the
Compact was made.
The primary private candidate site is a 16,000-acre hazardous and mixed
227 DOE wastes are projected to have significantly larger volumes than Compact wastes.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-29
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
waste disposal facility in Andrews County, owned by private developer Waste
Control Specialists (WCS). In August 2004, the TCEQ received an application for
a proposed Compact facility from WCS in Andrews County. The TCEQ issued
notification of administrative completeness on February 18, 2005 and held a
public meeting in Andrews County on March 31, 2005.
The 79th Texas Legislature began with some controversy concerning the
storage of uranium mill tailings from the Fernald Environmental Management
Project in Ohio at the WCS facility in Andrews County. Ultimately, the
Department of State Health Services issued a permit to expand storage capacity
at the WCS facility with a non-binding license condition that requires WCS to
work with the Legislature on technical aspects. Currently, Fernald waste is
accepted and stored at the WCS facility in Andrews County.228
Significant progress has been made with the licensing of the Compact site
in 2007 and 2008. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
project team has evaluated the technical merits of the WCS application and on
December 10, 2007 issued an initial draft license including pre-construction,
construction, operational, and maintenance requirements. On August 13, 2008,
TCEQ Office of Chief Clerk mailed the Notice of Technical Summary and
Executive Director's Preliminary Decision, Licensing Order & Final Draft License
and the Draft Environmental Analysis to WCS and adjacent land and mineral
rights owners. Upon WCS publishing the official TCEQ notice, the public will
have 30 days to provide comment and request a hearing.229 Opposition from
state and national environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, is
expected.230
WCS projects the following timetable for the balance licensing process for
228 See VANAGS, supra note 82, at 4-5.
229 See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/radmat/licensing/wcs_license_app.html#wcs_status
230 See, e.g., http://texas.sierraclub.org/conservation/brochureWCS.pdf
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-30
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
and the initiation of LLRW waste disposal at the Compact facility231:
09/17/08 B Close of public comment period and filing of request for public
hearing
09/17/09 B Proposal for decision by TCEQ
11/15/09 B Final License issued by TCEQ
12/15/10 B LLRW disposal begins.
The rate setting process for the Compact facility will require rulemaking at
the TCEQ with input from the operator, the users (waste generators) and the
public. The rulemaking for rate setting was initiated earlier this year.
The Texas Compact Commission originally consisted of eight members --
six members from Texas and one member from Vermont and another from
Maine. With Maine=s withdrawal from the compact, the membership has been
reduced to seven. Governor Perry has yet to appoint the six Texas members to
the Compact Commission and authorize its operation. This would begin the
management process for setting policy and administration. 232
7.9.7 Summary of Compact Costs
According to the Compact, Vermont will pay $25 million to join the
compact, and an additional $2.5 million to the county in which the facility will be
located. These compact fees are not altered by Maine=s withdrawal from the
compact. In addition to these fees associated with joining the compact, Vermont
generators will pay disposal fees based on the volume and type of radioactive
waste to be disposed.
The completed sale of Vermont Yankee to ENVY changed the cost impact
to Vermont ratepayers. As part of the sale transaction, ENVY assumed the
responsibility and liability for disposing of low-level radioactive waste, including
decommissioning waste. Vermont utilities are purchasing Vermont Yankee power
from ENVY at negotiated, fixed prices through 2012, which do not change
231 See, e.g., http://www.wcstexas.com/PDF_downloads/Timeline_2007_0619.pdf
232 See VANAGS, supra note 82, at 5.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-31
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
regardless of the costs incurred by ENVY for waste disposed. Therefore,
Vermont ratepayers are no longer exposed to cost increases associated with
low-level radioactive waste disposal, at least through 2012.233
In September 2003, Texas requested payment of the initial $12.5 million
non-host party state contribution from Vermont. Vermont made the payment, all
of which came from Vermont Yankee, in three installments ending in November
2004. The remaining $12.5 million of the non-host party state contribution will be
due when the Compact facility opens.
Due to the rejection of the Sierra site and subsequent consideration of the
Andrews County site, development costs for a facility may increase. However,
two considerations may mitigate the effects of these costs for Vermont. First, it is
possible that a developer may invest corporate resources for a significant portion
of the development. Second and more importantly, the compact language
establishes that Vermont waste generators will pay the same disposal rates as
Texas generators, and the Texas generation of waste may increase significantly
with the potential construction of new nuclear power stations. Presently there are
six new power reactors planned for Texas with pending construction and
operating license applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Vermont state costs to administer the compact are also paid by Vermont
waste generators through assessments in accordance with 10 V.S.A. ' 7067 (3).
These state costs averaged approximately $40,000 per year in 2006.234
However, they increased to $65,000 per year in 2007.235
While future costs are inherently uncertain, considering the above factors,
the most recent report to the Vermont Legislature from the State=s Nuclear
233 While Vermont ratepayers are no longer exposed, ENVY and the other generators listed in the Vanags
report continue to be exposed to these cost risks.
234 See VANAGS, supra note 82, at 6.
235
Personal communication with Uldis Vanags, Nov. 10, 2008.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-32
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
Engineer concludes that the cost estimates envisioned at the time of acceptance
of the Compact are still reasonable.236
7.9.8 Recommendations Regarding Vermont’s Continued
Participation in Texas Compact
Circumstances have changed since the original compact negotiations that
could not have been foreseen, including the availability of Energy Solutions=
facility for Class A waste, Texas= denial of the Sierra Blanca site, the
development of the Compact facility by a private developer, and the consequent
schedule delay for disposal in Texas. However, it appears the Texas Compact
facility will be the only future option for off-site disposal of VY Class B and C
wastes.
Accordingly, in his most recent report to the Legislature, the Vermont
Nuclear Engineer concluded that the State=s participation in the Texas Compact
continues to be desirable and recommended that the State continue to actively
monitor Compact activities in Texas. He also recommended that Vermont
should monitor the constitution of the Texas Compact Commission and should be
ready to support the role of its two Commission members.237
7.9.9 Interim Storage of LLRW at Vermont Yankee
The Energy Solutions facility in Utah remains available to all Vermont
generators, including Vermont Yankee, for disposal of Class A radioactive waste.
Class A waste constitutes the vast majority of LLRW produced by Vermont
Yankee, and all of the LLRW produced by the other small generators in Vermont.
Thus, based on the present schedule for the Texas Compact LLRW facility,
onsite storage will be required only for VY’s Class B and C waste and only until
December 15, 2010.
This circumstance is not expected to be an impediment to continued
236 See VANAGS, supra note 82, at 6.
237 Id., at 7.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-33
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 7 Nuclear Waste Management
operation of Vermont Yankee. The volume of Class B and C waste which the
plant produces is small compared to its annual low-level radioactive waste
generation in total. To store this waste, VY has a storage facility on-site licensed
by the NRC. This facility consists of shielded concrete vaults with sufficient
capacity to store the expected volumes of Class B and C waste generated by VY
for at least 5 years, or until 2013. 238 Assuming that the Texas Compact facility
becomes operational by December, 2010 as projected, this interim storage
capacity should be more than sufficient for VY’s purposes in the near term. In
addition, since disposal access for Class B and C waste is a national problem
affecting many nuclear power plants, waste storage and processing vendors are
constantly exploring new options to provide interim storage at approved facilities
that could become available to Vermont Yankee (if needed) in the future.
238 Id., at 3-4.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 7-34
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
8.0 Introduction and Overview
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This report was commissioned by the State of Vermont Department of
Public Service (DPS), as a part of the overall evaluation of the application by
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) to obtain permission from the State of
Vermont to operate the plant an additional 20 years.
The report is designed to be an overview of the Vermont Yankee offsite
emergency preparedness program in general, and of the ability of the utility and
the state to provide reasonable assurance that evacuations from the Vermont
Yankee Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) can occur in an expeditious manner
and in accordance with utility and State of Vermont Emergency Management
(VEM) emergency plans.
8.2 PURPOSE
According to State of Vermont officials, several issues and questions have
been raised by local officials, members of the public and town officers within the
EPZ regarding their confidence in the ability of the utility and the state to actually
conduct a full evacuation in a timely and expeditious manner. The Towns of
Dummerston and Guilford both wrote a series of letters in 2003 to VEM
requesting information and action regarding several issues, including
transportation of the transit-dependent population, which includes schools, child
care centers, nursing homes and hospitals. This report looks broadly at the
entire offsite emergency preparedness program and focuses specifically on
evacuation issues, including evacuation time estimates, availability of
transportation resources and the ability of local and state officials to successfully
implement an evacuation of the entire EPZ.
8.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This evaluation was conducted using several research methods, including:
Review of plans and procedures,
Review of performance in drills and exercises,
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Interviews with utility, local and state officials, and
Review of evacuation methods and evacuation time estimates.
8.3.1 Plans and Procedures
Emergency plans form the basis of all actions that can and will be taken in
an emergency event. Accordingly, State of Vermont Radiological Emergency
Response Plans (RERPs) and implementing procedures were reviewed as a part
of this study. More specifically, the State of Vermont RERP, the Town of
Brattleboro RERP, the town of Dummerston RERP, the Bellows Falls Union High
School Reception Center RERP, the Windham Southeast Supervisory School
Union RERP, and child care and other special population facility RERPs in
Brattleboro were reviewed.
Emergency plans are the foundation of emergency planning. Potentially
hazardous facilities develop emergency plans to cope with a variety of scenarios
such as chemical accidents, radiological releases or weapons-based attacks.
Often, nuclear utility emergency plans are also used for other emergency
planning purposes, such as preparing communities for floods and hurricanes
since nuclear power plants and their host states must develop comprehensive
emergency plans, train responders, and test those plans in full-scale emergency
exercises.
For example, on April 23, 2008 FEMA Region 1 held its annual Hurricane
Contingency Plan (ConPlan) Workshop in Maynard, Massachusetts. All six New
England states attended, along with a number of federal emergency partners.
The State of Maine representatives at this Workshop credited their nuclear plant
emergency plans for the ability of coastal counties near the nuclear plants to
implement emergency measures when faced with hurricanes. New Hampshire
representatives noted that they use their detailed emergency plans developed for
response to a Seabrook or a Vermont Yankee emergency to respond to other
hazards such as hurricanes. Similarly, Vermont representatives credited the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Vermont Yankee emergency plan as helping towns and counties in the tri-state
EPZ and the state overall to effectively implement hurricane evacuation plans.
In short, states with nuclear power plants are generally regarded as much
better prepared to respond to all hazards and all emergencies because of their
ongoing efforts in revising and upgrading nuclear emergency plans, constant
training efforts and continuous improvement through participation in frequent
drills and exercises.
8.3.2 Review of Performance in Drills and Exercises
Looking at performance in drills and exercises is an important evaluation
tool, as it allows a snapshot of how people actually implement emergency plans
under simulated conditions. Accordingly, several full-scale and partial scale
emergency preparedness drills and exercises conducted in Vermont since 2003
were reviewed.239
8.3.3 Interviews with Utility, State and Local Officials
Interviewing both specifically and randomly selected officials also provides
data regarding how people perceive their plans and procedures, the status of
planning efforts, and their ability to successfully implement emergency plans.
Several state officials from VEM and Vermont Department of Public Service
(DPS), as well as Vermont Yankee Emergency Planning (EP) officials and local
officials from the town of Brattleboro were extensively interviewed about their
perceptions of the overall planning effort, their role in that effort and the
probability of successful outcomes in an emergency event. Also interviewed
were childcare center managers, a school superintendent, a bus operations
supervisor, and a nursing home official within the EPZ.
8.3.4 Review of Evacuation Methods and ETEs
239
The author of this Chapter managed the utility’s offsite exercise evaluation program for the 2001 full
participation exercise and is familiar with the efforts of the state. As a consultant, the author assisted the
state at its Emergency Operations Center in two drills and one full-scale exercise in 2001.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
The most recent Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) study, published in
2005, (Reference 3.5), was reviewed. Other studies on evacuation (e.g. EPA’s,
“Evacuation Risks-An Evaluation”, (Reference 4.1)), were reviewed to determine
the reasonableness of the emergency evacuation plan for communities within the
EPZ and to look at the transportation needs and resources available to make
evacuations successful.
8.3.5 Summary
An understanding of the effectiveness of a program can be obtained when
the above evaluation methods are used and data developed. A review of
emergency plans provides a snapshot of the planning basis for emergency
actions. A review of actual human performance in federally evaluated drills and
exercises provides a snapshot of how effectively plans can be implemented by
first responders and others. Interviews with people charged with implementing
portions of the emergency plans can reveal potential weaknesses and strengths
in those plans, and can also provide a snapshot about the human element in
emergency planning and how emergency responders perceive the chances for
successful outcomes.
8.4 Overview of The Vermont Yankee Emergency Planning
Program
8.4.1 The Site
Vermont Yankee is a 620 MW nuclear power plant located on 125 acres
on the Connecticut River in Vernon, Vermont. Vernon is located adjacent to the
state boundaries of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
8.4.2 Emergency Planning Zone
The Vermont Yankee Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone, or
EPZ, encompasses a total of 17 towns within the three states of Vermont,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Six Vermont communities are located
within the EPZ, namely the towns of Vernon, Brattleboro, Dummerston, Halifax,
Guilford and Marlboro. Total population of the 10-mile EPZ is estimated to be
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
33,759 people. It should be noted that this number is relatively low compared to
a number of other nuclear power plant planning zones in the United States.240
8.4.3 Role of the Utility
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee holds the operating license for the
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. As such, ENVY is legally responsible for the safe
and efficient operation of the nuclear plant, in accordance with the requirements
of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). ENVY supports EP efforts
locally and regionally by providing $1.7 million to the State of Vermont on an
annual basis to be used to improve emergency preparedness within the EPZ and
within state agencies that participate in the radiological emergency preparedness
program.241
8.4.4 Role of Local Government
Municipal governments within the EPZ are responsible for maintaining
emergency plans, maintaining equipment, operating a local Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) and for participating in frequent nuclear/radiological
training programs, as well as frequent drills and exercises, to ensure competence
is developed and maintained.
As discussed in a later section, the Brattleboro Town Manager and
Emergency Management Director, the Brattleboro Fire Chief and the Brattleboro
Police Chief were all interviewed during the preparation of this report. The Town
of Brattleboro is the largest community within the Vermont portion of the EPZ,
and has the most special needs/transportation-dependent facilities of any town
within the EPZ. All three officials acknowledged the work done by ENVY to
provide funds and expertise and the VEM staff for their help with communications
equipment, frequent training, plan revisions, and drills and exercises. Perhaps
240
The Seabrook, NH EPZ population is approximately 118,000. The Pilgrim, MA EPZ population is
approximately 75,000,
241
ENVY also pays a combined $1.7 million annually to New Hampshire and Massachusetts due to the
presence of certain towns in those states in the EPZ. Additionally, ENVY provides $200,000 each year to
be shared among the three states for siren maintenance and reimbursement of drill costs, making the total
annual contribution among the three states $3.6 million.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
most importantly, all three were confident their local first responders could handle
nearly any contingency because of their involvement in the RERP process.
8.4.5 Role of the State
Vermont has three state level departments/agencies that have some level
of interaction with and oversight of ENVY operations. Vermont Emergency
Management is the lead agency for working with ENVY officials, federal officials,
other state officials, local officials and first responders to ensure that emergency
plans are written, tested and revised as necessary.
The Vermont Department of Health (DOH) also plays a substantive role in
ENVY operations, primarily by overseeing some of ENVY’s onsite environmental
sampling program, by conducting its own offsite environmental sampling
program, and by providing team members to assist with plume monitoring and
post plume (i.e. ingestion pathway) sampling. The state DOH also maintains a
state public health lab in Burlington that can process radiological samples during
an emergency event at ENVY.
The Vermont Department of Public Service also plays a role in monitoring
ENVY operations, in part through the work of the state’s nuclear engineer. The
state engineer also works closely with other state and federal agencies and with
ENVY licensing staff to ensure that Entergy and ENVY adhere to the regulations
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and resolve issues as they
arise.
It is the opinion of the author, that the State of Vermont is appropriately
overseeing the offsite RERP program. This opinion is based on interviews with
state, local and utility officials, and on evidence that when problems are identified
they are appropriately managed and dealt with. A good example of pro-active
problem solving is the program to classify transportation-dependent people into
one of five categories, ranging from people who can ride on a bus by themselves,
to those who can ride on a bus but need seat belts to hold them in place, to those
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
who need one-on-one nursing care. This five level classification scheme will
substantially improve the state’s ability to identify mobility impaired or
transportation-dependent populations and match appropriate modes of
transportation to that population.
8.4.6 Role of the Federal Government
Several federal agencies play a key role in radiological emergency
response planning.
The NRC is charged with developing rules and laws to license and
regulate the civilian nuclear industry, and to perform inspections to verify that
licensees are following the conditions of their licenses as well as the regulations
specified in Title 10 CFR Part 50 (the part of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations that regulates nuclear power plant operations) and other parts of
Title 10.
As a part of this review of the Vermont RERP program and process,
several NRC inspection reports that looked specifically at ENVY and its role in
offsite emergency preparedness were reviewed.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not regulate
the nuclear power industry, but pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, part 350 et. seq. provides guidance to offsite response
organizations such as states and EPZ communities. FEMA also takes the lead in
evaluating offsite RERP exercises. Accordingly, several FEMA developed
exercise evaluations were reviewed in preparing this Chapter.
Other federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are involved in the RERP process by
either providing specialized assistance to offsite response organizations and/or
by setting radiological standards for emergency workers and the public.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
8.5 Bases and Assumptions Used in Nuclear Emergency Planning
8.5.1 Reasonable Assurance
RERP regulations promulgated by the NRC, and RERP standards of
performance promulgated by the NRC and FEMA, are all designed to provide
“reasonable assurance” that all the entities involved in the RERP process, from
the utility itself to offsite local, state and federal responders, can adequately
protect the public’s health and safety in a radiological emergency. The concept
of reasonable assurance applies to any type of emergency planning, including
RERP, floods and other natural hazards planning, school emergency planning,
aviation emergency planning, and especially hazardous materials emergency
planning. Additionally, unlike many emergencies that occur with little or no
warning, problems at nuclear plants tend to develop over a period of time,
allowing for more effective implementation of emergency plans.
8.5.2 Graded Approach to RERP
There are four emergency event classifications that can be declared by a
nuclear power plant based on NRC regulations and definitions. All offsite actions
are based on which classification is declared by the utility.
Notification of Unusual Event – Events are occurring or have happened that
may indicate a potential degradation on the level of plant safety. No radioactive
releases are expected at this classification. Virtually all of the emergencies
declared by nuclear power plants across the country over the past 20 plus years
have been at this lowest emergency classification level.
Alert – Events are in progress or have occurred that involve an actual or
potential substantial degradation on the level of plant safety. As with an Unusual
Event, this classification level involves degraded plant conditions, but involves
more substantial degradation. A small release of radioactivity, expected to be
only a small fraction of the EPA protective action guide exposure levels, is
possible but not likely at this classification level.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Site Area Emergency – Events are in progress or have occurred that involve
actual or likely major failures in critical plant functions needed to protect the
public. Any possible radiological releases are not expected to exceed the EPA
standards beyond the nuclear power plant site boundary. Only three Site Area
Emergency declarations have been made in the last 20 or more years at nuclear
power plants in the US.
General Emergency – Events are in progress or have occurred that involve
actual or imminent substantial reactor core damage, or core melting, with the
potential for the loss of containment integrity. Radiological releases that exceed
EPA standards can be expected to occur beyond the site boundary at this level.
It is important to note that the last time the U.S. nuclear industry experienced a
General Emergency was the Three Mile Island emergency in 1979, nearly 30
years ago.
The graded approach to emergency planning allows planners to be ready for
actions they may need to take at the level of emergency the nuclear power plant
has declared, and begin preparing for actions that may be necessary at the next
higher level.
For example, if Vermont Yankee were to declare an Alert, then offsite response
organizations would take actions listed in their emergency plans for an Alert,
including staffing local and state EOCs, opening communications links, and begin
preparing for additional emergency operations. At the same time, offsite
response organizations would begin preparing for any pre-planned actions that
may be required for a Site Area Emergency (SAE). Such pre-planned
preparatory actions could include assembling teams of local firefighters to run
“Paul Revere” notifier routes if required at a SAE, and mobilizing transportation
resources, such as school bus drivers if schools were in session, so that if events
do escalate to an SAE, resources are in place to rapidly implement required
actions.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
8.5.3 Emergency Plans Have Improved Over Time
Nuclear power plants are designed, by federal law, to assume that
accidents could happen. Important and critical systems and components have
back up systems, and typically these systems have backup systems.
A future section of this report looks at the emergencies declared by US
nuclear plants in the past 20 plus years. Of all the emergency events declared,
only three have risen to the level of a Site Area Emergency. No General
Emergency events have been declared since the Three Mile Island accident,
nearly 30 years ago.
Several security and emergency preparedness improvements were
implemented after the accident at TMI in 1979, and again after the attacks on
America on September 11, 2001. In addition, the NRC and FEMA attempt to
learn lessons from non-nuclear events, such as Hurricane Katrina two years ago,
and from other nuclear events around the world. Lessons learned are passed on
to the nuclear industry by federal agencies and by nuclear industry groups (e.g.
Nuclear Energy Institute) to continually improve onsite and offsite emergency and
security plans.
The value of participating in a RERP program was stressed by local
officials interviewed in the town of Brattleboro, who felt that they were better
prepared than non-EPZ towns to handle any kind of local, regional or statewide
emergency.
8.6 REVIEW OF PLANS AND PROCEDURES
Summary of Emergency Plans Evaluated
Emergency responses are based on the content of emergency plans. As
a part of this review, several emergency plans were reviewed and then discussed
with state and local officials charged with implementing the plans.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
The State of Vermont’s Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Ref. 1.1)
was reviewed in detail. The state, through VEM maintains the plan and its 100
separate documents. For the most part, the plan is up-to-date, and contains
descriptions of changes made as a result of lessons learned from exercises and
drills.
The Town of Dummerston’s RERP (Ref. 1.5) was reviewed and found to
be the most current, having been updated in June of 2008. The Plan contained
all the sections and information required by the NRC and by FEMA, and contains
a “cross-walk” to easily verify that all the criteria contained in NUREG
0654/FEMA-REP-1 (Ref. 4.2) are included and current.
The Town of Brattleboro’s RERP (Ref. 1.2) is the most comprehensive, as
the town has the largest population of any Vermont EPZ town, and also contains
the largest school district and the most public and private child care facilities
within the EPZ. Brattleboro officials were interviewed and were very
knowledgeable about the contents of the Plan. The Brattleboro town EOC was
also toured and all workstations had current copies of the relevant implementing
procedures available. Communications systems and equipment were found to
be as described in the town RERP. Although this facility is an old facility, it can
still function as a working EOC.
The Windham Southeast Supervisory Union Emergency Response Plan
was reviewed. While not as current as other plans (the school union plan review
was dated February 2003), the plan contained necessary information and
procedures for school officials to successfully implement the plan. The School
Superintendent was interviewed as a part of this evaluation and was found to be
very knowledgeable about the plan and its implementing procedures.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
The Town of Vernon’s RERP was also reviewed (Ref. 1.4) and found to be
well written and in conformance with regulations and guidance. The Vernon town
RERP and implementing procedures were revised in 2007, making them current.
All emergency plans reviewed were found to be compliant with NRC and
FEMA regulations and guidance concerning RERPs, and were all standardized
so that implementing procedures in one town could be used by staff in another
town. Instructions on dosimetry and Protective Actions Guides were adequate,
and information about the distribution and use of Potassium Iodide (KI) was
current. Local officials interviewed were very knowledgeable on KI requirements
and also actions to take to implement State ordered protection action directives.
8.7 EVALUATION OF DRILL AND EXERCISE PERFORMANCES
Overview of Exercises examined
As noted in the introduction to the Chapter, one way to evaluate the
effectiveness of an emergency response capability is to look at how key
responders actually perform.
This section looks at the performance of utility, state and local officials, as
well as private schools and daycare facilities, during three major full-scale
exercises and several drills held in between those exercises. It also looks at
several recent NRC inspection reports that discuss the ENVY emergency
preparedness program.
The major exercises, evaluated by a large team of FEMA evaluators, were
held on April 8, 2003, May 24-26, 2005, and October 17, 2007.
Additional state–sponsored (VEM) transportation related drills were held in
between the full-scale exercises in October 2007 and in April and May of 2008.
Evidence was also found of bus drills being held in February and in October of
2005.
Table 3-1 looks at each deficiency and each Area Requiring Corrective
Action (ARCA) issued by FEMA for the three major exercises above. A
“deficiency” is defined by FEMA in its exercise document REP-14, as “an
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
observed or identified inadequacy of organizational performance in an exercise
that could cause a finding that offsite emergency preparedness is not adequate
to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be
taken in the event of a radiological emergency to protect the health and safety of
the public living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant.” A FEMA generated
deficiency, therefore, is evidence that offsite portions of the nuclear emergency
plan may not be able to be effectively implemented, and as such, the public’s
health and safety are at risk in the event of an offsite radiological release.
An “Area Requiring Corrective Action” is also defined in REP-14 as “an
observed or identified inadequacy of organizational performance in an exercise
that is not considered, by itself, to adversely impact public health and safety.”
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES AND ARCAS ISSUED BY FEMA IN
THE 2003, 2005 AND 2007 FULLSCALE EMERGENCY EXERCISES
LOCATION YEAR ID # ARCA OR DEFICIENCY STATUS
State of 2003 03-1.a.1-A-01 State of VT staff were This ARCA was
Vermont pre-positioned at or near not repeated, and
Emergency the State EOC prior to therefore
Operations the exercise corrected in the
Center 2005 exercise.
03-1.c.1.-A-02 The Vermont state field This ARCA was
monitoring team not repeated, and
coordinator failed to therefore
deploy state teams in corrected in the
time to monitor radiation 2005 exercise.
in the plume.
03-5.b.1.-A-03 The State media This ARCA was
operations center did not repeated, and
not identify trends in therefore
caller questions and corrected in the
then incorporate correct 2005 exercise
information into press
releases
01-11-A-03 This was a 2001 NOT corrected in
exercise ARCA that was the 2003 exercise
re-examined in the 2003 or in the 2005
exercise and involved exercise.
evaluation of the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Emergency Alert
System (EAS)
messages, many of
which did not contain
information for special
needs populations.
2005 05-1.c.1.D-01 The state of VT incurred This deficiency
a deficiency, because was corrected in a
there was a lack of state special drill held
level command and on 8-8-2005.
control over the Alert
and Notification System,
where emergency siren
action is ordered,
followed by emergency
instructions to residents.
LOCATION YEAR ID # ARCA OR DEFICIENCY STATUS
05-5.a.12.D- The state of VT incurred This deficiency
02 a deficiency, because of was corrected in a
a breakdown in the special drill held
Operations Section that on 8-8-2005
led to no sirens being
activated when directed.
An emergency message
was not transmitted in
time to the towns with
sirens.
05-5.b.1.D-03 The state of VT incurred This deficiency
a deficiency because was corrected in a
there were 24 news special drill held
releases issued during on 8-8-2005
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
the exercise, with most
containing inaccurate or
missing information.
Vermont 2003 03-1.b.1.-A-04 The room provided by This ARCA was
Yankee VY for all 3 states to corrected in 2005
Emergency assemble (called the by VY providing a
Operations state assembly room) is larger and more
Facility (facility too small to effectively adequate facility
shared by conduct business. for the state
utility staff and assembly room.
staff from all 3
risk states)
2005 05-3.a.1.-A-06 The state of VT station This ARCA was
inside the Emergency corrected in 2007
Operations Facility by providing
(EOF) had only 1 means radios to the VT
of communication staff stationed in
(phones) when two the EOF.
means were required.
05-3.a.1-A-07 State of VT personnel This ARCA was
assigned to the EOF not repeated in
first stopped by the the 2007 exercise
Incident Field Office and was therefore
(IFO) in Dummerston to corrected.
get dosimetry and KI.
However the state field
team coordinator arrived
at the EOF without his
dosimetry and KI.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
2007 NO ISSUES
LOCATION YEAR ID # ARCA OR DEFICIENCY STATUS
Joint 2003 03-1.a.1.A-05 The state of VT JIC staff Corrected in the
Information were paged out too 2005 exercise.
Center (JIC) early and arrived earlier
located at the than normal.
VY EOF
01-02—A-04 This ARCA from 2001 Corrected in the
exercise was corrected 2003 exercise.
due to improvements in
Media Center white
boards.
2005 05-3.e.2.-A-04 Precautionary protective Corrected in the
actions recommended 2005 exercise.
by the state and
subsequent media
briefings to review these
recommendations
missed several risk
towns.
05-5.b.1-A-05 One press release (#7) This ARCA was
was issued ordering not repeated in
evacuation, but failed to the 2007 exercise
talk about protective and therefore
actions ordered for considered
Brattleboro and corrected.
Dummerston.
2007 07-5.b.1-A-01 The state of VT failed to To be
provide a “Media Inquiry demonstrated in
Procedure” to the VT the 2009 exercise.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
news media rep at the
JIC.
State field 2003 NO ISSUES
radiation
monitoring
teams
2005 05-1.d.1-A-08 Radio coverage around The state of VT
the EPZ was spotty, and conducted a radio
the Field Monitoring study and added
Teams (FMTs) had new towers, new
difficulty transmitting radios and other
radiation readings equipment, which
measured back to corrected this
appropriate locations in ARCA.
a timely manner.
2007 NO ISSUES
Vermont 2003 NO ISSUES
Incident Field
Office (IFO) in
Dummerston
LOCATION YEAR ID # ARCA OR DEFICIENCY STATUS
2005 05-1.c.1-A-02 The IFO only had one To be
map suitable for the demonstrated in
ingestion pathway the 2011 IPZ
portion of this 3-day exercise.
exercise and was
unaware of other maps
available in the EOC
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-18
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
that showed food control
areas.
2007 07-1.c.1-A-02 Due to projected To be
radiological conditions, demonstrated in
the IFO in Dummerston the 2009 exercise.
was ordered evacuated,
but the state failed to tell
the field monitoring
teams, which report to
the IFO.
Vermont State 2003 NO ISSUES
Warning
Point/Alternate
SWP
2005 NO ISSUES
2007 NO ISSUES
Town of 2003 03-5.a.1-A-06 The town EOC did not Corrected in the
Brattleboro receive a national 2005 exercise.
weather service test
message
2005 NO ISSUES
2007 NO ISSUES
Town of 2003 NO ISSUES
Dummerston
2005 NO ISSUES
2007 07-3.a.1-A-08 Lack of understanding Corrected on the
among EOC staff about spot
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-19
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
the use of KI and when
it should be taken.
Town of 2003 NO ISSUES
Vernon
2005 05-1.c.1.A-01 The last minute non- Corrected in 2007.
participation of the EMA VEM conducted
Director led to actions training to provide
not occurring or being increased depth in
delayed in Vernon, incl. local EOC
Late siren activation positions
05-1.a.1-A-11 Key staff did not Corrected in the
participate in the 2007 exercise. (A
exercise. new EMA Director
was hired and
trained.)
LOCATION YEAR ID # ARCA OR DEFICIENCY STATUS
Town of 2003 03-1.e.1-A-07 No KI was available at Corrected in the
Halifax the Halifax EOC 2005 exercise.
2005 05-1,c,1-A-09 Staff at the Halifax EOC Corrected in the
did not use their 2007 exercise.
procedures.
2007 07-3.a.1-A-04 2 emergency workers To be re-
interviewed demonstrated in
demonstrated a lack of the 2009 exercise.
understanding about
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-20
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
dosimetry and KI
Town of 2003 03-3.a.1-A-08 The town radiological Corrected in the
Guilford officer was not available 2005 exercise.
for this exercise and
others were not trained
to take his place.
2005 NO ISSUES
2007 NO ISSUES
Schools and 2003 NO ISSUES
Special
Facilities
2005 05-3.b.1-A-03 The supply of KI bottles Corrected during
at several Brattleboro the 2007 exercise
area day care centers
had expired.
8.8 Review and Evaluation Of Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(USNRC) Inspection Reports Regarding The VY Offsite
Emergency Preparedness Program
As a part of this evaluation, several official NRC inspection reports were
reviewed. Inspection reports reviewed are described below and any findings
related to the emergency preparedness program are noted.
NRC Inspection Report 50-271/00-07, dated October 30, 2000. This was a
periodic inspection that evaluated performance in security, EP, equipment
maintenance, operator training and other performance indicators. NRC
inspectors noted that an incorrect protective action recommendation was made
during an on site drill, however the issue received immediate high level
management attention and was entered into the corrective actions program at
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-21
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
VY. NRC inspectors also followed up on a reactor automatic shutdown (scram)
that occurred on September 13, 2000. NRC inspectors were in the VY control
room at the time of the scram, and observed that control room operators followed
procedures well to safely shut down plant systems.
NRC Inspection Report 50-271/01-09, dated September 20, 2001. This
inspection evaluated the performance of the VY emergency organization during
the September 5, 2001 full participation emergency exercise. NRC inspectors
observed and evaluated onsite portions of the exercise, including the ability to
correctly classify emergency conditions, perform offsite notifications in a timely
manner, conduct radiological assessment and provide protective action
recommendations to the state. No significant issues were identified during this
inspection.
NRC Inspection Report 50-271/02-08, dated January 27, 2003. This
integrated NRC inspection evaluated changes to security and emergency
preparedness programs implemented by the USNRC and the nuclear industry
after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America. No findings of significance were
identified. In addition to evaluating how VY responded to NRC post 9/11
guidance, inspectors also observed a fire drill with the plant fire brigade and an
offsite fire department. No findings of significance were identified by the
inspectors.
NRC inspection Report 50-271/03-03, dated May 20, 2003. This inspection
report evaluated the performance of the VY emergency organization during the
April 4, 2003 full participation exercise. During this inspection, NRC inspectors
noted that VY had failed to take “adequate corrective actions for eight problems
that were found to be repetitive from previous Emergency Preparedness
Exercises/drills conducted since 2001 and was again identified during the 2003
biennial exercise.” The eight issues included problems with internal ring down
phones, an inoperable air radiation monitor in the Technical Support Center
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-22
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
(TSC), inadequate processes for routing and communicating dose assessment
data to state liaison officials, lack of challenging questions at the News Media
Center (NMC), inadequate information flow on TSC and EOF status boards,
headsets were not working, public address speakers were inaudible, and an
Operations Support Center (OSC) team was sent to a wrong location. These
issues were corrected by Vermont Yankee and not repeated in subsequent
exercises.
NRC Inspection Report 50-271/2004005, dated November 8, 2004. Some
issues were identified during this integrated inspection report (related to not fully
learning lessons from nuclear industry experience regarding 22kv electrical
system maintenance practices). While an issue regarding ALARA planning for
planned shutdown activities was noted, there were no items of significance
identified in the EP program.
NRC Inspection Report 50-271/2005007, dated July 11, 2005. This NRC
inspection evaluated the performance of the VY emergency organization during
the May 24, 2005 full participation exercise. NRC inspectors looked at follow up
corrective actions taken by VY to ensure that the alert and notification system
performed as expected. The NRC identified a problem with tone alert radio
program oversight and management, and issued a notice of violation. VY made
appropriate changes, including issuing about two thousand additional tone alert
radios to EPZ residents. Other than the tone alert radio issue, no items of
significance with the EP program were identified.
NRC Inspection Report 50-271/2006004, dated October 30, 2006. This
integrated NRC inspection evaluated performance in multiple areas, including
plant security, emergency preparedness, equipment maintenance, reactor safety
and other areas of plant performance. In particular, NRC inspectors looked at
follow up actions to an electrical problem that resulted in the declaration of an
Unusual Event and resulted in a rapid power reduction on or about May 24,
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-23
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
2006. NRC inspectors also reviewed acceptance testing records for a new
ENVY siren system.
NRC Inspection Report 50-271/2007502, dated November 20, 2007. This
inspection report evaluated the performance of the VY emergency organization
during the Oct 2007 full participation exercise. NRC inspectors evaluated critical
actions taken by nuclear plant operators, including emergency event recognition,
emergency communications to offsite authorities, the ability to properly classify
the emergency condition and make appropriate protective action
recommendations to the state. No issues of significance were identified during
this inspection and exercise evaluation. However seven (7) condition reports
were written as a result of the Oct. 17, 2007 exercise. According to ENVY EP
staff, all seven condition reports are relatively minor, deal with on site issues, and
have all been corrected.
8.9 Data Analysis
The issues identified by FEMA and the NRC during the exercises and
inspections discussed above fall into three broad categories: communications
issues, command and control issues, and public information issues.
Communications issues include missed communications, such as failing to tell
field-monitoring teams that the Incident Field Office had been evacuated, and
failing to let towns know to sound sirens. Communications issues with message
sharing, with radio problems, and with lack of phone lines can be fixed, and the
state of Vermont has been proactive in resolving these issues. Providing
redundant means of communications such as radios, status boards, message
runners and the internet can often reduce communications issues in the field.
Command and control issues develop when local officials do not show up
for an exercise, or when state officials fail to manage and oversee the activation
of the alert and notification system. The State of Vermont has been relatively
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-24
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
proactive in fixing these command and control issues, judging by reading
exercise reports (where issues found in one exercise are fixed in a subsequent
exercise) and by talking with VEM staff.
Public information problems led to the issuance of exercise deficiencies in
one full-scale exercise. A deficiency indicates that the state or local entity may
not be able to adequately protect the public’s health and safety in a real
emergency. Again, these issues have not been repeated in subsequent
exercises and are considered corrected. Public information recommendations
can be found in Section 8.14 of this report.
Several recommendations are offered at the end of this report to help
improve command and control and communications during future exercises and
in real emergency events.
8.10 INTERVIEWS OF STATE, LOCAL, AND UTILITY OFFICIALS
Interviews were conducted with State, Local, and Utility Officials to
determine how the officials perceived their emergency preparedness, the status
of the planning efforts, and the ability to successfully implement the emergency
plans. Details of these interviews are provided in Attachment 4 of this report.
8.11 REVIEW OF EVACUATION PLANS, RESOURCES AND
EVACUATION TIMES
8.11.1 Review of Evacuation Plans for a Vermont Yankee
Emergency
ENVY and the State of Vermont have developed an extensive set of plans
to ensure that the population around ENVY can be successfully removed from
harm’s way in a timely manner. Evacuation time estimates (ETEs) are performed
to determine the amount of time that would be needed to notify the public of an
emergency, help the public mobilize to evacuate, and then clear the affected
region. ENVY conducted an ETE study in 1992 and then conducted a major
update in 2004, and published in early 2005, (Reference 3.5).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-25
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
The five primary Vermont towns considered in the old and new ETE
studies are Vernon, Brattleboro, Dummerston, Halifax and Guilford. Total
population of these five towns is 19,137. Since this ETE study was conducted,
the Town of Marlboro has been added to the EPZ. However, because only about
twenty (20) houses in Marlboro fall within the EPZ boundary, the ETEs should
not be affected.
The 2004 ETE update included estimates for evacuations not only of the
area ordered evacuated by the state, but also the probable “shadow evacuation”
that is likely to occur in some manner for people outside the evacuation area who
feel they should evacuate as well, even though they have not been directed to.
The ETE study noted that within about 60 minutes of the time an alert is
issued by state officials, about 90 percent of the affected population is mobilized
and ready to begin its evacuation, (see figure 5-2 of Ref. 3.5). The 2004 ETE
study also looked closely at the evacuation of schools within the EPZ, and the
evacuation of other transit-dependent populations (e.g. people with no cars,
people in special facilities, both ambulatory and non-ambulatory).
Evacuation plans are based on assumptions that residents and visitors will
for the most part do what they are told to do in terms of protective actions, and
that public safety first responders will do what has to be done. Some critics raise
the issue of public panic during an evacuation and postulate that first responders
will not show up due to fears and concerns about their own families. A USEPA
study entitled “Evacuation Risks-an Evaluation” (1974) indicates that this is
unlikely to occur. “The idea that people will panic in the face of great threat or
danger is very widespread. However, it is not borne out in reality” (see
Evacuation Risks-an Evaluation Study, page 45). The EPA sponsored study
goes on to state, “The assumption that local organizations are unable to cope
with disasters is based both on the notion that these organizations and the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-26
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
communities in which they are located are overwhelmed by disaster impact, and
also by the fear that the employees of these organizations are so affected by
disaster impact that their efficiency is reduced. Neither of these notions stand up
well under close observation.” Evacuations due to emergency events occur
virtually every day somewhere in America and analysis shows that people
generally do not panic if given proper and frequent emergency information, and
first responders perform the tasks they are trained for.
8.11.2 Review of Evacuation Time Estimates
The best case evacuation time estimate for the Vermont portion of the
EPZ was 3.5 hours for a midweek or weekend evening evacuation in good
weather. This assumes that families are for the most part home and ready to
evacuate in a shorter period of time than an evacuation during the school week,
when parents are working, schools are in session, etc. The worst case
evacuation time estimate for the Vermont portion of the EPZ was about 5 hours
for an evacuation during midweek, with snow conditions.
These times assume that 50 percent of the transit-dependent permanent
population will ride share with friends, family and neighbors, and assumes that if
school is in session, about 50 percent of students will be picked up at their
schools by parents or neighbors before busses can arrive to transport them. The
study also assumes that available busses will be assigned to schools as their first
priority.
Assuming half of the transit dependent population will not need public
transportation is an appropriate assumption, based on case studies of actual
evacuations and how people react to emergency events. The ETE study
(Reference 3.5) notes, on page 2-6, that in one well documented evacuation, 76
percent of the transit dependent population shared rides with friends and others.
Most states include such a “be a good neighbor” reminder in emergency public
information messages during evacuations. The assumption of 50 percent of
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-27
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
school children being picked up by parents and neighbors prior to the arrival of
evacuation busses may be on the high side and clear evidence that assuming 50
percent of children in school will not need bus transportation is not provided in
the ETE study. However the ETE study also calculates how many busses would
be required if 100 percent of the total student population needed public
transportation.
In some emergency scenarios, parents and neighbors should be
discouraged from arriving at their children’s school for pick-up. For instance, if
there is a fast moving threat, such as a puff release of radiation from a nuclear
power plant event, or a chlorine tank car accident on the railroad tracks adjacent
to the Connecticut River, the prudent decision may be to quickly shelter the
affected population, including children at school, until the threat passes, and then
evacuate them to a reception center where medical attention can be initiated,
and re-uniting of the family can take place well outside the danger area.
Local and state emergency managers are well qualified to determine if parents
should be allowed to the approach schools and pick up their children, or if
parents should be blocked from accessing schools. Decisions will be based on
the nature of the hazard, the time available to implement protective actions and
the most well suited protective action based on nature of the hazard.
The ETE study estimates that school children can be removed from their
sector of the EPZ within 2.5 hours in good weather and about 3 hours in snow.
This includes time to mobilize bus drivers, get busses to the schools, load
students and staff and then travel out of their sector of the EPZ.
The study estimates that transit-dependent populations, primarily those in
special facilities such as child care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals, could
be evacuated within 3.5 hours in good weather, and about 4 hours and 20
minutes in winter weather with snow.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-28
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
ENVY ETEs were compared with the Evacuation Time Estimates of other
nuclear power plants. It should be noted that nuclear plants with larger EPZ
populations such as the Indian Point plant in New York will have longer ETEs
than a smaller, more rural plant EPZ population such as Vermont Yankee. The
Nine Mile Point nuclear plant in upstate New York has a slightly larger EPZ
population, and its average ETE is a half an hour more than Vermont Yankee’s.
The Davis Besse nuclear plant in the Midwest has a population slightly smaller
than that of VY, but its average ETE is almost 6 hours, or two hours longer than
the average ETE at VY. When Maine Yankee was an operating nuclear power
plant, its worst case ETE exceeded 9 hours because of the plant’s EPZ
geography.
8.11.3 Review of Evacuation Resources
The 2004 ETE study estimates that for the Vermont portion of the EPZ,
906 permanent residents, 3445 students (full population of school students), 563
teachers and school staff, and 386 people in special facilities will need
transportation. Of the 386 people in special facilities, about 201 of them are
ambulatory and can ride in busses or other similar vehicles.
Table 8-6 of the 2004 ETE report (Ref. 3.5) estimates that a total of 5121
seats are needed by the transit-dependent population within the Vermont portion
of the EPZ. By far the largest segment of this group consists of children in
school. Existing Vermont transportation resources, including busses, wheel chair
vans, ambulances and other resources can provide 4460 seats, which leaves a
deficit of some 661 seats. This includes 64 busses from First Student and
Gerdes Bus Service, 9 wheel chair vans and 12 available ambulances.
Evacuations typically occur in phases, with primary attention paid to those
closest to the source of danger. Transportation resources are applied first to
those who most need these resources. While there may be insufficient
transportation resources, including busses, to conduct a full evacuation of the
Vermont portion of the EPZ in a single wave, sufficient resources can be made
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-29
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
available within a short amount of time. Busses can be provided by other bus
depots in the tri-state area. Military transport vehicles and other transportation
resources can be activated. The ETEs are conservative in nature, as they also
factor in a “shadow evacuation” of people who are not told to evacuate, but are
assumed to do so anyway. Assuming people outside the EPZ will evacuate,
even if unnecessary, provides a buffer of time, as their evacuation may slow
down the evacuation of the personnel closer to the source of danger. The ETEs
also conservatively assume that busses will not be filled to normal capacity
during an evacuation. If needed, busses can be loaded to capacity and slightly
above capacity if the situation dictates. If sufficient numbers of busses are
available but qualified bus drivers are lacking, then first responders, including
people who drive large vehicles such as public works vehicles and fire trucks,
can operate the school busses, if needed.
The ETE study also assumes that public resources are needed for only 50
percent of the transit dependent population, as the other 50 percent will be
picked up prior to bus arrival by family or neighbors. If this 50 percent assumption
proves to be valid, then there are more than enough busses to rapidly conduct an
evacuation of affected areas. Evacuations are also planned so that those most
in danger are evacuated first, and all available resources are applied to those in
most immediate danger. In the case of schools, those schools within a 2 mile
radius of the ENVY plant and perhaps five miles downwind could be evacuated
while other schools that are upwind could be dismissed early, as they would for
an early school closing due to an approaching snow storm. Resources would be
focused on those schools and other facilities that are directly downwind as a first
priority and then spread to other areas of the EPZ as needed.
While there is a deficit of transportation vehicles immediately available for
an evacuation of the Vermont portion of the EPZ, the 2004 ETE study notes that
additional busses are readily available in a First Student bus garage in West
Swanzey, New Hampshire. The Operations Manager at the First Student bus
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-30
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
depot in Brattleboro was confident she could locate a sufficient number of busses
within 1-2 hours from other parts of Vermont, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts that would remain unaffected by a Vermont evacuation. Local
response managers were also confident they could find enough resources to
ensure that all transit-dependent people are swiftly and safely evacuated, even if
that meant loading school busses to full capacity and using other resources such
as Public Works Department (PWD) and military vehicles and personal vehicles.
Use of these evacuation and transportation methods should not increase the
ETE.
Local experience bears this assertion out. As noted in other chapters of
this study, local responders have had to respond to a Freon gas leak at a
hospital, emergencies at nursing homes and annually have to evacuate transit-
dependent people in a Brattleboro housing complex near the Connecticut River.
8.11.4 Review of Nuclear Power Plant Declared Emergencies
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) publishes a description periodically of
emergencies actually declared by nuclear plants across the country. Most
declared events over the past several years have been classified as Unusual
Events. A small percentage of events declared annually are classified as Alerts.
Only three Site Area Emergencies have been declared over the past 20 years,
and no General Emergencies have been declared since March 1979. Many
declared emergency events are declared for fire events. In 2007, for example,
there were four Unusual Events declared for fire and explosion-related events,
and three Alert classifications for fires. In virtually all emergencies, the
emergency initiating event (e.g. the fire) is contained quickly so that there is little
or no chance of an event escalating to the point where barriers to the release of
radiation are challenged and an evacuation would be required.
Appendix 3 of this report contains a complete list of all emergencies
declared by Vermont Yankee since 1982. Only one emergency was classified as
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-31
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
an Alert, and that occurred nearly 25 years ago in 1984, when radiation levels
inside part of the plant increased due to a fuel incident. All other emergency
events were classified as Unusual Events (UE). Three of the UE’s , in 1982, 1983
and in 1997 were declared for minor earthquakes felt in the area of the plant.
Others, notably in 2004 and 2006, were declared for fires that could not be
extinguished within 10 minutes. One event was declared based on a derailed
tank car containing chemicals on tracks near the plant. Many of the early
emergency declarations (in the 1980s) were declared for events in which plant
technical specification limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) were exceeded.
One UE was declared for a bomb threat that was considered to be credible (in
1982). No pattern of emergency declarations, or major issue were found in
examining emergencies declared at Vermont Yankee.
8.12 SUMMARY
Based on the review of emergency plans, the review of performance
during drills and exercises, and based on interviews with local and state officials
directly involved in the Vermont RERP program, it appears that the RERP
program developed by the State for a Vermont Yankee emergency event is a
well thought out plan but it is still in need of work in some areas. Two examples
of where the Vermont program leads the New England region are preparing for
the worst case “fast breaker” General Emergency, and developing a five-level
transportation resource matrix for more precisely matching appropriate
transportation resources to transit-dependent people within the Vermont portion
of the EPZ. Vermont has also closely partnered with the states of New
Hampshire and Massachusetts to share information, plans and resources as
necessary. This presents an opportunity that many other states with nuclear
plants do not have. Each state, within the EPZ, may call on the other two states
for needed resources and information, including resources such as school
busses and other transportation resources in a declared VY emergency. This
concept is further described in Section 7.1.2.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-32
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Interviews with first responders and the people who depend upon them
(school superintendents, child care officials, state level executives) have led to
the conclusion that an emergency event at Vermont Yankee that requires an
offsite response will be handled and managed by a properly trained group of
state and local officials who have practiced response actions numerous times
through drills and exercises that include responders from other states and VY
staff.
Past events, past responses and current plans and training indicate that
current shortcomings in the RERP program can be overcome. The following
section describes perceived strengths and shortcomings and offers some
recommended opportunities that may help improve the RERP program.
8.13 STRENGTHS AND IMPROVEMENTS
8.13.1 Strengths
8.13.1.1 Proactive Attitude
The first strength identified as a result of the evaluation of the RERP is
that the State of Vermont is very proactive in its approach to RERP. Several
issues have been identified by state, local officials, and federal evaluators during
emergency exercises. In nearly every case, evidence demonstrated that the
state worked closely with its partners to clearly define problems and develop
appropriate solutions. For example, all the exercise deficiencies identified in the
2005 full participation exercise were corrected within months of being identified.
As another example, the state realizes the importance of assuring that adequate
transportation resources will be there when needed in a regional evacuation.
Substantial work has been done at the state level by the Department of Health,
the Vermont Division of Aging and Independent Living and VEM to refine plans,
further identify transportation resources, and conduct a series of three
transportation-related drills in the Brattleboro area. Public officials and child care
providers in Brattleboro have indicated that with each transportation drill, their
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-33
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
level of confidence has increased in the ability of the state to provide appropriate
resources.
Another example of the proactive attitude observed in Vermont involves
the constant practice by the state and EPZ communities for a “fast breaker”
accident. Vermont appears to lead the nation in its preparedness for fast
breaking nuclear power plant accidents. Although fast breaking accidents have
not occurred in the U.S., and experience has indicated that hours and perhaps
days may be available to take emergency actions at the local level, being
prepared for the worst case accident helps responders be better prepared for any
eventuality.
8.13.1.2 Multi-state Approach to RERP
Vermont is a rural state with a low population and it depends on its
neighbors to provide assistance in an emergency. As ENVY is located on the
Connecticut River and borders New Hampshire, across the river, and
Massachusetts, just south of Vernon, non-affected states can provide substantial
assistance to the affected states. An affected state is a state that is downwind of
the ENVY plant and therefore is in most immediate danger when an emergency
arises. First Student transportation maintains a large fleet of busses in all 3
states and has plans to use busses and drivers from non-affected states to assist
affected EPZ towns. Non-affected states can also help with radiological
monitoring and sampling, providing additional hospital and nursing home space,
and providing additional personnel for other emergency missions after
implementing their own emergency plans.
8.13.1.3 Continuing Improvements in Emergency
Planning
Vermont Yankee has worked closely with the State of Vermont to make
improvements to parts of the RERP process. For example, all First Student bus
drivers have recently been issued pagers so they can be more quickly re-called
in the event of a radiological emergency event at ENVY. The First Student
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-34
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Operations Manager at the Brattleboro terminal has indicated the system has
been tested in all three transportation drills and has worked well in every case.
In addition, a problem was identified at ENVY with regard to the
management of the tone alert radio portion of its Alert and Notification System
(ANS). The ANS system is operated by the State of Vermont, but funded by
ENVY. As a result of problems found, ENVY provided an additional 2,000 tone
alert-radios to ensure residents of the EPZ can be adequately alerted and
warned about emergency conditions. Additionally, new radios and new sirens
have been purchased and installed to resolve ANS issues and communications
interoperability issues. These two improvements should improve the RERP
program in the long run, and improve both public and first responder confidence.
8.14 Improvement Opportunities
8.14.1 Use WebEOC
WebEOC is a web-based emergency information-sharing platform that
has several advantages:
It is simple to use.
It allows hospitals and other special facilities to continually provide and
receive information about bed and space availability.
It allows rapid and uniform transmission of information about emergency
events from one location to all other locations.
It is used by the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Vermont Yankee has access to WebEOC.
The State of Vermont requested bids to select a web-based emergency
information system, and chose to use a vendor and software program other than
WebEOC. The software program selected is the same program used by the
State of New York, which provides a new level of interoperability between
Vermont and New York emergency management officials. The software program
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-35
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
selected has a large number of useful features, but it is not compatible with
software used by the other two states in the Vermont Yankee EPZ and by ENVY.
According to one Vermont state official, the software package chosen is
sometimes difficult to use. The software package selected does not have a
hospital information sharing section available, so this software package may
have to be integrated with another software package that does track hospital bed
availability.
WebEOC is a relatively simple package that can be used with little
training, and its use within the full ENVY EPZ would allow full interoperability with
other states that border the ENVY plant and with the ENVY plant itself. Using
different software packages can be a recipe for failure at critical moments in a
radiological emergency. Accordingly, the state should seriously consider moving
from its existing system to WebEOC.
8.14.2 Determine Better Methods to Communicate Non-
emergency ENVY Information
Several events have occurred at the ENVY plant in Vernon that, while not
rising to the level of a radiological emergency, have caused concern among state
and local officials. For example, VEM officials have indicated they were made
aware of maintenance related problems at ENVY by watching the local evening
news broadcast. ENVY has a process that allows for notification of the state’s
nuclear engineer of events that the public may regard as significant. However
information does not always flow from the DPS to VEM. Possible information
flow issues were also identified as Brattleboro-based VEM staff may be told of
events by the utility but word may not always reach higher levels.
Information flow regarding non-emergency events is a difficult issue to
dissect, but the issue needs to be further discussed between VEM, DPS and
utility staff to come to some common understanding to ensure that information is
relayed to all relevant stakeholders in a given situation. All parties should
consider the use of WebEOC to transmit day-to-day information among each
other, as other states do.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-36
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
8.14.3 Leverage Additional Funds by Integrating the RERP with
the Homeland Security (HS) Program for Community-
wide Exercises
Some local officials would like to consider conducting a full emergency
exercise that tests all components of the emergency preparedness program at
the same time. Such an exercise may be beyond the scope of the RERP
process to handle, but by leveraging Homeland Security funds, local jurisdictions
could conduct more emergency preparedness exercises without the overriding
need to include RERP-specific activities, such as demonstrating the use of
dosimetry and KI. Using HS funds could allow towns such as Brattleboro to
conduct exercises that involve the school system, area hospitals and nursing
homes and allow for greater participation, as HS funds can be used to provide for
backfill and overtime costs. For example, lessons learned from a flood exercise
that involved the entire response community, including busses, drivers, schools,
child care centers, hospitals and nursing homes could provide input for the RERP
planning process.
8.14.4 EOC Facilities
The Town of Brattleboro should, with the state’s help, find and develop a
backup Emergency Operations Center. The current EOC is located in the
basement of the town hall, which is a former school building, with few exits
available. The floors are uneven, and space is limited. While the current facility
works, an alternate facility should be located and be made available as a backup
EOC in case the current EOC becomes unavailable or unsafe. Communications
equipment does not necessarily have to be duplicated at an alternate facility. For
example, arrangements could be made to install radio antennae at the alternate
location, allowing EOC communications staff to remove radios from the primary
EOC and transport them to the alternate EOC for use with the antennae located
there.
The state EOC is located in a small space that appears to be capable of
being overcrowded very quickly in an emergency. The author of this report
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-37
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
chapter was present for the two dress rehearsal drills and the full-scale exercise
conducted at the state EOC in 2001 as a utility evaluator, and noted the rapid
influx of people into the EOC operations room caused the noise level to increase,
messages to be missed and other issues to arise. While VEM staff has made
excellent use of other office space and hall space near the Operations Room, the
potential still appears to exist for overcrowding, and for overcrowding to lead to
confusion and missed information.
As noted above, the use of WebEOC could allow multiple locations within
the public safety building to be used, with people receiving and providing up to
date information via computer instead of in person. WebEOC would also allow all
three states involved in ENVY RERP planning to communicate status with each
other on a more reliable, stable platform.
8.14.5 Update Emergency Plans
Some of the 100 volumes of the State of Vermont RERP have been
updated, others were not. The version of the Bellows Falls Union High School
Reception Center Plan provided to the author was dated February 2002. The
Windham Southeast Supervisory Union RERP was last updated in 2003. The
Vernon Nursing Home plan appears to have last been updated in 2001. All
volumes should be updated so that content reflects the most recent planning
developments and is consistent across all locations.
8.14.6 Continue to Identify and Develop Transportation Needs
and Resources
Most people interviewed for this study noted that the training provided by
VEM and their participation in three transportation drills has led to a high degree
of confidence that the system would work and necessary transportation
resources would be provided in a timely manner in a real emergency. The state
should continue to build on its program that includes identifying transit-dependent
people and classifying them into one of five categories, and then finding vehicles
appropriate for each category. Work is ongoing, and needs to continue to ensure
public confidence can be built and sustained.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-38
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Brattleboro town officials also noted that there are 200-300 psychiatric
patients in facilities in Brattleboro, and planning for transportation resources
needs to consider this population. This population should be factored into the
transportation resource needs for the Town of Brattleboro.
8.14.7 Continue to Strengthen Public Outreach and Education
Programs about Evacuation
The best evidence found by the Author on the importance of outreach and
education for evacuation planning came from a report by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, FEMA, NOAA and the Florida Division of Emergency Management.
This report was published in 1994 and is titled “Treasure Coast Region Hurricane
Evacuation Study – Technical Data Report.”
This study notes, on page 4-4:
“There are two overriding factors influencing whether residents evacuate:
actions by public officials and degree of hazard of the location. In flood prone
areas near the open coast, 90% or more of residents will evacuate if public
officials take aggressive action urging or ordering evacuation, and are successful
in communicating the urgency of that message. The only way to ensure that the
message reaches the intended audience is to supplement television and radio
announcements with police or other officials going into neighborhoods door-to-
door or at least with loudspeakers. Less aggressive or less successful
dissemination of evacuation notices will result in evacuation rates that could be
perhaps 25% lower in high and moderate risk areas.”
The State of Vermont should re-evaluate its public affairs and outreach
programs to ensure the public is well informed on the many ongoing
improvements in the RERP process. This could include invitations to local
officials to view state level EOC operations during RERP exercises.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-39
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Attachment 8-1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED (REFERENCES)
1.0 EMERGENCY PLANS
1.1 State of Vermont, Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Rev. 5, Sept.
2007.
1.2 Town of Brattleboro, Radiological Emergency Response Plan, with
Implementing Procedures and Addendum.
1.3 Radiological Emergency Response Plan, State Incident Field Office
1.4 Town of Vernon, Radiological Emergency Response Plan, with
Implementing Procedures and Addendum, 2007.
1.5 Town of Dummerston Radiological Emergency Response Plan, with
Implementing Procedures and Addendum, Rev. 1, June 2008.
1.6 Windham Southeast Supervisory Union Emergency Response Plan, Rev.
6, Feb. 2003.
1.7 Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Child Care Facilities in the
Town of Brattleboro, VT., Rev. 4, May 2007.
1.8 Bellows Falls Union High School Reception Center Plan, Rev. 2002.
2.0 EMERGENCY EXERCISE REPORTS
2.1 FEMA Region 1 Exercise Report, Entergy Northeast Nuclear Vermont
Yankee, April 8, 2003.
2.2 FEMA Region 1 Exercise Report, Entergy Northeast Nuclear Vermont
Yankee, May 24-26, 2005.
2.3 FEMA Region 1 Exercise Report, Entergy Northeast Nuclear Vermont
Yankee, October 17, 2007.
2.4 Initial Notes and Observations from the May 2008 Transportation Drill
3.0 OTHER REPORTS
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-40
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
3.1 Vermont Dept. of Public Safety Annual Letter of Certification to FEMA, for
Calendar Year 2007.
3.2 Draft “Report to Vermont Dept. of Public Service on Vermont Yankee
License Renewal,” section 7, Emergency Planning, GDS Associates,
Marietta, GA.
3.3 “A Strategic Review of the Radiological Emergency Response Program,”
Vermont Dept. of Public Safety, December 31, 2003.
3.4 “Radiation Protection Issues Related to Terrorist Activities that Result in
the Dispersal of Radioactive Material,” National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements, Sept. 2000.
3.5 “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station –Development of Evacuation
Time Estimates: KLD Associates, Commack, NY, February 2005.”
3.6 Misc. Correspondence between the State of Vermont, Department of
Public Safety, and EPZ Town Leaders, 2003-2004.
3.7 “Treasure Coast Region Hurricane Evacuation Study, Technical Data
Report,” USACOE, FEMA, NOAA and Florida DEM, published 1994.
3.8 “Preliminary Results from the World Trade Center Evacuation Study –
New York City 2003,” published by the CDC, Sept. 10, 2004.
3.9 “Evacuation Planning, Human Factors and Traffic Engineering,” R.
Goldblatt and K. Weinisch, in Transportation Resources News, May-June
2005.
3.10 FEMA After Action Report, FEMA Region 1 2008 Hurricane CONPLAN
Workshop, April 2008.
4.0 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
4.1 “Evacuation Risks-An Evaluation,” US Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA 520/6-74-002.
4.2 NUREG 0654, FEMA REP-1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of
Nuclear Power Plants,” US NRC and FEMA, Rev. 1, Nov. 1980.
4.3 “Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation
Methodology,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 2002.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-41
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
4.4 EPA-400-R-97-001 “Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective
Actions for Nuclear Incidents,” 1991.
4.5 NUREG 0654-REP-1 Rev.1, Supplement 3, “Criteria for Preparation and
Evaluation of Radiological Response Plans and Preparedness in Support
of Nuclear Power Plants – Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations
for Severe Accidents,” July 1996.
4.6 NUREG/CR-6863, “Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for
Nuclear Power Plants,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Sandia
National Laboratories, Jan. 2005.
5.0 REGULATIONS
5.1 FEMA Emergency Preparedness Requirements, found in 44 CFR Section
350.
5.2 NRC Emergency Preparedness Regulations, found in 10 CFR Section
50.47, and Appendix E to Part 50.
6.0 NRC INSPECTION REPORTS
6.1 NRC Inspection Report No.200702 - NRC Evaluated Emergency
Preparedness Exercise Conducted on Oct. 19, 2007.
6.2 NRC Inspection Report No. 200604 – NRC Integrated Inspection Report,
Oct. 30, 2006.
6.3 NRC Inspection Report No. 200507 – NRC Emergency Preparedness
Inspection Report, dated July 11, 2005.
6.4 NRC Inspection Report No. 2004005 – NRC Integrated Inspection, dated
Nov. 8, 2004.
6.5 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-271/02-08, dated January 27, 2003.
6.6 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-271/03-003, NRC Evaluated Emergency
Preparedness Exercise Report of the April 4, 2003 Full Participation
Exercise, dated May 20, 2003.
6.7 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-271/01-09 – NRC Evaluated Emergency
Preparedness Exercise on Sept. 5, 2001, dated Sept. 20, 2001.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-42
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
6.8 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-271/00-07, dated Oct. 30, 2000.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-43
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Attachment 8-2
LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED FOR THIS REPORT
STATE OF VERMONT
Mr. Stephen Wark, Director for Consumer Affairs and Public Information, Vt.
Department of Public Service
Mr. Uldis Vanags, State Radiological Engineer, Vt. Department of Public Service
Ms. Barbara Farr, Director, Vermont Emergency Management
Mr. Lew Stowell, RERP Planner, VEM
Mr. James Matheau, Executive Director, Windham Regional Commission
EPZ TOWN OFFICIALS
Ms. Barbara Sontag, Town Manager and Emergency Mgt. Director, Town of
Brattleboro
Mr. Eugene Wrinn, Chief, Brattleboro Police Department
Mr. Mike Bucossi, Chief, Brattleboro Fire Department
VERMONT YANKEE
Mr. John Dreyfuss, Director, Nuclear Safety
Mr. Michael McKenney, Manager, Emergency Preparedness Section
TRANSPORTATION RELATED INTERVIEWS
Mr. Ron Stahley, Superintendent of Schools,
Ms. Carol Lynch, First Student Bus Service, Brattleboro Operations Manager
Mr. Charles “Skip” Sleeper, Vernon Nursing Home
Ms. Linda Smith, Canal St. Head-start program, Brattleboro
Ms. Kathy Brown, St. Michaels School, Brattleboro
Ms. Nann Mann, Neighborhood Schoolhouse Childcare Center, Brattleboro
Ms. Carol Ames, CABA Evening Child Care, Brattleboro
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-44
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Attachment 8-3
VERMONT YANKEE DECLARED EVENTS LOG
1 1-18-82 Unusual Event Earthquake sensed on-site.
2 5-10-82 Unusual Event Derailed railroad tank cars (3 – empty, 1 –
Na2SO4) at junction of West & CT Rivers.
3 6-22-82 Unusual Event Primary containment valves in Nitrogen Inerting
System (V-16-20-20 and V-16-20-22B) failed open during check
while inerting. Remained open >10 minutes. VNP-63 manual
isolation valve in make up line manually operated to isolate.
4 6-24-82 Unusual Event Bomb threat from unidentified female caller.
5 1-7-83 Unusual Event Terminated (see 6-22-82 entry)
6 2-3-83 Unusual Event Terminated (see 6-22-82 entry)
7 6-4-83 Unusual Event Terminated ECCS initiation. I&C generated
ECCS initiation signal (LLRVH20L) during excess flow check valve
testing.
8 6-15-83 Unusual Event Terminated ECCS initiation. Scram signal &
ECCS initiation.
9 6-29-83 Unusual Event Recric pumps trip requires manual scram
10 8-26-83 Unusual Event Terminated “Plant Shutdown Required in
Accordance with LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) During
alternate testing on CS-B, CS-7B failed to open, breaker tripped,
leaving CS-B inoperable.
11 10-7-83 Unusual Event Earthquake sensed in area (Keene, Greenfield),
not on site.
12 10-12-83 Unusual Event Terminated “Plant Shutdown Required in
Accordance with LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) Alternate
testing on CS-7B, same as 8-26-83.
13 11-17-83 Unusual Event Terminated “Plant Shutdown Required in
Accordance with LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Engineered Safety
Feature) – HPCI/RCIC RCIC-20 inoperable. Motor replacement.
14 6-1-84 Unusual Event “Plant Shutdown Required in Accordance with
LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) “A” Station Battery
declared inoperable. Management decision to declare.
15 6-15-84 Alert “Unexpected Area Radiation Levels 1000 Times Normal”.
Inadvertent withdrawal of the ”A” TIP detector into the drive
housing.
16 10-23-84 Unusual Event DGs inoperable due to generator lockout trip
caused by differential relay trip.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-45
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
17 11-7-84 Unusual Event “In-plant fire not extinguished within 10 minutes.”
Fire on Turbine Building roof.
18 6-6-85 Unusual Event Terminated A – H2/O2 monitor inoperable.
19 6-20-85 Unusual Event Terminated Unusual aircraft activity over plant.
~5 circles of plant, one over the reactor building.
20 12-15-87 Unusual Event “Plant Shutdown Required in Accordance with
LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) Containment Spray
function of A-RHR inoperable.
21 11-30-88 Unusual Event “Plant Shutdown Required in Accordance with
LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) A-RHR and A- Core Spray
inoperable.
22 1-4-89 Unusual Event “Plant Shutdown Required in Accordance with
LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) CS & UPS. UPS-A and
LPCI-A inoperable.
23 2-2-89 Unusual Event Unplanned loss of both S/U transformers due to
loss of power to S/Us due to smoke (fire) in bus 5A cubicle
requiring isolation of the bus.
24 3-10-89 Unusual Event Terminated RV inventory decrease due to
personnel error.
25 4-9-89 Unusual Event Terminated “Plant Shutdown Required in
Accordance with LCO of Tech Specs” Torus level greater than TS.
26 4-23-91 Unusual Event “Loss of AC Power Capability” 345 KV & 115 KV
bus voltage becomes zero.
27 6-27-92 Unusual Event Terminated “Plant Shutdown Required in
Accordance with LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) Failure of
“A” UPS in conjunction with A D/G being inoperable.
28 9-3-93 Unusual Event General Criteria. Fuel bundle dropped during
refueling operations. No high radiation alarms or trips expected.
29 10-14-94 Unusual Event “Plant Shutdown Required in Accordance with
LCO of Tech Specs” (Loss of Systems) SW & Alt Cooling lost due
to shell side (SW) unisolable leak in RBCCW HX, RB 303’.
30 5-31-97 Unusual Event Earthquake sensed on site.
32 6-18-04 Unusual Event “In-plant fire not extinguished within 10 minutes.”
Isophase bus duct fire (above the main transformer).
33 5-24-06 Unusual Event “In-plant fire not extinguished within 10 minutes.”
Activation of a fire detection system occurred, no fire was present.
Determination of whether an actual fire existed couldn’t be made
within the 10 minutes, therefore UE was declared.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-46
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Attachment 8-4
INTERVIEWS OF STATE, LOCAL, AND UTILITY OFFICIALS
A4.1 Interviews With Transit-Dependent Population Managers
Interview with Carol Lynch, Operations Director, First Student
Transportation Co., Brattleboro office
First Student maintains a large inventory of busses in New England. The
Brattleboro office has 43 busses, with at least 33 drivers available. Ms. Lynch
noted that VEM and Vermont Yankee recently provided pagers for each bus
driver to help speed up the driver notification process during an emergency
(nuclear emergency, storm related emergency, hazmat event, etc.) and believed
the new system was a great improvement. The Brattleboro bus depot deployed
busses and drivers for all three VEM-sponsored transportation drills, including
the most recent drill on May 28, 2008. She noted that problems found in one drill
were corrected in the next drill. Because of the plans and the drills, she has a
high degree of confidence that First Student can provide needed resources to
ensure a rapid evacuation of public and private facilities in the EPZ. She noted
that she and her bus drivers, working with first responders, could provide
necessary resources, by maximizing space available in each bus.
Ms. Lynch also noted that she could assemble another 10-12 busses within
about 30 minutes, and up to 100 additional busses within 30-120 minutes by
drawing upon other First Student bus depots in northern Vermont, New
Hampshire and western Massachusetts.
She discussed two recently identified problems that have been scheduled for
further discussion and resolution. The first issue involves inadequate radio
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-47
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
communications between First Student bus depots in NH, VT and MA. First
Student is working internally on this communications issue. The second issue
involved working with Vermont National Guard troops during one recent
transportation drill. Apparently, the National Guard troops attempted to run the
bus routing system without knowing the local roads and road/intersection
limitations. This caused some frustration with the bus drivers, who have a
working knowledge of the roads they regularly drive.
Interview with Carol Ames, Community Action Brattleboro Area (CABA) Director of
Evening Care
Ms. Ames supervises the evening care staff at CABA, which also serves as the
Canal Street Head Start School. She has had RERP training, and has
emergency plans. When quizzed, she knew that her ultimate evacuation
destination was the Bellows Falls Union High School.
Ms. Ames has participated directly or indirectly in recently conducted
transportation drills, and feels very comfortable that should an emergency event
occur at night, when she typically has 22 enrolled children in evening care,
adequate transportation resources would be available to transport children
offsite. She noted that she was uncomfortable about the VY emergency plans
when they indicated that parents were not to pick up their children at schools and
child care centers. Now that the issue has been resolved, and schools and child
care centers plan for a certain number of parents picking up their children,
transportation resources can be stretched farther.
Interview with Kathy Brown, St. Michaels School, Brattleboro
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-48
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
St. Michaels Catholic School in Brattleboro offers before and after school
programs, with approximately 16 children this year. St. Michael’s also runs a
pre-kindergarten program for 8 students. In addition, there are about 44 children
who attend a K-8th grade school at St. Michaels, for a total of 68 students in all
programs. There are a total of 10 staff personnel that work at the school. Ms.
Brown noted the town sends one bus that is capable of evacuating the entire
school in one trip.
She and the school staff participated in the April 2008 and the May 2008
transportation drills and she has a good level of confidence in the RERP process
based on the training her entire staff has received and the success of the recent
transportation drills.
Interview with Nan Mann, Director of the Neighborhood Schoolhouse
Childcare Center in Brattleboro
This childcare center in Brattleboro has approximately 52 students in its program,
along with 7 full time staff. The school also runs some summer camps for kids.
All staff personnel have been trained in the RERP process and participated in the
April and May 2008 drills. Ms. Mann noted that because only 2-3 staff members
bring their vehicles to work (many walk or ride bikes), only a few children could
be transported by center staff and they therefore depend on the town providing a
bus to assist them.
Ms. Mann indicated that, contrary to exercise agreements for two recent
transportation drills, no bus was actually sent to her childcare center. She said
she needs to see a bus arrive and load the children at the center on it to believe
the plan will actually work.
Interview with Linda Smith, Day-time Supervisor at Canal St. Head Start
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-49
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
The head start program is part of the Windham Southeast Supervisory School
District and has a total of 48 children who participate on a daily basis. The head
start school relies on the school district to provide transportation resources, and
Ms. Smith noted that two school buses are owned by the early education
services division of the school.
Ms. Smith and her staff have participated in all three recent transportation drills
(October 2007, April 2008 and May 2008). She indicated her students and staff
had a positive response, and noted the most recent drill on May 28th “went
perfectly.” She has a high degree of confidence the town and the school
department will adequately keep her notified of emergency events and provide
the necessary transportation resources when she needs them.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-50
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Interview with Ron Stahley, Superintendent of Schools, Windham
Southeast Supervisory School Union, in Brattleboro
Superintendent Stahley indicated he has “a pretty good level of confidence with
school personnel and with First Student personnel” should a nuclear or other
regional emergency event occur that requires protective actions to be taken.
Superintendent Stahley indicated he has access to 53 busses from First Student
and four available busses from the Guilford Schools. This total of 57 busses
available includes approximately 26 First Student busses from the Swanzey, NH
area. He noted that his staff and all 57 busses have participated in all three
transportation related emergency functional exercises recently sponsored by
VEM. However, the Superintendent estimates that in a full school system
evacuation, where parents are not available for pick-up of their children prior to
evacuation, a total of 59 busses would be required.
The Superintendent indicated that each transportation functional exercise has
highlighted both strengths and additional transportation needs within the greater
Brattleboro area.
Interview with Charles “Skip” Sleeper
Mr. Sleeper is the Manager of Maintenance at the Vernon Nursing Home, just a
mile from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. He has worked closely with
Barbara Farr and VEM staff to develop transportation plans for his facility and
expressed a high regard for VEM.
The Vernon Nursing Home has 60 residents in the nursing home, 40 ambulatory
persons living in the assisted living center, and 15 people living in the
independent living unit, for a total of approximately 100-105 persons to evacuate
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-51
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
in the event of a radiological emergency. Mr. Sleeper sees the biggest problem
as obtaining enough wheel chair vans, but understands the state is working on
identifying and lining up adequate resources to help him.
Being so close to the ENVY plant, Mr. Sleeper noted that he receives dual
emergency notifications, one from the Town of Vernon EOC and one from the
Department of Aging and Independent Living in Waterbury.
His emergency plan does not appear to have been updated since May, 2001.
A4.2 Interviews with local and state officials
Interview with Barbara Farr
Barbara Farr is the Director of Vermont Emergency Management. Ms. Farr
noted several emergency events that seem to have been better managed
because of the experience gained by participating as a state level management
team in RERP exercises. In particular, she noted that a recent flood event in the
town of Ripton that resulted in the rapid evacuation of 60 disabled persons and
about 35 staff members, was accomplished very successfully, even with several
obstacles that challenged emergency response (such as washed out roads and
impassible roads due to downed trees). Director Farr also noted that work on
nursing home evacuations has substantially improved over the past 6 months in
Vermont, and much work has been done with several state agencies assisting
her agency.
VEM recently published a RERP Briefing Book, which lays out for local and state
officials a 12-month exercise schedule within the state and explains the RERP
fund budget process. VEM received $1.7 million this year from ENVY to facilitate
emergency planning. Of that amount, about $345,000 goes to the Department of
Health to assist with its radiological and environmental monitoring and testing
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-52
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
programs around Vermont Yankee, and about $700,000 goes to VEM to support
several new RERP planning positions that were recently created. VEM allows
EPZ town emergency management directors to be paid a stipend each year from
the RERP fund to assist them in keeping their towns and first responders
prepared for a radiological or other emergency. Towns submit applications for
equipment annually to VEM to assist them with updating their response
capabilities.
In 2001, VEM had a total staff of 9 people. Now, it has a total full-time staff of
21.5 equivalents, where 7.5 of these personnel work on RERP activities,
representing a substantial improvement in the state’s ability to provide planning,
training and technical assistance to EPZ communities and to other state
agencies.
Interview with Barbara Sontag
Ms. Sontag is both the Town Manager and the Emergency Management Director
(EMD) for the Town of Brattleboro. She and her staff participate in four drills a
year and have expressed “a high level of confidence in first responders.” She
noted that she used her RERP to respond to a bomb scare recently at a school,
in addition to preparing for floods and a propane tank event.
She has a moderate level of confidence in the state’s ability to provide needed
transportation resources in an emergency, but also is gaining confidence based
on the three recent transportation drills conducted with child care centers and
nursing homes in the region. She also gives credit to the Windham Child Care
Association for doing a good job in coordinating childcare emergency planning
and operations.
She would like to explore developing an alternate local EOC and is looking at the
adjacent library as a possible site.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-53
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
Interview with Mike Bucossi, Brattleboro Fire Chief
The Brattleboro Fire Department has 25 fulltime firefighters, and maintains a
minimum staff of six on duty at any one time. They practice running their 10 Paul
Revere notifier team routes, and the department is satisfied with the RERP
process. All personnel are trained in the required RERP courses offered by
VEM, and the department has a decontamination response team as well.
The Chief believes in mutual aid, and notes the mutual aid communications
groups provide a great deal of depth to his communications capabilities.
Brattleboro has a private EMS service with a total of six ambulances available to
cover a mutual aid district of 12 towns.
The Chief has not conducted a full-scale exercise for the town that mobilizes all
town resources and tests all town specific hazards, but would like to do so. It is
possible such an exercise could be funded using Homeland Security funds and
lessons learned from it could enhance the RERP plan.
The Chief did note that he has used his RERP plans and equipment to respond
to a number of events in Brattleboro, including a recent evacuation of the
Thompson House Nursing Home due to a Freon leak inside the building. A total
of 48 patients were successfully transported to the hospital. The Chief also
noted that once a year, seemingly, floods cause the evacuation of an elderly
housing complex known as Melrose Terrace. Participating in the RERP planning
process, which includes plan development and frequent training, drills, and
exercises and acquiring needed response equipment for RERP events, helps
Towns and the State better prepare for and respond to other natural and
technologically emerging events.
Interview with Gene Wrinn, Brattleboro Police Chief
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-54
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
The Chief noted he and his police department train regularly with the Vermont
Yankee security staff, including some force on force exercises. The Police
Department has statewide jurisdiction, and has a number of resources, including
a mobile command post and SWAT capabilities.
The Chief said he would like to see more town wide full-scale exercises that
involve all special needs facilities, including the hospital, nursing homes, child
care centers, schools, and elderly housing. He would also like to see
WebEOC242 used to share information between utility, state and town officials.
Interview with Mr. James Matteau, Executive Director, Windham Regional
Commission
Mr. Matteau was interviewed by telephone to ascertain his perception of the
State of Vermont’s offsite nuclear emergency preparedness program. He often
functions as the chief spokesperson for the State of Vermont at the News Media
Center (NMC) and the Joint Information Center (JIC). He indicated the state has
made great strides in its public information program and how it provides
emergency news releases in radiological exercises. He also indicated that while
there may be some issues associated with transportation resource availability
within the EPZ, he has confidence in the ability of first responders to take
whatever actions are necessary to protect the public’s health and safety.
A4.3 INTERVIEWS WITH UTILITY OFFICIALS
John Dreyfuss, Director of Nuclear Safety at ENVY, and Michael McKenney,
Manager of Emergency Preparedness, were both interviewed. Both recognized
the importance of working as a partner in the RERP process with the state and
with the towns and were willing to discuss past issues and problems at VY, both
242
WebEOC is discussed in greater detail in the Improvement Opportunities section of this Chapter.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-55
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 8 – Emergency Planning
onsite and in offsite exercises. Both utility officials appeared to be readily
available to work to resolve any issues the state or the towns might have with the
RERP program.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 8-56
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
9.0 Environmental
This chapter discusses environmental issues associated with operating the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) for an additional 20 years. In its
license application, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC (Entergy) submitted an
Environmental Report for the VYNPS. Using the information provided by Entergy, along
with consultations with environmental agencies responsible for aspects of the plant’s
operation and other relevant information, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) conducted an independent review of the environmental impacts of continued
operation of the plant.243 This chapter summarizes the NRC data and numerous other
documents, and also provides additional analysis of how continued operation could
affect the environment. It does not discuss how continued operation could affect the
public (e.g., traffic, housing, health and safety) or the impacts of a nuclear accident on
the environment; public health issues are presented in Chapter 10 of this Report.
The environmental issues discussed below address the effects of plant releases,
withdrawal from and discharge to the Connecticut River, waste management and
storage, and maintenance of transmission lines on air and water quality, natural
communities and habitat. Additionally, the effects of climate change on the hydrology of
the area, and seismic activity on soil stability and conditions are also discussed. These
environmental issues encompass the range of public comments received on the
Vermont Yankee GEIS Supplement 30.
9.1 Environmental Impacts of Continued Operation of the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Environmental issues are shaped by the VYNPS footprint, its operations and the
physical environment surrounding the site. The VYNPS is located on 125 acres of land
adjacent to the Connecticut River, in Vernon, Vermont. In addition to the river to the
east, the plant is bordered by farm and pasture land and wooded areas to the north and
243
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2007. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 30 Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Final Report
– Main Report. Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
south and by the town of Vernon to the west. The elevation of the site ranges from 220
feet to 280 feet above mean sea level. Buildings and structures occupy about 35 acres
of the site. Eleven wetland areas are located on the site. The Roaring Brook Wildlife
Management Area is located about one mile to the west and south of the plant.
The river is used as a source of water for cooling. Cooling water can be
circulated in the plant using closed-cycle, open cycle (once-through cooling) and hybrid
mode. Potable water is provided from four on site wells. Discharge water to the river is
enforced under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; an
extension of this permit, which would modify discharge water temperature at release, is
currently being litigated. Other liquid effluents may be discharged to the river but in
smaller quantities. The Vernon Dam, located 0.75 miles downstream from the plant, is
required to maintain a minimum sustained flow of 1,250 cubic feet per second (CFS).
A variety of liquid and solid waste management systems control the release of
pollutants to the environment. Air emissions, normally a concern at power plants, are
limited due to the fact that VYNPS does not combust fossil fuel as the source for
electricity. Plant operations, including the use of noble gases in coolant water,
contribute to offsite radiation levels. Radioactive materials resulting from plant
operations are either stored on site in contained structures or packaged for disposal
offsite. An independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for dry cask storage is
located on 1 acre of the site. Some slightly contaminated materials are disposed on site
by land spreading, as are solids that are periodically removed from on-site septic tanks.
These materials are regulated under Indirect Discharge Permits.
Two transmission lines connect the plant to the regional grid: the 2-mile, 115-kV
Chestnut Hill line connects to the Vermont-New Hampshire transmission grid, and the
50-mile 115/345-kV Coolidge line connects to the New England transmission grid.
9.1.1 Air Quality Impacts
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
9.1.1.1 Climate and Meteorology
The VYNPS lies within the Vermont Southeastern Climate Division, defined as
the portion of land adjacent to the Connecticut River.244 Winds are primarily from the
west. Precipitation occurs throughout the year. The Southeastern Division is most
influenced by North Atlantic weather systems; total annual precipitation averages 45
inches. Summer thunderstorms are the most significant precipitation event in the
VYNPS area.245 Drought conditions tend to be felt more in the Southeastern Division of
the state.246
Average temperatures vary depending on elevation, slope and urban
development. Winter temperatures show greater variation across the state than do
summer temperatures, which are relatively uniform. Diurnal variations in temperature
are greater in the southern part of the state. Temperature records from 1951-1960 show
13 days annually exceeding 90 degrees F.
9.1.1.2 Impacts
The state of Vermont is in attainment for all air pollutants for which National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established. The VYNPS is located
within the Vermont Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 221 and is regulated
by the Air Pollution Control District within the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (VDEC).247 The nearest monitoring station is located in Brattleboro. Only
PM10 was monitored in 2004 (the most recent data available) at this station. Although
Brattleboro had the highest annual PM10 average concentration—19 micrograms per
cubic meter (µg/m3)—in the state, this level was well below the annual average NAAQS
of 50 µg/m3. 248
Potential sources of air emissions at the VYNPS facility include two oil-fired
boilers used for heating purposes (considered “significant” sources), and an oil-fired,
244
NRC, 2007
245
National Climatic Data Center, Climate of Vermont, http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim60/states/
Clim_VT_01.pdf
246
Summary of Hydroclimatic Hazards in Vermont, 2007
247
NRC, 2007
248
Vermont DEC, 2005 Annual Report on Air Quality State of Vermont, http://www.anr.state.vt.us/air/Monitoring/
htm/2005AnnualReport.htm
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
hot-air furnace, two oil-fired boilers and three diesel-powered generators (considered
“minor” sources). Allowable emissions from these sources are less than 10 tons per
year and an Air Pollution Construction or Operating Permit is therefore not required.249
However, an Air Contaminant Source Registration Certificate from the VDEC is
required. An Air Emissions Inventory Report is filed annually for the plant; cooling water
particulate emissions were 24 tons per year. Emissions from the equipment noted
above are considered insignificant and were not reported.250 Emissions are expected to
remain at or below current levels if the plant continues operation.
Nuclear power plants do not emit global warming gases from operations and
lifecycle emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are comparable to wind power and
hydroelectric facilities.251 Continued operation of the plant would avoid the release of
much higher levels of CO2 from other fossil-fueled power plants that might be used to
replace the energy from the VYNPS. It is unlikely that renewable energy facilities, which
also do not emit CO2, could completely replace the MW output of the VYNPS within the
timeframe under consideration.
Hazardous air contaminants (HACs) contained in water treatment chemicals may
be released in cooling tower exhaust (drift). Concentrations of the four HACs252
detected in the cooling water drift were less than the state action levels.253 Entergy has
removed one of these chemicals, glutaraldehyde, from use, although it plans to add
additional water treatment chemicals. Any additional releases would be regulated under
the plant’s NPDES permit.254
Monitoring is conducted to also assess radioactivity levels from plant emissions.
Radioactive emissions from noble gases (including particulate daughter products)
represent the major contribution to off-site levels for gases processed through the
249
Goodell, John, 2008. Prefiled Testimony of John Goodell. State of Vermont
250
Entergy, 2006, 2005 Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory Report for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC
Facility ID WM 2325
251
Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Power in a Warming World
252
Entergy identified the compounds in its 2005 Iventory Report as dodecylguanidine hydrochloride, ethyl alcohol
and isopropyl alcohol (in biocide Spectrus NX-1104), and glutaraldehyde (in biocide Nalco N-550).
253
Ibid
254
NRC, 2007, Pages 4-48 to 4-50
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Gaseous Radwaste System.255 Data for 2001 through 2005 indicate the following
annual average gaseous releases: 31.7 curies per year (Ci/yr) of fission and activation
gases; 1.17 x 10-3 Ci/yr of iodines; 2.7 x 10-4 of beta and gamma emitters as
particulates; and 8.55 Ci/yr of tritium.256 (Tritium is also discussed in Section 9.1.3.5.).
Hydrogen and noble metals injected into the reactor coolant to inhibit corrosion were
considered to have caused direct gamma radiation levels to be higher than expected
20% following the recent 20% extended power uprate.257 Radioactivity levels during
operations after relicensing are expected to remain similar to current levels.
9.1.2 Hydrology and Flood Plain Impacts
9.1.2.1 Setting
The site is less than one mile upstream from the Vernon Hydroelectric Dam. The
VYNPS is adjacent to the Vernon Pool, which is the impounded portion of the
Connecticut River directly upstream of this dam. This pool is the source and receiving
water body for the nuclear plant’s cooling system. The pool covers 2250 acres (at full-
pool elevation of 220.13 feet behind Vernon Dam) and extends upstream to Bellows
Falls Dam located approximately 174 miles above the river mouth. Vernon pool is
about one-half mile wide with a maximum depth of about 40 feet.258
The Connecticut River is the only permanent watercourse on or adjacent to the
project site. The watershed area at this location on the Connecticut River is 6,266
square miles.259
The VYNPS site is located on a river terrace along and above the west bank of
the Connecticut River. Site grade at VYNPS is at an elevation of 252 feet above sea
255
Entergy, 2007, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 22
256
NRC, 2007.
257
Vermont Department of Health (VDH). 2008. Surveillance 2007, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Report
on Public Health Monitoring. June 30.
258
NRC, 2007.
259
Battelle, 1991. Site Characterization Data Report for the Vernon/Vermont Yankee Site Volume I – The Report.
Prepared for Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
level.260 Outdoor access to the turbine, reactor, radwaste and control buildings are at
elevation 252.5.261 The ISFSI is at elevation 254.
9.1.2.2 Baseline Conditions
Hydrology
Average annual flow on the Connecticut River at the project site, based on U. S.
Geological Service (USGS) records from 1945 to 1973, is 10,319 cfs.262 Maximum and
minimum annual averages for the same period are 14,850 and 5,407 cfs, respectively.
Flows vary seasonally, with highest flows during the months of March to May, and
lowest flows from July to September. Average flow for the month of April is 32,000 cfs
while August flow averages 3,460 cfs.263
More recent data, as reported by the NRC, are similar.264 Average daily flow from
2000 to 2005 was 11,101 cfs at Vernon Dam. Monthly flow rates ranged from 30,824
cfs in April to 4,525 cfs in September.
The highest peak flow on record, based on USGS records for the period 1927 to
1973, was 176,000 cfs on March 19, 1936. Other peak flows above 100,000 cfs
occurred in 1927, 1938, 1948, 1953, 1960 and 1973. On average, annual peak flow at
the site for the 1927 to 1973 period of USGS records was 81,000 cfs.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed peak flow
estimates for the 10-year, 50-year, 100-year and 500-year floods for regulatory
purposes. These peak flows have an average annual probability of occurrence equal to
the inverse of the number of years in the flood designation. For instance, a 100-year
flood has an annual probability of occurrence of 1/100 = 0.01. Stated another way, a
100-year flood occurs on average once every 100 years, and has a 1 percent chance of
happening in any year. FEMA flood estimates for the Connecticut River were based on
260
Goodell, John, 2008. Prefiled Testimony of John Goodell. State of Vermont
261
Entergy, 2007, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 22
262
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual/. Website accessed
December 31, 2008
263
Ibid
264
NRC, 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
a statistical analysis of past flood events. FEMA peak flood estimates for the
Connecticut River at the project site are: 10-year flood = 95,400 cfs; 50-year flood =
115,400 cfs; 100-year flood = 121,200 cfs; and, 500-year flood = 135,000 cfs.
The NRC requires that nuclear power plants use the Probable Maximum Flood
(PMF) as a design basis. The PMF is the flood that may be expected from the most
severe combination of meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably
possible in a particular drainage area. The NRC estimate of the PMF for the
Connecticut River at the VYNPS site is 480,000 cfs.265 The Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 22 projected a PMF of
506,400 cfs for the same location.266 Both values are considerably above the FEMA
500-year flood level.
The FEMA 100-year floodplain maps for the Connecticut River at the project site
show the property to be outside the 100-year floodplain. The FEMA 100-year water
surface elevation at the upstream end of the site is 226.6 feet above mean sea level.
The 500-year water surface elevation is 230.9 feet.267 The VYNPS site is 20 feet higher
than these levels.
The State of Vermont Public Service Board (SVPSB, 2006), and the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 22
indicate that the Design Basis (PMF) flood level at the VYNPS site is 252.5 feet above
mean sea level.268 This elevation is based on the higher PMF discharge value of
506,400 cfs. Wave run-up is considered negligible (maximum 0.2 feet) given the
shallow depth of PMF flow at the site location (0.25 to 0.50 feet).269
265
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.59: Design Basis Floods
for Nuclear Power Plants.
266
Entergy, 2007, Updated Final Safety Assessment Report Revision 22.
267
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007. Flood Insurance Study: Windham County, Vermont
(All Jurisdictions).
268
Public Service Board. Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
for amendment of their certificates of public good and other approvals required under 10 V.S.A. §§ 6501-6504 and
30 V.S.A. §§ 231(a), 248 & 254, for authority to continue after March 21,2012, operation of the Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, including the storage of spent-nuclear fuel.
269
Entergy, 2007. Updated Final Safety Assessment Report Revision 22.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Based on the information provided above, a worst-case flood event is not
expected to impact VYNPS operations given that access to the turbine, reactor,
radwaste and control buildings is at elevation 252.5 feet, and the ISFSI pad is at
elevation 254.
9.1.2.3 Effects of Global Warming
Increased Flood Peaks
A modification of the climate in the northeastern United States could result in
modified precipitation patterns and intensities, which could in turn have an effect on
river discharges and flooding. Climate studies have been done at the global, regional
and occasional local level, using a variety of models and assumptions. Multiple
scenarios, often conflicting, of potential changes in precipitation and temperature have
been postulated. In addition, different timeframes have been evaluated with many
studies focusing on the latter part of the century. Recent climate change studies specific
to the Northeast/Connecticut River watershed were reviewed and the results regarding
high streamflow conditions are briefly summarized here.
In a study entitled “Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast” by the
Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment Synthesis Team (NCIAST), global warming is
expected to increase the occurrence and severity of extreme precipitation in the
Northeast, presumably resulting in higher flood events, particularly along coastal
areas.270 High flow events on streams were estimated to increase in probability as
much as 80 percent by the end of the century.
Hayhoe et al. (2006) came to the conclusion that the probability of high flows in
the area of the Connecticut River watershed would increase by the end of the century
by approximately 0.4 to 0.6 (Figure 8 in report).271 Hayhoe et al. (2008) provide future
precipitation projections for the entire Northeast for assumed high and low emissions
270
Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment Synthesis Team (NCIAST) 2007. Confronting Climate Change in the
U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions. A report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment.
271
Hayhoe, Katharine, Cameron p. Wake, Thomas G. Huntington, Lifeng Luo, Mark D. Schwartz, Justin Sheffield,
Eric Wood, Bruce Anderson, James Bradbury, Art Degaetano, Tara J. Troy, and David Wolfe, 2006. Past and
Future Changes in Climate and Hydrological Indicators in the U.S. Northeast. 2006 Climate Dynamics DOI
10.1007/s00382-006-0187-8.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
scenarios.272 A visual review of a plot of their data indicates that by the year 2041,
rainfall in the area is projected to increase by approximately 5%. Marshall and Randhir
(2008) predicted increases in October to January runoff quantities of up to 75% for the
period 2060 to 2100 under a high warming scenario.273 Under a low warming scenario,
runoff quantities increased by 20%. March to May runoff decreased under their
simulation; as noted above, current flows on the Connecticut River are highest during
the March to May period.
Sea Level Rise
The NCIAST study gives an estimate of 2 to 4.5 feet rise in sea levels by the end
of the century. Such a rise would result in substantial increases in coastal flooding but
would not affect the Connecticut River at the inland VYNPS location.
Global Warming Impacts
The literature reviewed generally leads to the conclusion that global warming
effects could result in increased precipitation and increased streamflow in the Northeast.
However, more storms of shorter intensity and duration are still reduced in comparison
to extreme events such as the PMF.
There is substantial vertical buffer between the site and the current 100-year and
500-year flood elevations. The most extreme predictions of flood increases
(approximately 80% as predicted by NCIAST study) would not be sufficient for the
FEMA 500-year flood to reach the VYNPS site. The 500-year flood discharge in cfs
would have to more than triple in order to reach the ISFSI. None of the literature
indicates that an increase of this magnitude is likely.
The PMF is based on a very conservative, worst-case scenario storm centered
over the watershed in a manner that produces maximum runoff and highest flood peaks.
Assumptions used in generating the current maximum PMF estimate include: 12-hour
maximum persisting dew point used for 72-hour rainfall period; 6-hour unit hydrograph
rather than more-realistic 12 hours for this watershed; lower than recorded infiltration
272
Hayhoe, K., C. Wake, B. Anderson, X.-L. Liang, E. Maurer, J. Zhu, J. Bradbury, A. DeGaetano, A. Stoner and D.
Wuebbles. 2008. Regional Climate Change Projections for the Northeast USA. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-007-9133-2. Northeast Climate Data Website:
http://www.northeastclimatedata.org/ Accessed January 1, 2009.
273
Marshall, Eric and Timothy Randhir, 2008. Effect of Climate Change on Watershed System: a Regional
Analysis. Climatic Change (2008) 89:263–280 DOI 10.1007/s10584-007-9389-2
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
rate; and very high river baseflow assumption.274 Should a PMF study be undertaken in
the future, it may not result in a higher PMF discharge.
Issues of flooding and sea rise in the Northeast will affect infrastructure
throughout the area, not just the VYNPS. As more informed projections of the
frequency, intensity and timing of precipitation events become available; the need for a
new PMF study should be evaluated and performed, as appropriate, based on revised
future climate patterns.
9.1.3 Groundwater and Surface Water Impacts
9.1.3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting
The VYNPS site lies on a gently sloping river terrace about 35 to 55 feet above
the Connecticut River. Bedrock is about 30 feet below the VYNPS and about 80 to 100
feet below ground north of the Station.275 Locally the bedrock erosional surface has 75
feet of relief and forms a northeast trending buried bedrock ridge. The top of the
bedrock, located beneath Quaternary sediments, is unweathered to slightly weathered
as a result of glacial scour removing the weathered rock overburden.
Quaternary deposits covering the underlying bedrock consist of a 5 to 10 foot
thick coarse gravel layer at the bedrock contact; a middle unit of fine grained silty fine
sand, fine sandy silt, and silt; and an upper unit of silty sand, fine to coarse sand,
gravelly sand, and sandy gravel. The combined thickness of these sediments ranges
from 40 to 80 feet. Fill occurs at a depth up to 20 feet at locations where site
development has occurred and in former sand and gravel borrow sites.276
9.1.3.2 Groundwater Occurrence
Groundwater at the site occurs under unconfined conditions within both the
unconsolidated upper deposits and the underlying fractured bedrock.277 Groundwater
274
Entergy, 2007, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 22
275
Battelle, 1991
276
Ibid
277
Environmental Compliance Services, Inc. (ECS). 2001. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment,
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. June 4.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
depth at the VYNPS site varies from 15 to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) and the
groundwater flow direction is east and southeast toward the River, consistent with
surface drainage across the site. Water table contour maps prepared in 1991 (Battelle)
and 2001 (ECS) depict contours roughly subparallel to the west bank of the River and
identify the east – southeast flow direction at a gradient of 0.008 to 0.014 ft/ft. Horizontal
flow direction and gradient within the bedrock aquifer is comparable to the
unconsolidated aquifer. Horizontal flow in both the unconsolidated and bedrock aquifers
greatly exceeds the downward vertical flow and both systems discharge to the river.278
The local water table level fluctuates seasonally depending on the amount of
precipitation and is affected by level changes in the Connecticut River. River flooding
will cause a temporary rise of the local water table during periods when the river level is
high. River stage is partly controlled by the Vernon Dam located only 2,500 feet
downstream of the VYNPS.
9.1.3.3 Groundwater Use
Potable water for VYNPS is supplied to various parts of the facility by four deep
bedrock wells located onsite. The wells were constructed from 1984 to 1998 and range
in depth from 362 to 555 feet. Well construction details, area served, and production
rating of the VYNPS potable supply wells are summarized in Table 9-1. Actual
groundwater production based on water usage for 2002 and 2003 averaged 8.54
gallons per minute (gpm). Maximum groundwater demand would occur during a
refueling outage and is estimated to be 35.4 gpm.279 A 24-hour aquifer test of the West
Well revealed bedrock fracture flow was the major source of groundwater and that the
shallow aquifer sustained drawdown of only 0.1 to 0.5 feet.280 Consequently, maximum
demand of 35 gpm from one or more deep bedrock wells for an extended period would
likely cause additional drawdown at other site bedrock wells but not significantly alter
the direction of groundwater flow to the shallow alluvial aquifer. Average and maximum
278
Battelle, 1991
279
NRC, 2007.
280
Battelle, 1991
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
estimated demand are well below the maximum capacity (123.2 gpm) of the four wells
(Table 9-1.)
Table 9-1
VYNPS Potable Water Wells
Well Depth to Depth of Well Rating
Well I.D. (year Depth Bedrock Casing Capacity
constructed) Areas Served (feet) (feet) (feet) (gpm)
Construction
Construction Office
Office Building 362 70 80 9
Building
(1984)
Southwest Secondary/Backup
500 56 67 10.5
(1986) source for West Well
Main Bldg Complex,
Gate House I & 2,
West (1987) 555 39 51 73.7
South Warehouse,
and Gov. Hunt House
Plant Support 30
Support Building 500 27 38
Building (1998)
TOTAL
123.2
GPM
281
Sources: State of Vermont Well Completion Reports and VYNPS Source Water Protection Plans, 2005.
9.1.3.4 Groundwater Quality
VYNPS has a network of monitoring wells located on the site that are associated
with the facility’s septic leach fields, existing and proposed landfarm and VYNPS septic
spreading fields, and an underground diesel fuel oil release near the turbine building.282
The monitoring wells are used for water quality sampling and testing at various potential
sources of groundwater contamination within the facility. Potable water supply wells are
also monitored.
Septic Systems
VYNPS has several sewage treatment and disposal systems (leach fields,
landfarm, and septic spreading field) that discharge to subsurface soils. Groundwater
quality monitoring is required biannually by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation Indirect Discharge Permit (ID-9-0036). Concentrations of chloride (most
likely from road salt) detected in 2007 biannual sampling per Permit ID-9-0036 were
above the state’s groundwater enforcements levels but would be diluted by river flows
281
Entergy Nuclear Northeast, 2005. Source Water Protection Plans submitted to State of Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation. May 11.
282
NRC, 2007
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
upon seepage into the Connecticut River. No nuclides were detected in septic tank
effluent.283
A comprehensive Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
was conducted at VYNPS in 2001. A network of monitoring wells located at each of
three wastewater disposal sites and the South Field septic sludge application area were
sampled and tested during the Phase II ESA to assess any contamination from septic
waste to subsurface soils and groundwater.284 Historic data had indicated the presence
of radionuclides in septic sludge from each of these systems. Sampling results from the
four locations are as follows:
Main Septic System. No volatile organic compounds (VOCs), radionuclide parameters
by gamma scan, or tritium were detected above the method detection limit for
groundwater samples. (See also tritium discussion at 9.1.3.5). Very low concentration
(0.55 milligrams per liter or mg/L) of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) was detected
in only one well, and low levels (0.035 to 0.14 mg/L) of dissolved zinc in four wells.285
New Warehouse Septic System. Sampling at this location identified only low
concentration of TPH (0.84 mg/L) in one sample, with no detection of VOCs, metals,
radionuclides, or tritium.
Construction Office Building (COB) Septic System. Water quality testing from three
wells revealed only one well contained low levels of Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE, 1.1
μg/L) and TPH (2.0 mg/L). No other VOCs, metals, radionuclides, or tritium were
detected.286
South Field Septic Sludge Application Area. Groundwater samples were tested from
seven monitoring wells. These wells contained no detectable VOCs, TPH,
283
Entergy, 2008. Vermont Yankee, April 2008 IDP Groundwater and Effluent Analysis Results.
284
ECS, 2001
285
Ibid
286
Ibid
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
radionuclides, or tritium. Low levels of soluble zinc (0.18 and 0.30 mg/L) were detected
in two downgradient wells; no other metals were detected.287
Soils and sediments from multiple locations were also sampled during the Phase
II investigation. Results are discussed in this section given the potential impact to
groundwater. Cesium-137 levels detected in multiple locations were considered to be
consistent with background levels. Low concentrations of other radionuclides, including
potassium-40, were within background for naturally occurring radioactive material or
below concentrations allowed by NRC. Trace levels or cobalt-60 were detected in two
samples. Tritium was detected at the septic sludge location, was considered to be the
result of historical sludge application, and was not considered significant based on EPA
soil screening levels and the absence of tritium in groundwater.288
Historic Contamination
Groundwater contamination is monitored at two fuel underground storage tank
sites (USTs). Groundwater testing at the active Gasoline/Diesel USTs located east of
the COB identified a low concentration of the gasoline additive 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
(1.4 μg/L). No other VOCs or TPH compounds were detected at the active fuel tank
site.289 The Former Waste Oil UST site located immediately east of the active fuel tank
site contains very low levels of TPH (0.65 mg/L) and no other VOCs, PCBs or dissolved
metals.
A petroleum release occurred in 1999 at the Former #2 Fuel Oil UST site located
south of the Main Transformer from a former 10,000 gallon No. 2 fuel oil UST. The
release resulted in the contamination of soil and groundwater within the unconsolidated
aquifer.290 Contaminants released include a suite of fuel compounds (including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and naphthalene). Tetrachloroethylene
(PERC), a metal degreasing agent, was also detected in this area at 24 μg/L in 2001
and 13.4 μg/L in 2005, exceeding Vermont’s Primary Groundwater Quality Standard
287
Ibid
288
Ibid
289
Ibid
290
NRC, 2007
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
(PGQS) of 5 μg/L.291 The source of PERC is unknown.292 Free fuel oil product was
found in one of the adjacent monitoring wells and recovered using sorbent pads. Free
product monitoring and recovery continued on an as-needed basis. In 2005, free
product, on the order of a few milliliters, was removed from four of the wells adjacent to
the release area. Monitoring wells near the release area were sampled on a quarterly
basis from 1999 to 2002, and have been sampled annually since 2002.293 No PCBs,
radionuclides or tritium were detected in groundwater samples from the Former #2 Fuel
Oil UST site. The trend of decreasing or stable groundwater contamination, no impacts
to offsite groundwater, the inaccessibility to groundwater due to site buildings and
pavement, and the determination that there is no unacceptable risk to human health,
resulted in issuance of site closure status by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (DCE) on September 16, 2008 (Site Management Activity Completed
(SMAC) designation). The nine monitoring wells were destroyed by pressure
grouting.294
Potable Water Wells
Potable water supply wells at VYNPS tap groundwater from the fractured
bedrock aquifer. The wells are routinely sampled and tested in accordance with the
Water Supply Division of DEC for standard drinking water parameters and
radionuclides, including tritium. Levels of 1,1-dichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethene at
the COB supply well in 2001 were below the PGQS for drinking water.295 However, due
to the presence of the chlorinated hydrocarbons in the COB supply well, groundwater is
treated by an activated carbon filtration system. The filtration system is maintained and
monitored by VYNPS staff and quarterly reports are submitted to Vermont DEC.296 No
other VOCs, TPH, metals, radionuclides or tritium were detected above the drinking
water standards in any of the VYNPS potable supply wells.
291
ECS, 2001; ECS. 2006. 2005 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Power
Plant, SMS Site #99-2167. January 23.
292
NRC, 2007
293
Ibid
294
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Waste Management Division. 2008. Letter of Sites
Management Activity Complete, Vermont Yankee Power Plant, SMS Site #99-2617, Vernon, Vermont. September
16.
295
ECS, 2001
296
Ibid
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
9.1.3.5 Tritium Releases
Tritium occurrences at nuclear power plants have come under recent scrutiny
and therefore are described in more detail in this section. Tritium is a radioactive isotope
of hydrogen occurring naturally in the upper atmosphere of the earth. It is produced as
a byproduct of nuclear reactors generating electricity. Tritium can readily bond with
oxygen to form water, resulting in radioactive tritiated water. Groundwater containing
tritium was found recently at several nuclear plants, including the Braidwood Generating
Station in Illinois, the Indian Point Energy Center in New York, the Palo Verde plant in
Arizona and the San Onofre Generating Station in California.297 298
As a result of these
discoveries, the nuclear industry is undertaking an initiative to improve the management
of situations involving radiological releases in groundwater; a final Guidance Document
was released by the Nuclear Energy Institute in August, 2007.299
A significant spill of tritium occurred at the VYNPS in 1976; the source was the
Condensate Storage Tank. Water flowed through the plant storm drain system to the
River. No groundwater contamination was observed.300 Other unplanned releases were
minor and only one (a minor leak of tritium from the sub-floor Chemistry Lab Drain Line)
was postulated to reach groundwater. Currently, small amounts of tritiated air
conditioning condensate enter the storm drain system. VYNPS is considering a design
change that would divert the condensate to Radwaste.301
Current records indicate that the total release of tritium from the plant during the
year 2007 was 6.01 curies.302 For the year 2005, total release was 5.32 curies. Water
around the VYNPS is sampled for tritium each month at ten off-site locations.303 These
locations include six locations in the Connecticut River. Of these six Connecticut River
297
MRW & Associates, Nuclear Power in California: 2007 Status Report, CEC-100-2007-005-F.
298
Nuclear Energy Institute, http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/
factsheets/industrycloselymonitorscontrolstritiumpage3/
299
NEI, 2007, Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative – Final Guidance Document, NEI 07-07.
300
Entergy, 2006, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271), Groundwater
Protection – Data Collection Questionnaire
301
Ibid
302
Entergy Nuclear Northeast Vermont Yankee, LLC. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 2007 Radioactive
Effluent Release Report, Docket No. 50-271. License No. DPR-28. May 6, 2008
303
Vermont Department of Health (VDH). 2008. Surveillance 2007, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Report
on Public Health Monitoring. June 30.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
locations, two samples are taken monthly in the pool where the plant discharges cooling
water, two are taken monthly downstream of the station in the pool just below the
Vernon dam, and two are taken from the river upstream of the station in Brattleboro.
The remaining four off-site sample locations include one representing the Brattleboro
municipal water supply, and one each from groundwater wells that serve the Miller and
Blodgett Farms in Vernon and the Vernon Elementary School. On-site wells are also
monitored for tritium and other radioactivity levels, as discussed above. These wells
include those associated with operations and four test wells in the area where septic
sludge is spread. Test well results for 2007 indicated gross beta activity and potassium-
40 but no other radionuclides, including tritium. Additionally, no tritium was found in on-
site storm drain samples.304
No tritium above the laboratory instrumentation lower limit of detection was
identified in any of the groundwater, surface water or municipal water samples obtained
by the Vermont Department of Health in 2006. Similar results would be expected from
operations following relicensing.
9.1.3.6 Surface Water Quality
The VYNPS operates under an NPDES permit administered by the State of
Vermont. Discharges of pollutants from any point source into the nation’s waters are
prohibited except as allowed under an NPDES permit. The NPDES permit specifies the
discharge standards and monitoring requirements for effluents at the 11 VYNPS outfalls
on the Connecticut River. Outfalls are monitored for chlorine, bromine, pH, radioactivity,
hydroquinone, and corrosion-control chemicals. The VYNPS is required to monitor
concentrations of copper, iron, and zinc at one outfall and two river monitoring stations.
Water temperature and radioactivity are also monitored as discussed above.
In 2004, total copper concentrations ranged from 0.001 to 0.135 milligrams per
liter (mg/L) at the three monitoring stations. The highest concentration, 0.135 mg/L,
occurred at a river monitoring station. The lowest concentration (0.003 to 0.011 mg/L)
304
Entergy Nuclear Northeast Vermont Yankee, LLC. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 2007 Radioactive
Effluent Release Report, Docket No. 50-271. License No. DPR-28. May 6, 2008
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
occurred at the outfall monitoring station. Iron concentrations ranged from 0.10 to 117
mg/L, with the highest concentration at a river monitoring station. The lowest
concentrations, 0.178 to 0.569 mg/L occurred at the outfall monitoring station. Zinc
concentrations ranged from <0.003 to 0.425 mg/L, with the highest concentration
occurring at a river monitoring station. The lowest concentrations (<0.003 to 0.041
mg/L) were at the outfall monitoring station. The NRC has concluded that there would
be no impacts of discharges of other metals in wastewater.
The effects of chlorine and other biocides are not sufficient to be of concern to
the regulatory and resource agencies.305 Sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills are
controlled through the NPDES permit and are not expected to be a problem with the
project.
The VYNPS has a permit to spread slightly contaminated materials on land
onsite. These materials consist of septic waste, cooling tower silt, soil and sand
generated from annual winter spreading on roads and walkways, and soil resulting from
onsite construction activities. Based on sampling at disposal locations (see above),
these materials are not likely to result in contamination to surface water. As discussed
above, tritium has not been detected in surface waters.
9.1.3.7 Impacts
A comprehensive groundwater monitoring network has been developed at
various VYNPS facilities where groundwater may be impacted by operations, including
septic discharges. Only limited compounds were detected and only at very low levels.
Routine monitoring of the drinking water supply wells provides assurances that the local
supplies are safe and acceptable for potable use. Continued monitoring of the shallow
unconsolidated aquifer and deeper fractured bedrock aquifers will provide an effective
means of monitoring groundwater quality and similar results would be expected from
operations following relicensing.
305
NRC, 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-18
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Surface water, groundwater wells and municipal supply wells are also being
monitored by the Vermont Department of Health starting with the 2007 Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station Surveillance Report.306 No tritium was indentified. Runoff from
land disposal locations would not likely affect the Connecticut River.
9.1.4 Species and Habitat Impacts
9.1.4.1 Environmental Setting
Terrestrial Resources
The VYNPS comprises a 125-acre site west of the Connecticut River and within
the Southern Vermont Piedmont, a region of low rolling foothills that are dissected by
streams and rivers. Approximately 35 acres of the VYNPS property is occupied by
buildings and structures. The remainder of the site supports early successional habitat
and mowed grass (66 acres), mixed deciduous and coniferous woodland (20 acres),
shrubland (3 acres), and wetland (1 acre). Mixed deciduous and coniferous riparian
woodland habitat, up to 300 feet wide, parallels the river bank for most of the length of
the site.307 Eleven wetland areas (depressions and swales) were delineated within the
VYNPS site, including several subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.308
Migrant waterfowl and other birds occur in wetlands and aquatic habitats within
and adjacent to the VYNPS site, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose
(Branta canadensis), and American black duck (Anas rubipres). Osprey (Pandion
haliaetus) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) forage and roost along the
Connecticut River and occasionally roost in large riparian trees on the VYNPS site.309
306
Vermont Department of Health (VDH). 2008. Surveillance 2007, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Report
on Public Health Monitoring. June 30.
307
NRC, 2007
308
Goodell, 2008
309
Entergy 2007. Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-19
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
The 1401-acre Roaring Brook Wildlife Management Area is located
approximately one mile to the southwest of VYNPS and contains several forested areas
that are considered important deer wintering areas.
Power generated at the VYNPS is connected to the electric grid via the Chestnut
Hill 115 kV transmission line and the Coolidge 115/345-kV transmission line. The
Chestnut Hill transmission line is approximately two miles long and extends east from
the VYNPS switchyard across the Connecticut River to the Chestnut Hill Substation in
Hinsdale, New Hampshire. This transmission line occupies a 300-foot right-of-way
(ROW). The Coolidge transmission line runs north from the VYNPS substation for
approximately 50 miles within a 200-foot ROW to the Coolidge Substation near Ludlow,
Vermont. These transmission line ROWs traverse the Connecticut River as well as
several small streams and wetlands in addition to forests and farmland.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources (VANR) were contacted by Entergy and NRC to determine if federally or
State-listed species as well as significant natural habitats occur within or proximate to
the VYNPS site or associated transmission line ROWs. As described above, bald
eagles are known to occur on site; however, this species was delisted in July 2007.310
No other federally-listed species are expected to occur within the project area.311
Additionally, designated critical habitat does not exist in the vicinity of VYNPS.
With regard to State-listed species, VANR identified several species with
recorded occurrences within six miles of VYNPS.312 State-listed species in New
Hampshire were also considered. There are no State threatened or endangered species
occurrences within the operational portion of the VYNPS site.313 However, several State
rare plants (not listed as threatened or endangered) have been recorded on the VYNPS
310
USFWS 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 130. July 9.
311
NRC 2007.
312
Marshall 2008. Letter from Everett Marshall, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to John Goodell, SVE.
February 14.
313
Goodell 2008.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-20
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
site including giant Solomon’s seal (Polygonatum biflorum var. commutatum), tapering
rush (Juncus acuminatus), and trailing stitchwort (Stellaria alsine). Great St. John’s wort
(Hypericum ascyron; Vermont Threatened) is known to occur above Vernon Dam close
to, but outside of, the VYNPS boundary.
Aquatic Resources
VYNPS is located on the western shoreline of the Connecticut River,
approximately 0.75 miles upstream of the Vernon Dam. The Vernon Dam creates a
lentic (lake-like) condition upstream where the VYNPS is located. This area is known as
Vernon Pool and contains the cooling water intake and discharge structures for the
power plant.314 The Connecticut River flows are highly regulated through several
existing hydroelectric and flood control dams. Historically, the Connecticut River was
degraded through dam construction and operation; urban, industrial, and agricultural
contaminants; and land-use changes. However, water and habitat quality have
improved through protections afforded by the federal Clean Water Act and state water
quality standards.
Over 180 species of phytoplankton have been collected in the vicinity of VYNPS.
The most abundant include several species of diatoms, green algae, and yellow-green
algae. Approximately 160 species of wetland and aquatic vascular plants were collected
from Vernon Pool and the freshwater marshes near the plant. Over 75 species of
zooplankton were identified during preoperational and early post operational studies
including rotifers, cladocerans, and unidentified nauplii. Over 200 microinvertebrate taxa
have been collected in the vicinity of VYNPS. Dominant groups include dipterans (true
flies), caddisflies, and mayflies. Other common groups on macroinvertebrates include
oligochaetes (aquatic worms), mollusks (fingernail clams and snails), crustaceans,
hydras, and flatworms. Invasive zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) or Asiatic clams
(Corbicula fluminea) have not been collected in the vicinity of VYNPS.315
314
Entergy 2007. Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station
315
NRC 2007
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-21
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Over 40 species of fish, including 14 migratory species have been reported from
the Connecticut River. Among the 28 species collected upstream of Vernon Dam
between 1991 and 2004, dominant species include yellow perch, bluegill, pumpkinseed,
spottail shiner, largemouth bass, and white sucker. Migratory species include American
eel, American shad, gizzard shad, sea lamprey, and Atlantic salmon. A fish ladder was
constructed at Vernon Dam in 1981 and a fish conduit was first operated in 1991.
Recreational fishing occurs mostly for white and yellow perch as well as for smallmouth
and largemouth bass. There are no commercial fisheries near VYNPS.316
Threatened and Endangered Species
The following federally or state-listed aquatic species may occur in the vicinity of the
VYNPS and its associated transmission lines:317
• Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). Suitable habitat for this federally
and state-endangered species is in large rivers within substrates of stable mud, silty
sand, sand, or gravel. Dams have been generally responsible for large losses of
mussel habitat in the Connecticut River due to increased siltation and low dissolved
oxygen levels. The nearest occurrence of dwarf wedgemussel to VYNPS in the
Connecticut River is just north of Bellows Falls Dam, approximately 30 miles
upstream of the site.
• Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa). Suitable habitat for this state-threatened
species is in small rivers within rocky or gravelly substrates and in sandy shoals.
Additionally, the brook floater requires clean, well-oxygenated water with moderate
to high flows; therefore, suitable habitat does not occur in the Vernon pool near
VYNPS. This species is only known from the West River.
• Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Suitable habitat for this federally
and state-endangered species is in large rivers, and occasionally saltwater. There
are two known populations of shortnose sturgeon in the Connecticut River, the
closest of which is more than 20 miles downstream of VYNPS.
316
Ibid
317
Ibid
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-22
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
9.1.4.2 Environmental Impacts
The following sections provide an analysis of the potential biological resource
impacts of the proposed VYNPS license renewal for an additional 20 years. Entergy did
not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to
support continued operation of VYNPS over the license renewal term. As such, impact
analysis pertains solely to VYNPS operations, including transmission line maintenance.
Terrestrial Resources
There were no issues warranting site-specific analysis applicable to terrestrial
resources and the VYNPS license renewal. Issues generic to nuclear power plants and
also pertinent to VYNPS are summarized as follows:
• Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation. Exposure to salts
or other effects (e.g., icing, increased humidity) from cooling-tower operation may
impact the productivity of agricultural crops (quality or quantity of yield) or damage
ornamental vegetation (visual or plant function). Based on monitoring results from
sampled nuclear power plants, a literature review, and resource agency
consultation, NRC was not able to identify an instance where impacts to agricultural
or ornamental occurred from cooling tower operation.318
• Cooling tower impacts on native plants. The same methodology for impact
assessment to crops and ornamental vegetation was applied to assess cooling
tower impacts to terrestrial plant communities. Observed vegetation damage from
icing and cooling tower drift at nuclear plants with mechanical draft towers was
considered minor and localized to small areas.319 At VYNPS, this issue has not been
found to be a problem and is not expected to be a problem over the license renewal
term.320
Threatened and Endangered Species
Due to the frequency and intensity of disturbance from ongoing VYNPS
operations, suitable habitat quality for threatened and endangered species at the
318
NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437,
Volume 1. May. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v1/index.html
319
Ibid
320
NRC 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-23
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
VYNPS site is low. With the exception of the bald eagle, no other federally-listed
species are known to occur within the VYNPS site and transmission line rights-of-way.
The bald eagle was recently delisted. Additionally, state-listed species have not been
identified and are not expected to occur within the VYNPS site and transmission line
rights-of-way.
Since, no refurbishment is necessary, no major land disturbance that could
potentially affect undiscovered special-status species would take place. Further,
environmental procedures in place at VYNPS are generally protective of sensitive
habitats (i.e., wetlands and stream crossings) that could support threatened and
endangered species. The location of rare plant populations on site and proximate to
VYNPS have been identified and will be monitored. If additional nuclear waste storage
facilities are needed on the site in the future, an environmental review will need to be
conducted at that time.
USFWS determined that VYNPS operation during the license renewal term
would not adversely affect any federally listed species under USFWS jurisdiction and
that further consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not
warranted.321 Similarly, no state-listed terrestrial species would be adversely affected.
Overall, impacts to terrestrial species would be small and no mitigation is required.322
Aquatic Ecology
Cooling Water Intake and Discharge
The Connecticut River is the source and receiving water body for the VYNPS
cooling system. The intake structure is located in Vernon Pool on the Connecticut River
north of the Vernon Dam. There are 12 NPDES outfalls in Vernon Pool where cooling
water is discharged.
There are three different options for circulating cooling river water through the
power plant: open-cycle (once-through cooling), hybrid cycle, or closed-cycle. The mode
is selected by the plant operator based on discharge temperature requirements of the
NPDES permit. Water is not discharged into the river during closed cycle operation;
instead, it is returned to the intake structure for re-use in the condenser. In contrast,
321
Amaral 2005. Letter from Michael Amaral, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Gary Tucker, FTN Associates.
December 16.
322
NRC 2007
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-24
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
river water used for cooling in the open-cycle and hybrid cycle modes is discharged at
an elevated temperature back into the river. The amount of water returned to the river in
hybrid mode depends on seasonal variation in environmental parameters (e.g., flow rate
and temperature of the Connecticut River).
The use of water from the Connecticut River for cooling may result in a variety of
potential impacts to aquatic resources. The following resultant biological issues are
general to most nuclear power plants and considered by NRC to be small:
• Accumulation of contamination in sediments or biota. Discharged chemicals are
regulated by the VYNPS NPDES permit. Impacts are considered to be of small
significance provided that water quality standards (i.e., NPDES permit restrictions)
are not violated.
• Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Water withdrawn for cooling
typically includes phytoplankton and zooplankton, which may be impacted by
entrainment (capture in the intake water flow). However, this impact is considered to
be of small significance at VYNPS because there has been no evidence of
phytoplankton and zooplankton population reductions.
• Cold shock. Cold shock occurs when organisms acclimated to warm water (e.g., in
a discharge canal in winter) are suddenly exposed to temperature decreases when
artificial heating ceases. Cold-shock mortalities are relatively rare and usually
involve small numbers of fish.323 This has been satisfactorily mitigated at VYNPS
and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.324
• Distribution of aquatic organisms. Heated effluents can affect aquatic organisms
by altering the amount of available habitat (e.g., eel grass habitat degradation or
habitat constraints of cold-water/warm-water species), thus impacting their
distribution. Heated discharges from the VYNPS influence a relatively small area of
the affected water body and are not expected to affect the larger distribution of
aquatic organisms.
323
NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437,
Volume 1. May. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v1/index.html
324
NRC 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-25
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
• Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Heated effluents contacting aquatic
insects that inhabit benthic (river bottom) habitats may result in premature
emergence of individuals by accelerating the development of immature life stages.
Typically, changes are localized and not expected to cause a reduction in aquatic
insect populations within the receiving water body.
• Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease [GBD]). Increased saturation levels of
dissolved gases in discharge areas of power plants can lead to GBD in fish if
individuals are able to reside in the supersaturated effluent for long periods.
Ensuring rapid mixing of effluent and other measures to inhibit residence in the
thermal plume has proven effective at preventing GBD.325 This has not been
identified as a problem during the original VYNPS license term and is not expected
to be a problem during the license renewal term.326
• Low dissolved oxygen (DO) in the discharge. Adding heat via power plant
discharge to water with preexisting low DO levels may aggravate biological effects to
aquatic biota. However, based on operational monitoring reports, low DO
concentrations in the discharge were not a problem at the VYNPS during the initial
license period and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal
term.327
• Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms. Sublethal
power plant stresses, such as discussed above, may alter predator-prey interactions
in the Connecticut River, potentially resulting in indirect mortality through increased
susceptibility to predators. Additionally, elevated water temperatures in power plant
discharges may increase the susceptibility of aquatic organisms to increased
parasitism and disease, although there is little evidence to support this.328 Loss of
aquatic organisms from predation, parasitism, and disease was not a problem at the
325
NRC 1996.
326
NRC 2007.
327
Ibid
328
NRC 1996.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-26
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
VYNPS during the initial license period and is not expected to be a problem during
the license renewal term.329
• Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Warm temperatures and high flow rates of
power plant discharge may be conducive to the growth and proliferation of nuisance
organisms and/or non-native species. Stimulation of these organisms is considered
of small significance to aquatic resources if these organisms are restricted to a
nuclear plant’s condenser cooling system or are highly localized.330 This issue was
not a problem at the VYNPS during the initial license period and is not expected to
be a problem during the license renewal term.331
Biological resource issues warranting a site-specific analysis (i.e., entrainment of fish
and shellfish in early life stages, impingement of fish and shellfish, and heat shock) as
opposed to the generic analysis provided above are summarized in the following
sections. In addition, the potential for creating a thermal plume barrier to migrating fish
is assessed below because it was evaluated as potentially new and significant
information in the GEIS, Supplement 30.
Entrainment
Entrainment occurs when fish larvae are withdrawn with the cooling river water
through the power plant intake system. High levels of mortality (up to 100 percent) occur
due to thermal stress and the mechanical and hydraulic forces in the cooling system.
VYNPS typically operates in closed-cycle mode (least intake volume) during the warmer
months when larval densities are highest in Vernon Pool, thereby reducing potential
impacts.
The effects of entrainment were considered by NRC at the time of original
licensing and are periodically revisited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or state water quality permitting agencies in NPDES permit processes and Clean
Water Act 316(b) demonstrations. Entergy began data collection in 2005 in support of
preparation of a Compliance Demonstration Plan (CDP) for submittal to the State, which
329
NRC 2007.
330
NRC 1996.
331
NRC 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-27
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
would comply with Phase II requirements of CWA 316(b); however, the status of the
CDP is undetermined because the Phase II regulations were suspended in July 2007.332
Pursuant to NPDES permit requirements, annual entrainment monitoring and reporting
is conducted at VYNPS. Sampling results demonstrate that larval fish densities are
relatively low in Vernon Pool near the intake structures – 1,222 larval fish were collected
in 2003 and 1,057 larval fish were collected in 2004.333
Monitoring data collected over 30 years has demonstrated that fish species
abundance and diversity as well as community composition has not varied significantly
as a result of VYNPS operation. Further, ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae)
entrainment is expected to be limited because spawning habitat quality is considered
low in the area of Vernon Pool near VYNPS due to daily water level fluctuations, a steep
shoreline, and a silty sand substrate. Therefore, potential impacts of entrainment by
VYNPS during the license renewal period would be small and no mitigation is
required.334 However, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation may
require modifications or impose further restrictions to reduce entrainment impacts under
NPDES permit processes pursuant to CWA 316(b) regulations.
Impingement
Impingement occurs when aquatic organisms in the cooling water that are too
large to pass through the 3/8-inch intake debris screens are pinned against the screens.
Mortality of impinged organisms is generally high and results from suffocation or
abrasion. As with entrainment, impingement is evaluated and regulated under NPDES
and 316(b) processes, including monitoring and reporting requirements.
As a condition of the VYNPS NPDES permit, the Environmental Advisory
Committee (EAC)335 annually establishes impingement limits for American shad and
332
NRC 2007.
333
Entergy 2007. Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station.
334
NRC 2007.
335
Composed of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Vermont Department of Fish and
Wildlife, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife, USFWS
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-28
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Atlantic salmon, which are considered anadramous species336 of concern by the EAC.
The EAC considers annual impingement losses below these levels to not adversely
affect these fish populations in the Connecticut River. The numbers of American shad
and Atlantic salmon impinged have been consistently far lower than NPDES permitted
limits for these species. For example, in 2003, 13 American shad and 28 Atlantic
salmon were impinged and the annual permit levels were set at 1140 and 364,
respectively.337 Other impinged species identified in sampling efforts include common
warm water species within Vernon Pool near VYNPS (e.g., sunfish, rock bass, and
yellow perch).
Monitoring data at VYNPS demonstrated that impingement losses are
consistently below permitted limits for American shad and Atlantic salmon, indicating no
adverse effect to these anadramous species. Additionally, these data show that fish
species abundance and diversity as well as community composition have not varied
significantly as a result of VYNPS operation. According to the NRC, potential impacts of
impingement by VYNPS during the license renewal period would be small and no
mitigation is required.338 However, as with entrainment, the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation may require modifications or impose further restrictions to
reduce impingement impacts under NPDES permit processes pursuant to CWA 316(b)
regulations.
Thermal Discharge Effects
The temperature limits of the water discharged into the Connecticut River are
regulated through Vermont’s NPDES program pursuant to CWA 316(a) requirements.
The NPDES permit for the VYNPS defines the upper limit of the plant-induced
temperature at a specified monitoring station and also defines the maximum allowable
increase in plant-induced temperature above the ambient water temperature. Entergy
received an amendment to the NPDES permit to allow an increase of 1°F in the thermal
Coordinator of the Connecticut River Anadramous Fish Program; also responsible for evaluating the aquatic
environmental monitoring and studies program.
336
Fish that breed in fresh water but live their adult life in the sea
337
Entergy 2007.
338
NRC 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-29
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
discharge limit between June 16 and October 14; however the request for a 1°F
increase between May 16 and June 15 (the salmon migratory period) was denied.339
Heatshock occurs when exposure to a sudden increase in water temperature
adversely affects the metabolism and behavior of aquatic organisms, potentially
resulting in mortality. Near the VYNPS discharge, heated effluent during the summer is
approximately 80°F to 90°F, with an infrequent maximum around 100°F. The typical
temperature tolerance range for common species found in Vernon Pool is between 82°F
(white sucker) and 96°F (common carp). Spawning temperatures are between 50°F and
68°F. Given that VYNPS discharges via a shoreline surface discharge into a relatively
large waterbody, there are sufficient areas for organisms to escape the heat, and
existing measures to prevent sudden temperature fluctuations, NRC determined that the
potential for heat shock during the renewal term is unlikely, and impacts would be small.
Heated effluent may present a thermal barrier to migrating American shad and
Atlantic salmon by disrupting or denying their movement upstream through Vernon
Pool. No large exclusionary areas to American shad were identified. Because this
species travels in the lower water column, they are able to avoid the thermal plume of
VYNPS discharge, which is released near the water surface.340 Similarly, no blockages
to Atlantic salmon have been observed. Radiotelemetry studies did not observe any
delay when smolts traveled into and through the thermal plume.341 Also, most salmon
migration is complete by early June, which is before the upper limits for feeding or
survival is exceeded near the VYNPS discharge.342 Therefore, migration of American
shad and Atlantic salmon would not be adversely impacted by thermal discharges from
VYNPS.
339
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) 2007. Direct Testimonies of Carpenter, Burnham, Cox, Richkus
and Schreiner re. Docket N0. 89-4-06.
340
NRC 2007.
341
Aquatech 1990. 316 Demonstration Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Connecticut River Vernon, Vermont
– Biological, Hydrological, and Engineering Information. June.
342
NRC 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-30
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Climate change could cause a future increase in river water temperatures in the
summer months; any increases and the effect on regulated discharge temperatures and
affected species would be addressed in the NPDES permit in effect at the time.
Threatened and Endangered Species
As described above, the dwarf wedgemussel and shortnose sturgeon are the only
special status aquatic species potentially occurring within the project area. The VYNPS
intake and discharge are closely regulated under NPDES permit requirements, including
a detailed monitoring and reporting program to assess impacts to aquatic resources and
the effectiveness of protective measures. Further, the National Marine Fisheries Service
determined that consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not
required.343 Impacts resulting from impingement, entrainment, and thermal discharge
would be small; as such, the resultant potential impacts to threatened and endangered
species would also be small.
Transmission Line ROW Management
Maintenance of the Chestnut Hill and Coolidge transmission line ROWs in
Vermont is conducted by a different contractor and according to different methods than
the portion of the Chestnut Hill transmission line in New Hampshire. ROW vegetation
management in Vermont includes the use of mechanical clearing and hand-held
herbicide application. In New Hampshire, no herbicides are used in vegetation
management of the Coolidge transmission line. Instead, vegetation control is achieved
through mechanical methods and selective vegetation planting practices.344
Potential impacts to biological resources resulting from transmission line ROW
management are discussed below. Additionally, impacts to flora and fauna from
exposure to electromagnetic fields has been identified as a potential impact, however
this is largely unsupported by evidence and considered less than significant.
Impacts to Wildlife
343
Ibid
344
Ibid
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-31
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Potential impacts to wildlife from transmission line ROW management are related
to herbicide application and shifts in vegetation community type from forested to low-
growing plants. Herbicides are generally not highly toxic to wildlife when correctly
applied for vegetation management. Procedures are in place to ensure that ROW
vegetation management is protective of local water bodies and aquatic organisms that
could be adversely impacted from herbicide application in the vicinity of streams or river
crossings.
The transmission line corridor may fragment habitat for some forest species while
providing new suitable habitat for bird and mammal species that inhabit grasslands or
brushy areas. Because the ROW corridor is narrow and occupies a relatively small
fraction of a forested area, impacts are small. According to NRC, continued ROW
management during the license renewal term would not lower habitat diversity or cause
significant changes in species populations in the surrounding habitat.345
Floodplains and Wetlands
Periodic vegetation management is needed in forested areas containing
wetlands within the ROWs. Impacts to wetlands may result from herbicide treatment of
vegetation proximate to wetlands or the use of heavy equipment that may damage
vegetation. As described above, implementation of standard best management
practices would avoid impacts to wetland and floodplains. Impacts would be generally
restricted to the ROW and are not anticipated to significantly impact the functions and
values of floodplains and wetlands.
Avian Mortality due to Collision
Bird collisions with power lines and transmission structures generally occur when
a power line or other structure transects a daily flight path used by a concentration of
birds and migrating birds traveling at reduced altitudes which may encounter tall
structures in their path.346 Collision rates generally increase in low light conditions,
during inclement weather, during strong winds, and during panic flushes when birds are
345
NRC 1996.
346
Brown, William, 1993. Avian collisions with utility structures: Biological perspectives. In: Proceedings of the
Avian Interactions with Utility Structures International Workshop. Sponsored by Avian Powerline Interaction
Committee and Electric Power Research Institute.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-32
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
startled by a disturbance or are fleeing from danger. Collisions are more probable near
wetlands, within valleys that are bisected by power lines, and within narrow passes
where power lines run perpendicular to flight paths.347 Literature reviewed by NRC does
not show significant impacts of collision mortality on overall species populations and
there is a lack of known instances where transmission lines from a nuclear power plant
are affecting large numbers of individuals in a local area.348 Therefore, the existing
VYNPS transmission lines and structures do not pose a significant collision threat to
resident or migratory bird populations.
9.1.5 Soil and Seismicity Impacts
9.1.5.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The VYNPS is located in the Connecticut Valley Gaspe Province of Vermont,
which consists primarily of the Connecticut Valley-Gaspe Basin. This province is
underlain by thick deposits of calcareous sediments that were deposited in an ancient
basin and were intruded by felsic/granitic rocks. These units were deformed and folded
by compression of the continent primarily by two orogenic episodes during the
Paleozoic era mountain building events both partially responsible for the uplift of the
Appalachian Mountains: the Taconic Orogeny from about 500-450 million years ago
(mya) and the Acadian Orogeny from about 400-250 mya. These events also resulted in
melting of the subducting plates resulting in formation of additional granitic plutons and
other intrusive bodies. During the following Mesozoic and early Cenozoic eras the area
underwent extension and erosion.349 During the late Cenozoic era, in the Pleistocene
epoch (1.8 million to 10,000 years before present), the Vermont area was subject to
glacial erosion and deposition due to the advance and retreat of mile-high ice sheets
347
Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC) 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power
Lines: The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation., Washington, D.C.
348
NRC 1996.
349
Doolan, B., 1996. The Geology of Vermont, published in Rocks and Minerals Vermont Issue, 1996, by Heldref
Publications, accessed on the Vermont Geological Survey (VGS) website December 2008, at
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/DEC/GEO/pdfdocs/VermontGeoWebDoolan.pdf.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-33
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
that lasted from about 2 mya to about 24,000 years ago. The last ice sheet retreated
from southern Vermont about 15,000 years ago.350
9.1.5.2 Local Geology
The VYNPS is located on a nearly flat river terrace along the west bank of the
Connecticut River, about 35 to 55 feet above the river level351 which is controlled by the
Vernon Dam located about 0.5 mile downstream. The river terrace is the lowest of a
series of glaciolacustrine terraces expressed as tiered steps on the steep valley walls
above the river floodplain.352
Bedrock beneath the terrace deposits consists of complexly folded and
metamorphosed Paleozoic sedimentary and volcanic strata, and granitic intrusive rock.
The VYNPS is located above the core of the Vernon Dome, an ellipsoidal shaped uplift
of granitic gneiss overlain by metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic layers in the
area.353 The bedrock surface was eroded by rivers and subsequently scoured by
multiple Pleistocene glaciations. The north-south topographic grain of the region has
resulted from erosion along the lithologic layers and bedrock structure creating a buried
northeast-trending bedrock ridge bounded on each side by bedrock valleys beneath the
site. The ridge lies about 30 to 40 feet below the VYNPS.354 As described in Section
9.1.3.1, bedrock is overlain by sediments derived from receding glaciers.
9.1.5.3 Regional Seismicity
The New England and surrounding areas have a long history of small to
moderate earthquakes. Unlike California where most earthquakes occur on significant
faults, earthquakes in the New England area appear to be occurring along pre-existing
zones of weakness (old bedrock faults or other geologic features) due to the changing
stress regimes in the North American Plate. As the North American Plate slowly pushes
against the Pacific and Juan De Fuca Plates on the west coast this movement results in
350
Ridge J. C., 2003. Chapter 3: The last deglaciation of the northeastern United States: a combined varve,
paleomagnetic, and calibrated 14C chronology. In Cremens, D.L. and Hart, J. P., eds. Geoarchaeology of
Landscapes in the Glaciated Northeast. New York State Museum Bulletin 497, p. 15-45.
351
Battelle, 1991
352
Ibid
353
Ibid
354
Ibid
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-34
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
a steady, slow pressure increase within the interior of the North American Plate which is
released by the small to moderate earthquakes in the New England area and south
eastern Canada.355
Earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains, although they generally occur less
frequently than on the west coast, are typically felt over a much larger area, as much as
ten times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the west coast.356 A magnitude
4.0 eastern U.S. earthquake typically can be felt at many places as far as 60 miles from
where it occurred and a magnitude 5.5 may be felt as far away as 300 miles.357
A review of historic earthquake activity from 1900 to 2008 indicates that many
earthquakes of 5.9 or less have occurred within the New England area.358 Figure 9-1
shows locations of historic earthquakes within 200 miles of the VYNPS and a summary
of the earthquakes of magnitude 4.5 or greater is presented in Table 9-2. One of the
largest earthquakes in New England (estimated magnitude of 5.9) occurred in 1755 at
an estimated location of 25 miles east-northeast of Cape Ann, Massachusetts (offshore)
and reportedly caused heavy damage in Cape Ann and Boston, and likely affected all of
Vermont.359 360
355
Vermont Geological Survey (VGS) website, 2008, Excerpts from: A Report on the Seismic Vulnerability of the
State of Vermont by John E. Ebel, Richard Bedell and Alredo Urzua, a 96 page report submitted to Vermont
Emergency Management Agency in July, 1995. http//www.anr.state.vt.us/DEC/GEO/EBEL.htm
356
United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard website, 2008, http://earthquake.usgs.gov
357
Ibid
358
NEIC, 2008
359
Ebel, J.S., 2006. The Cape Ann, Massachusetts Earthquake of 1755: A 250th Anniversary Perspective,
Seismological Research Letters, January, Vol. 77, p 74-86.
360
USGS, Historic Earthquakes, Cape Ann, Massachusetts.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1755_11_18.php
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-35
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Figure 9-1
Regional Earthquakes
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-36
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Table 9-2
Significant Historic Earthquakes Affecting the New England Area
Approximate
Distance
Date Location Magnitude Comments
from Site
(miles)
This earthquake centering near Lake George
demolished about 20 chimneys at
Warrensburg and twisted a church spire
(intensity VII). A small landslide was
Near Lake
April 20, reported on McCarthy Mountain. In other
George, 4.7 79
1931 nearby areas, walls were cracked and items
New York
fell off shelves. The shock was felt over
155,000 square kilometers, but with less
intensity in the Catskills than at equal
distances in other directions.
Near Lake These two earthquakes are described
December Ossipee, together due to their close occurrence and
5.5 94
20, 1940 New physical proximity. The first shock weakened
Hampshire structures, which resulted in more severe
damage from the second earthquake in
Near Lake surrounding areas. Minor damage occurred
December Ossipee, at several towns in Maine, Massachusetts,
5.5 99
24, 1940 New New York, and Vermont.
Hampshire
This earthquake caused extensive damage
Near
September in northern New York and was felt strongly in
Massena, 5.8 186
5, 1944 northern Vermont. The earthquake included
New York
a 4.6 magnitude aftershock.
The Portland area suffered minor damage
from this earthquake centered about 20
miles offshore. A few cracked walls and
some plaster cracks at Portland as well as
Near
April 26, split chimneys, broken windows and dishes
Portland, 4.7 124
1957 at Westbrook were the most significant
Maine
effects. The 6:40 a.m. shock awakened
many residents over an area of 31,500
square miles of Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Vermont.
Near New
Hampshire-
June 15, Highest felt intensity for this earthquake was
Quebec 5.2 190
1973 VI (see Table 9-3, below).
Border,
Maine
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-37
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Approximate
Distance
Date Location Magnitude Comments
from Site
(miles)
This earthquake was felt over a 127,000
square kilometer area of New England
including parts of CT, ME, MA, NH, VT, RI,
West of and Canada. Maximum ground shaking of
January Laconia, Intensity VI cracked chimneys, plaster, and
4.7 68
19, 1982 New concrete floors in MA, NH, and VT. Other
Hampshire reported damage included broken
glassware, overturned small objects, fallen
hanging pictures, and fallen merchandise
from store shelves.
At Blue Mountain Lake, one old chimney
collapsed, about 20 tombstones slid or
rotated, and some minor cracks formed in
plaster walls. Several landslides were
Goodnow
reported. Light damage also occurred at
(Blue
October 7, several other towns in the area, but the most
Mountain 5.3 118
1983 common effects were cracked chimneys,
Lake Area),
broken dishes or glassware, and overturned
New York
or fallen objects. Although this earthquake
caused only minor damage, it was felt over a
wide region, including two Provinces in
Canada and 12 States.
Some roads, bridges, chimneys and water
lines were damaged in Clinton and Essex
Counties. Many buildings in the area had
cracked walls and foundations, broken
Au Sable
April 20, windows and small items knocked from
Forks, New 5.2 132
2002 shelves. Maximum intensity (VII) occurred at
York
Au Sable Forks. The earthquake was felt
from New Brunswick and Maine to Ohio and
Michigan and from Ontario and Quebec to
Maryland.
Source: NEIC Earthquake Hazards Program website, 2008.
9.1.5.4 Vermont Seismicity
The state of Vermont has experienced moderate seismicity throughout recorded
history; however most of the earthquakes recorded in Vermont are relatively small with
magnitudes of less than 4.0. The largest recorded events in Vermont are the July 6,
1943 earthquake near Swanton, VT and the April 10, 1962 event near Middlebury, VT.
Both of these earthquakes had magnitude 4.1. An earthquake of magnitude 4.0
occurred at Brandon, VT on March 31, 1953. Maximum Modified Mercalli scale
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-38
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
intensities for these earthquakes ranged from IV to V in the areas near the earthquake
epicenter (see Table 9-3).361
Earthquakes in Vermont are scattered broadly across the state; however the
largest events have occurred in the northwestern part of the state, with earthquakes in
the other parts of Vermont being smaller and less frequent. The larger earthquakes that
have occurred in the state are located closer to the more active zones of earthquakes in
the Adirondack Mountains of northern New York state, and southern Quebec.362
No active faults have been mapped in Vermont, and there is no clear association
between the earthquakes that have occurred in the state with the older bedrock faults
that have been mapped in the state.363 While many faults have been mapped in
Vermont, no direct geologic evidence has been found for recent fault movement
anywhere in the state.364 Most of the faults occur in the southwestern part of the state or
in the eastern part of the state along the Connecticut River and recent geologic work
has found a number of faults in the Green Mountains. There is insufficient earthquake
activity along any of these fault systems to indicate that they are active faults. A
number of the earthquakes in Vermont have occurred in places where there are no
faults mapped. These earthquakes could represent minor rock cracking which is not
related to more significant earthquake activity, or they could represent earthquakes on
buried faults which are not observed at the surface.365
Strong Groundshaking
The intensity of the seismic shaking, or strong ground motion, at the VYNPS site
during an earthquake is dependent on the distance between the site and the epicenter
of the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions
underlying and surrounding the VYNPS. Earthquakes occurring closest to the VYNPS
would most likely generate the largest ground motion.
361
VGS, 2008
362
Ibid
363
Ibid
364
Ibid
365
Ibid
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-39
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
East of the Rocky Mountains, the magnitude of most earthquakes is measured
on the Richter scale, invented by Charles F. Richter in 1934. The Richter magnitude is
calculated from the amplitude of the largest seismic wave recorded for the earthquake,
no matter what type of wave was the strongest. The Richter magnitude scale,
commonly referenced as local magnitude ML scale, assigns a single number to quantify
the amount of seismic energy released by an earthquake. It is based on the amount of
energy released measured from short period surface waves generated by the
earthquake. The Richter scale is a base-10 logarithmic scale, meaning that for each
whole number increase in magnitude there is a 10 times increase in the amount of
groundshaking ( i.e. a magnitude 5 earthquake would result in ten times the level of
ground shaking as a magnitude 4 earthquake).
The intensity of earthquake-induced ground motions can be described using
peak site accelerations, represented as a fraction of the acceleration of gravity (g). Peak
ground acceleration is the maximum acceleration experienced by a particle on the
Earth’s surface during the course of an earthquake, and the units of acceleration are
most commonly measured in terms of fractions of g, the acceleration due to gravity (980
cm/sec2). The 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA) Maps were
used to estimate peak ground accelerations (PGAs) at the VYNPS, as shown in Figure 9-
2. Taking into consideration the uncertainties regarding the size and location of
earthquakes and the resulting ground motions that can affect a particular site, NSHA
Maps were used to depict peak ground accelerations with a 10 percent probability of
being exceeded in 50 years, which equals an annual probability of 1 in 475 of being
exceeded each year. The estimated PGA with a 10 percent of exceedance in 50 years
is approximately 0.039g (or 3.9% of gravity) at the VYNPS for hard/firm rock
conditions.366
366
USGS, 2008
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-40
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Figure 9-2
Estimated VYNPS PGA Map
Another commonly used measure of earthquake intensity is the Modified Mercalli
Scale, which is a subjective measure of the strength of an earthquake at a particular
place as determined by its effects on persons, structures, and earth materials. The
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-41
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Modified Mercalli Scale for Earthquake Intensity is presented in Table 9-3, along with a
range of approximate average peak accelerations associated with each intensity value.
The PGA of 0.039g noted above would be at the low end of Intensity Level V.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-42
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Table 9-3
Modified Mercalli Scale for Earthquake Intensity
Average
Intensit Peak
y Value Intensity Description Acceleration
Not felt except by a very few persons under especially favorable
I <0.0017 g
circumstances.
Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors on buildings.
II
Delicately suspended objects may swing.
0.0017 0.014
Felt noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many g
III people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock
slightly, vibration similar to a passing truck. Duration estimated.
During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night, some
awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. 0.014 0.039
IV
Sensation is like a heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked g
noticeably.
Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes and windows
0.039–0.092
V broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned.
g
Disturbances of trees, poles may be noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.
Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved;
VI 0.092–0.18 g
and fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.
Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design
and con-struction; slight to moderate in well built ordinary structures;
VII 0.18–0.34 g
considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys
broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars.
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary
substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures.
Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks,
VIII 0.34–0.65 g
columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud
ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor
cars disturbed.
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well designed frame
struc-tures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial
IX 0.65–1.24 g
collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously.
Underground pipes broken.
Some well built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame
structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent.
X
Landslides consid-erable from riverbanks and steep slopes. Shifted sand
and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks.
Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad >1.24 g
XI fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth
slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.
Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or
XII destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are
distorted. Objects are thrown upward into the air.
Source: Bolt, 1988; Wald et al., 1999367
367
Bolt, Bruce A., 1988. Earthquakes. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York; Wald, D. J., V. Quitoriano, T. H.
Heaton, H. Kanamori (1999). Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and
Modified Mercalli Intensity for Earthquakes in California, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 3, 557-564.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-43
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
The effects of earthquake induced groundshaking can be locally modified by soil
conditions. In areas with poorly consolidated or unconsolidated soils, ground shaking
relative to the underlying bedrock can be amplified by a factor of up to 3. This potential
for amplification of the seismic shaking is controlled by two major factors: the stiffness of
the soils, and the thickness of the soil layer. The thicker the unconsolidated soil, the
more likely it is that there will be groundshaking amplification, with soils over 100 feet
thick being the most prone to amplification.368 In Vermont, sites on level ground
underlain by poorly consolidated or unconsolidated soils are most likely to be subject to
earthquake effects of soil amplification, settlement, and liquefaction-related
phenomena.369
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which saturated granular sediments temporarily
lose their shear strength during periods of earthquake-induced, strong groundshaking.
The susceptibility of a site to liquefaction is a function of the depth, density, and water
content of the granular sediments, and the magnitude and frequency of earthquakes in the
surrounding region. Saturated, unconsolidated silts, sands, and silty sands within 50 feet of
the ground surface are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction-related phenomena
include lateral spreading, ground oscillation, flow failures, loss of bearing strength,
subsidence, and buoyancy effects.370 In addition, densification of the soil resulting in
vertical settlement of the ground can also occur.
In order to determine liquefaction susceptibility of a region, three major factors
must be analyzed. These include: (a) the density and textural characteristics of the
alluvial sediments; (b) the intensity and duration of groundshaking; and (c) the depth to
groundwater. The sediments underlying the VYNPS and surrounding area include
layers of loose to medium dense, fine to medium grained sand of depths ranging from 0
to approximately 60 feet bgs371 with groundwater levels of 15 to 30 feet bgs. These
368
USGS, 2008
369
VGS, 2008.
370
Youd, T. L. and D. M. Perkins, 1978. Mapping Liquefaction Induced Ground Failure Potential, in the
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division
371
Entergy, 2007, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 22; and Battelle, 1991
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-44
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
sediments are potentially liquefiable in the event of a large regional or moderate nearby
earthquake that could result in moderate to strong groundshaking. However, based on
the lack of significant historic seismicity in the southern Vermont region and estimated
peak ground accelerations of only about 0.04g at the VYNPS, it is unlikely that a
seismic event would cause sufficient ground shaking intensity and duration to trigger
liquefaction at the site.
9.1.5.5 Impacts
Based on current seismic hazard maps for the Vermont area,372 estimated peak
ground accelerations with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years, which
equals an annual probability of 1 in 475 of being exceeded each year, are less than
0.04 g for the VYNPS, which is less than the 0.07g value that was recommended for
seismic design of the facility373 and considerably less than the 0.14g that the facility
structures were tested for per the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.374 Thus it is
unlikely that seismic shaking would cause any damage to facilities at the VYNPS,
provided that all upgrades, refurbishments, and new construction conform to current
federal Title 10 building requirements (CFR Title 10, Part 50, Appendix A, “General
Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants”)375 and any appropriate State of Vermont
requirements. Design of critical facilities for seismic shaking should include
consideration of soil amplification of peak ground acceleration and may require analysis
of soil structure interaction as noted in testimony provided in Docket 7082.376
Although potentially liquefiable sediments underlie portions of the facility, it is
unlikely that an earthquake of significant intensity and magnitude could occur that would
trigger liquefaction at the VYNPS facility. Nevertheless, analysis of liquefaction potential
at new structures should consider soil amplification of seismic forces and structure
surcharge effects.377
372
USGS, 2008
373
Entergy, 2007, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 22
374
Ibid
375
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC Regulations. 2009. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/part050/
376
DeWoolkar, 2005. Direct Testimony of Mandar M. DeWoolkar, PSB Docket 7082.
377
Ibid.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-45
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
9.1.5.6 High-Level Nuclear Waste
High-level nuclear waste (spent fuel) stored in VYNPS’ Reactor Building is
removed to the plant’s ISFSI upon sufficient wet-cooling. Constructed in 2007, the ISFSI
is a dry-cask facility in which air-cooled casks sit on an above-ground concrete pad. The
76 foot by 132 foot pad can hold up to 36 casks.378 If the VYNPS is decommissioned,
remaining fuel held in the spent fuel pool would need to be transferred to the ISFSI,
reducing corrosion and other concerns associated with extended underwater storage of
fuel.379 The 60 required casks would exceed the ISFSI’s capacity.380 In the event of
relicensing, the current ISFSI would likely not have capacity to store high-level waste
beyond 2015.381 Thus with indefinite delays in opening Yucca Mountain or other
national geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, either decommissioning or
relicensing of VYNPS could require construction of a second ISFSI.
No or limited environmental impacts were found in siting the existing ISFSI. The
casks themselves—HI-STORM 100S modules produced by Holtec International—are
preapproved by the NRC.382 In addition, the free-standing casks are designed to
withstand tip-over during an earthquake, and have a significant margin of safety to
maintain structural integrity during a non-mechanistic tip-over event.383 The primary
378
Vermont Department of Public Services Docket 7082: Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for a certificate of public good to construct a dry fuel storage facility at the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, in Vernon, Vermont. Hearings at Montpelier, VT January 30-31, February
1-2, and February 6-10, 2006. (p. 19)
379
U.S. Department of Energy- National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program. What is spent nuclear fuel? 2007.
http://nsnfp.inel.gov/whatis.asp
380
Vermont Department of Public Services Docket 7082: Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for a certificate of public good to construct a dry fuel storage facility at the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, in Vernon, Vermont. Hearings at Montpelier, VT January 30-31, February
1-2, and February 6-10, 2006. (p. 17)
381
Vermont Department of Public Services Docket 7440: Direct Testimony of Michael A. Mullett, M.A., J.D., L.L.M.
on Behalf of Vermont Department of Public Service. November 14, 2008. (p. 9)
382
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC Adds Holtec HI-STORM 100 Fuel Storage Cask Design to Approved
List. 2000. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2000/00-075.html
383
Shah, M.J., P.A. Cox, and A.H. Chowdhury. Tip-Over Analysis of the HI-STORM Dry Storage Cask System.
Transactions of the 17th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Prague, Czech
Republic, August 17-22, 2003.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-46
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
environmental concern pertained to flooding danger from the adjacent Connecticut
River, and is expressed in GEIS comments384 and Docket 7082 proceedings.385
The State of Vermont Public Service Board (Board) made findings that the ISFSI
would be outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains; the Vernon Dam would not
breach during a 500-year flood; and Vernon Neck is not expected to be susceptible to
scouring.386 In addition, the concrete pad was to be elevated two feet above site grade
so that cooling air inlets are above the hypothetical, design-basis flood level (which
exceeds FEMA’s 500-year flood).387 The Board concluded that the proposed ISFSI was
reasonable and should be accepted, but with the condition that “Entergy VY must
submit a study addressing the stability of the bank adjacent to the proposed storage pad
based upon the assumption that the Connecticut River experiences the probable
maximum flood and an avulsion occurs at Vernon Neck.” 388 The NRC concluded that 20
additional years of spent fuel could be “safely accommodated onsite with small
environmental effects” with either dry or wet storage. 389
Should Entergy apply for a new ISFSI, an environmental review would be
conducted at that time to address environmental issues associated with the construction
and operation of the facility. Any contaminated soils and sediments encountered during
construction would be required to meet all health and safety and waste disposal
regulatory requirements. Soils removed during the recent ISFSI installation resulted in
increased volumes of VYNPS low level waste in 2007.390
384
NRC, 2007
385
Vermont Department of Public Services Docket 7082: Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for a certificate of public good to construct a dry fuel storage facility at the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, in Vernon, Vermont. Hearings at Montpelier, VT January 30-31, February
1-2, and February 6-10, 2006.
386
Ibid
387
Ibid
388
Ibid
389
NRC, 2007
390
Entergy, 2008. 2007 Vermont Yankee Waste Disposal by NRC Waste Class
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-47
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
9.1.5.7 Low-Level Nuclear Waste
In contrast to high-level waste (spent nuclear fuel), low-level waste consists of
reactor components, clothing, and other objects that have been contaminated through
radioactive exposure.391 The vast majority of low-level waste is Class A waste, for which
the primary disposal facility is the privately-owned Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah. For
the more hazardous Class B and C wastes, the Texas Compact facility—projected to
open in 2010—is currently the only future disposal option. Development of many other
compact facilities to accept low-level waste from Vermont has been hindered or
stopped.392
VYNPS has sufficient interim onsite storage for low-level waste, with capacity for
Class B and C wastes in shielded concrete vaults until 2013.393 Comments in the GEIS
expressed concerns regarding onsite accumulation, extent of contamination, and
location of low level waste storage.394 The NRC, however, has found that radiological
and nonradiological environmental impacts of low-level waste storage are small or
negligible. Also, additional onsite land requirements during the time of a renewed
licensed would be small.395
In 1991, Battelle conducted a study to determine suitability for a permanent
below-ground low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at VYNPS in response to
Legislative Act No. 296 passed in 1990. The location (adjacent to the secured operating
area) was determined environmentally suitable in that it sits above the floodplain, lacks
active faults or tectonic activity, is unlikely to be affected by surface geologic processes,
falls outside of protection areas for public water supplies or Class I and II aquifers, and
is not near designated outstanding resource waters. In addition, rare, threatened, and
endangered species were not observed at the site, and any unanticipated radionuclide
releases would likely be highly diluted before reaching the Connecticut River. While
391
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal (NUREG/BR-0216,
Rev. 2). 2008. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0216/
392
Vermont Department of Public Service. Docket 7440: Chapter 7-Nuclear Waste Management. 2008.
393
Ibid
394
NRC, 2007.
395
Ibid
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-48
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
Battelle did not find a factor to disqualify the site, it had concerns about radionuclide
release from underground disposal and transport in relation to groundwater and seep
discharge.396 As noted above, the ISFSI is an above ground storage facility and not
intended for permanent disposal.
Pending completion of the Texas compact facility, VYNPS is expected to have
future disposal capacity for Class B and C low-level wastes. Several options—including
Energy Solutions—are available for Class A wastes. In the case of relicensing, the need
for significant additional onsite capacity for low-level wastes would thus be unlikely.
9.1.5.8 On-site Waste Treatment and Disposal
VYNPS routinely disposes of solid low-level wastes, which include wet wastes
(spent resin and filter sludges) and dry wastes (air filters from radioactive ventilation
systems, contaminated clothing, etc.). The wet wastes are pumped as slurry into
transportation casks – in which the slurry is remotely dewatered – for offsite transport.
Dry solid wastes can generally be manually handled, although used reactor equipment
must first be stored in the fuel storage pool for sufficient radioactive decay. A hydraulic
box compactor reduces the waste volume. In 2005, 619 m3 were shipped offsite in 23
shipments; the approved Extended Power Uprate (EPU) would result in a volume
increase of less than 18 percent. In addition, VYNPS disposes onsite some slightly
contaminated wastes – including septic waste, cooling tower silt, soil/sand from annual
winter spreading on roads and walkways, and soil from onsite construction-related
activities – via land-spreading (see also Section 9.1.3.4).397
VYNPS also processes liquid low-level wastes, broadly classified as high-purity
(low-conductivity), low-purity (high-conductivity), chemical, and detergent wastes. The
wastes are collected in appropriate collection tanks for filtration and processing, and
then either reused or recycled for further processing. Since 2001, VYNPS has not
discharged any radioactive liquids into the Connecticut River. While there are no plans
for future discharges into the river, any releases (in accordance with limits specified in
396
Battelle. 1991.
397
NRC, 2007.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-49
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
NRC regulations, the plant’s Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and the NPDES permit)
would be monitored and diluted by the circulating water. Furthermore, the projected 1.2
percent increase in liquid waste from the EPU was determined to increase the
processing volume, but not increase liquid effluent. 398
If VYNPS continues to follow waste minimization practices and procedures,399
increases in waste are not expected upon relicensing. The solid and liquid waste
disposal systems are monitored and controlled, without significant environmental
impact. As noted previously, land disposal of wastes is not expected to impact
groundwater or the Connecticut River.
9.1.6 Releases from Infrastructure Failures
Recent cooling water tower failures and other operating incidents at the VYNPS
resulted in the release of materials to the environment. Rotting wooden beams caused
part of a cooling water tower to collapse in August 2007. In September 2008,
maintenance workers identified wooden beams that required replacement ahead of
schedule. Also in September 2008, a 60 gpm leak occurred in a pipe that distributes
water throughout the cooling towers. Additional events raising reliability concerns
included a main transformer fire and problems with the Reactor Building bridge crane
while handling spent fuel. As part of its license renewal application, Entergy committed
to implement a comprehensive Aging Management Program by 2012.
In 2006, the State of Vermont General Assembly passed Legislative Act No. 189
(S.364) requiring an assessment of the reliability of the VYNPS systems, structures and
components. In December 2008, a report by Nuclear Safety Associates (NSA) in
response to Act No. 189 identified lack of contractor oversight of the cooling tower work
as a cause of the 2007 cell collapse and identified that cooling tower work is a challenge
to future plant reliability.400 Overall, actions taken to respond to issues and
398
NRC, 2007.
399
Entergy Nuclear. 2006. Waste Minimization Plan.
400
Nuclear Safety Associates, 2008. Reliability Assessment of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Facility.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-50
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
recommendations included in the NSA report would be expected to limit future releases
from infrastructure failures.
9.2 Summary
Impacts from continued operations of the VYNPS are expected to be small and
controlled by current and revised permits and operating requirements. Air emissions,
especially CO2, are limited since the facility does not combust fossil fuel to generate
electricity. Similarly, hazardous air contaminants released in cooling tower drift are
expected to be low and within permit limits. Radioactive emissions are expected to
remain similar to current levels.
Peak flood estimates using the most conservative meteorological and hydrologic
conditions would not exceed the site elevation. Although some regional climate change
analyses have been conducted for the Northeast and the Connecticut River watershed
and show the potential for increased precipitation and runoff, flooding would not be
sufficient for the 500-year flood to impact the site. Sea level rise would not impact
inland locations like the VYNPS site. As future weather conditions and projections are
refined, additional analysis for the VYNPS should include a reevaluation of the Probable
Maximum Flood if warranted by conditions at the time.
Groundwater depth varies from 15 to 30 feet below ground surface and flows
toward the Connecticut River. Water samples taken at various river locations do not
show evidence of contamination. Groundwater monitoring at on-site treatment and
disposal locations (leach fields, landfarm and septic spreading field) and at test wells
show only low levels of contaminants and no to limited levels of radionuclides or tritium.
Entergy is part of an industry sponsored initiative to improve radiological releases,
particularly tritium, in groundwater. The area of contamination from a former fuel oil spill
was recently given site closure status by the Vermont DEC. No contamination of potable
water was observed in monitoring of onsite and nearby wells.
The disturbed nature of the VYNPS site from continuing operations limits the
availability of suitable habitat for threatened and endangered species. No impacts from
cooling tower drift on crops or native plants are expected. No federally or state-listed
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-51
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 9 Environmental
species would be impacted. Sensitive habitats such as wetlands would continue to be
monitored. Cooling water from the Connecticut River used for the VYNPS cooling
system can impact aquatic organisms through a variety of means (e.g.,
bioaccumulation, cold shock, low dissolved oxygen) and most impacts are low.
Entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms is of particular concern but are fairly
low and would be further reduced under future NPDES permit processes pursuant to
finalized Clean Water Act regulations. Thermal discharge of water to the river is not
expected to impact organisms through heat shock or present a thermal barrier to
migrating American shad or Atlantic salmon. Any increases in river temperature
resulting from future climate change would be addressed in the NPDES permit in effect
at the time. Impacts to biological resources resulting from transmission line
maintenance would be limited by industry best management practices. The
transmission lines do not pose a significant threat to bird populations.
Seismic shaking would not cause any damage to facilities at the VYNPS,
provided that all upgrades, refurbishments, and new construction conform to current
(and future) federal requirements and any appropriate State of Vermont requirements. It
is unlikely that an earthquake of significant intensity and magnitude to trigger
liquefaction would occur.
High-level nuclear waste stored in the ISFSI would not pose environmental
concerns. If additional storage is needed in the future, an environmental review would
be conducted, prior to approval by regulatory agencies, to address any issues related to
construction or operation. A need for onsite low-level waste disposal is not likely due to
the availability of offsite locations. As indicated above, management of wastes
containing low levels of contamination have not impacted groundwater or surface water
quality and would not impact future water quality.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 9-52
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
10.0 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
The discharge of radioactive effluents and the direct emission of radiation
from routine nuclear power plant operations can have environmental impacts on
man, animals, and plants401. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the federal agencies
responsible for protecting public health and safety with regard to the use of
nuclear materials in commercial nuclear power plants402. Both the NRC and EPA
have established strict limits on the amount of radioactive effluents allowed to be
released from nuclear power plants to the environment and the resulting
exposure for members of the public from direct radiation emission and from
radioactive effluents403. The NRC uses these limits as the deciding factor as to
whether the radiological impact from nuclear plant operations is judged to be
small (of the three categories small, moderate, large)404. In addition, NRC
regulations require licensees to have effluent and environmental monitoring
programs to ensure that the impacts from plant operations are minimized. The
permitted effluent releases and emitted radiation result in very small doses to
members of the public living in the vicinity of commercial nuclear power plants.
10.1 Radioactivity and radiation
Radioactive atoms are referred to as radionuclides, radioisotopes, or just
isotopes. The term radioactivity is used to describe the quantity of radioactive
material present based on how rapidly the atoms are decaying. Radioactivity is
measured in either Curie (Ci) or Becquerel (Bq) units, or as decimal multiples of
these units. A Becquerel is that amount of radioactive material that has one atom
decaying each second. A Curie is equal to 37 billion Becquerels.
401
NRC Fact Sheet, Environmental Monitoring:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/env-monitoring.html
402
NRC Fact Sheet, Backgrounder on Radiation Protection and the “Tooth Fairy” Issue:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/rad-monitoring-and-tooth-fairy.html
403
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/part020/full-text.html
404
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vol. 1
and 2, 1996, available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
Radioactive atoms contained within a nuclear power plant emit alpha,
beta, and gamma radiations when they decay. Neutron radiation is emitted from
the reactor core during the fission process. Gamma and neutron radiations are
the only radiations emitted within a nuclear power plant that can reach and be
detected at the site boundary. These radiations are referred to as direct
radiations (as opposed to the radiations emitted from radioactive atoms present
outside plant boundaries) and exposure to these radiations is referred to as direct
exposure.
Commercial nuclear power plants, under controlled conditions, release
small amounts of radioactivity to the environment during normal operation.
Radioactive atoms may be present in gaseous, liquid, and solid effluents from the
plant. There are many pathways by which these atoms can transport and then
decay to cause exposure to man and the environment. The concentrations of
radionuclides released into the environment from a nuclear facility are generally
too low to be measurable outside the plant's boundary. These monitored
releases result in radiation doses to humans that are small relative to doses from
natural radiations and radioactivity.
10.1.1 Dose Quantities and Units
The quantity exposure is a measure of the amount of incident gamma or
X radiation. Many radiation detectors (also called radiation monitors) measure
exposure. The units for exposure are the Roentgen (R) and Coulomb/kilogram
(C/kg). The term exposure also is used in a generic sense to mean being present
in a radiation field (external exposure) or in an airborne radioactivity area
(internal exposure).
The quantity absorbed dose (or dose) is a measure of the amount of
radiation energy absorbed by an object or person. The units for absorbed dose
are the rad and Gray (Gy).
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
The quantity dose equivalent (or effective dose) is a measure of the risk
of late biological effects, primarily cancer fatality, in humans from radiation
exposure, obtained by multiplying the absorbed dose by a quality factor Q for the
type of radiation causing the dose. For beta and gamma radiation, the dose
equivalent is the same as the absorbed dose (Q = 1). For alpha radiation, the
dose equivalent is twenty times the absorbed dose (Q = 20). For neutrons, the
dose equivalent can be two to eleven times the absorbed dose (Q = 2 to 11),
depending on the neutron energy. Units for dose equivalent are the rem and
Sievert (Sv). In the case where the dose to the body is not uniform, the dose
equivalent is defined as the sum of the weighted dose equivalent to each organ
and tissue at risk. Tissue weighting factors have been assigned by the
International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP)405. The dose
equivalent is the dose quantity that is used in the U.S. for regulatory limits
and compliance. The unit mrem (equal to 1/1000th of a rem) is the unit that will
be used throughout this report chapter.
10.1.2 Pathways of Radiation Exposure
All possible pathways of exposure must be considered when assessing
the environmental impact from nuclear power plant operations or when
implementing a Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP). In
addition to direct radiation, potential environmental pathways through which
persons may be exposed to radiation originating in a nuclear power plant include
atmospheric and aquatic pathways. The major exposure pathways include the
following:
• inhalation of contaminated air,
• drinking milk or eating meat from animals that graze on open pasture on
which radioactive contamination may be deposited,
• eating vegetables grown near the site, and
405
ICRP, Publication 60: 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection, Elsevier Science. Publication 26: 1977 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
• drinking (untreated) water or eating fish caught near the point of discharge
of liquid effluents.
Other less important exposure pathways include external irradiation from surface
deposition; consumption of animals that drink irrigation water that may contain
liquid effluents; consumption of crops grown near the site using irrigation water
that may contain liquid effluents; and shoreline, boating, and swimming
activities406.
10.2 Regulatory Limits
Prior to 1996, the NRC would categorize the radiological impact from
nuclear power plant operations as being small (out of three categories: small,
moderate, or large) by comparing the dose to the public with the doses expected
from natural radiation and radioactivity. The standard defining a small radiological
impact has changed from a comparison with background radiation to sustained
compliance with the dose and release limits applicable to the activities being
reviewed by the NRC407. Health impacts on individual humans are the focus of
NRC regulations limiting radiological doses. For the purposes of assessing
radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that impacts are of small
significance if doses and releases do not exceed permissible levels in the NRC's
regulations. A brief description of the primary federal and state regulations and
applicable dose limits relevant to the assessment of the radiological impact of
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) follow.
• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, “Standards for
Protection Against Radiation” (10 CFR 20, NRC)
406
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vol. 1
and 2, 1996, available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
407
Ibid.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
The NRC requires in Part 20, Section 1301(e), “Dose limits for individual
members of the public,” that licensees limit radiation exposure to individual
members of the public to 100 mrem total effective dose equivalent in a year from
licensed operations. The allowable dose to the public is controlled by the NRC as
the sum of all pathways.
• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing
of Production and Utilization Facilities,” Appendix I to Part 50, “Numerical
Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation To
Meet the Criterion “As Low as is Reasonably Achievable” for Radioactive
Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluent” (10 CFR
50, NRC)
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, and particularly Appendix I, requires
that total body, organ and thyroid dose limits be met for both radioactive liquid
and gaseous effluents released to unrestricted areas. The limits cited in Part 50
are that the total dose from all such sources cannot exceed 25 mrem in a year for
the total body, 25 mrem in a year for organ doses, and 75 mrem in a year for the
thyroid.
In addition to the regulations within 10 CFR Part 20.1101 which speak
directly to required operation under ALARA (As Low as is Reasonably
Achievable) principles, 10 CFR 50.36a imposes conditions on licensees in the
form of technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. These
specifications are intended to keep releases of radioactive materials to
unrestricted areas during operations to ALARA levels. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part
50 provides numerical guidance on dose-design objectives and limiting
conditions for operation of Light Water Reactors (LWRs) to meet the ALARA
requirements.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
• Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 190, “Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations” (40 CFR
190, EPA)
The EPA’s 40 CFR 190 limits apply to members of the public, in areas at
and beyond the site boundary, from sources generated by facility operations.
Part 190 is applicable to a “real” (not hypothetical) person, undertaking actual
activities in a realistic location, rather than for example, an individual occupying
all of his/her time near a facility’s boundary. Operations covered by this
regulation shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable
assurance that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the
whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of
any member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of
radioactive materials and to radiation from these operations.
• State of Vermont Department of Health (VDH)
In addition to federal requirements, VYNPS is subject to compliance with
dose limits promulgated by the Vermont Department of Health (VDH)408. The
VDH radiation regulation (Part 5, Chapter 3, Section 5-305(B)) states in part that,
“The annual dose objective for the total body of an individual in an unrestricted
area due to plant emanations of gamma radiation is 5 millirems. For the purpose
of this objective, 20 millirems per year (20 mrem/yr) at any point on the site
boundary bordered by land shall be considered equivalent to a 5 millirem dose at
the nearest residences in Vermont.” The annual dose “objective” is implemented
as though it is a limit. For regulatory compliance purposes, VYNPS must first
ensure doses do not exceed 20 mrem per year at the site boundary, irrespective
of any assumptions that are used to estimate dose to an offsite
individual/residence.
408
Radiological Health Statutes and Regulations, Vermont Department of Health:
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/rad_health.aspx
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (VYREMP)
and Radioactive Effluent Release Program
The NRC requires licensees to report annually on plant discharges and
results of environmental monitoring around their plants to ensure that potential
impacts are detected and reviewed409410. The NRC documents licensee effluent
releases and the results of their environmental monitoring and assessment effort
in inspection reports that are available to the public. These reports list the
radionuclides released, the quantities released, and the radiation dose to the
public. Radiation doses to the public are calculated in two ways. The first is for
the maximally exposed person (that is, the real or hypothetical individual
potentially subject to maximum exposure). The second is for average individual
and population doses. NRC regulations require licensees to have effluent and
environmental monitoring programs to ensure that the impacts from plant
operations are minimized. The Vermont Yankee Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program (VYREMP) and the Vermont Yankee Radioactive Effluent
Release Program are described in the annual reports that are required by the
NRC411412. Four exposure pathways are monitored by the VYREMP. They are
the airborne, waterborne, ingestion and direct radiation exposure pathways. Each
of these four categories is monitored by the collection of one or more sample
media, which are listed and described in more detail below:
409
Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 1999-
2007, available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
410
Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 1999-2007,
available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
411
Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 1999-
2007, available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
412
Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 1999-2007,
available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
10.3 Airborne Pathway
Air Particulate Sampling -Air samplers are installed at seven locations.
The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously. Airborne
particulates are collected by passing air through a glass-fiber filter. The
filters are collected on a weekly frequency. To allow for the decay of
naturally occurring radon progeny, the filter analysis is delayed for more
than 24 hours. The weekly filters are composited by location at the offsite
environmental laboratory for a quarterly isotopic analysis.
Charcoal Cartridge (Radioiodine) Sampling - A TEDA (triethylene di-
amine)-impregnated charcoal cartridge is located downstream of the air
particulate filter. These cartridges are collected and analyzed weekly for
iodine-131.
10.4 Waterborne Pathways
River Water Sampling - An automatic, compositing sampler is maintained
at the downstream sampling location. The sampler is controlled by a timer
that collects a frequent aliquot of river water. An additional grab sample is
collected monthly at the upstream control location. A monthly composite
and grab sample are composited by location for a quarterly tritium
(hydrogen-3) analysis.
Ground Water Sampling - Grab samples are collected quarterly from four
indicator locations and one control location. Each sample is analyzed for
gamma-emitting radionuclides and tritium.
Sediment Sampling - River sediment grab samples are collected semi-
annually from the down river location and at the North Storm Drain Outfall.
Each sample is analyzed at the off-site environmental laboratory for
gamma-emitting radionuclides.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
10.5 Ingestion Pathways
Milk Sampling - When milk animals are identified as being on pasture feed
(May through October), milk samples are collected twice per month
from that location. Throughout the rest of the year, and for the full
year where animals are not on pasture, milk samples are collected
on a monthly schedule. Three locations are chosen as a result of
the annual Land Use Census, based on meteorological dispersion
calculations. The fourth location is a control, which is located
sufficiently far away from the plant to be outside any potential
influence from it. Other samples may be collected from locations of
interest. Immediately after collection, each milk sample is
refrigerated and then shipped to the off-site environmental
laboratory. Each sample is analyzed for gamma-emitting
radionuclides. A separate low-level iodine-131 analysis is
performed. Strontium-89 and strontium-90 analyses also are
performed on quarterly composited samples.
Silage Sampling - Silage samples are collected at the milk sampling
location at the time of harvest, if available. The silage from each
location is shipped to the off-site environmental laboratory where it
is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and for low-level
iodine-131.
Mixed Grass Sampling - At each air sampling station, a mixed grass
sample is collected quarterly, when available. Enough grass is
clipped to provide the minimal sample weight needed to achieve
the required detection limit. The mixed grass samples are analyzed
for gamma-emitting radionuclides and for iodine-131.
Fish Sampling - Fish samples are collected semi-annually at two locations
(upstream of the plant and in the Vernon Pond of the Connecticut
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
River). The samples are frozen and delivered to the environmental
laboratory where the edible portions are analyzed for gamma-
emitting radionuclides.
10.6 Direct Radiation Pathway
TLD Monitoring - Direct gamma radiation exposure is continuously
monitored with the use of calcium sulfate thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs).
A total of five elements are in place at each monitoring location. Each set of
dosimeters is sealed in a plastic bag, which is, in turn, housed in a plastic screen
cylinder. This cylinder is attached to an object such as a fence or utility pole. A
total of forty stations are required for dose calculations. In addition, thirteen more
are typically posted at or near the site boundary. TLDs are read on a quarterly
frequency.
Each year more than 800 samples are collected (including TLDs) and a
total of over 2700 analyses are performed for the VYREMP. In no case over the
past 36 years of operation have the levels detected through the VY program ever
exceeded the most restrictive federal or state regulatory or plant license limits for
radionuclides in the environment.
The Vermont Department of Health Radiological Environmental Monitoring
Program (VDHREMP)
The NRC and other federal agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) do not require individual state or local governments to
have independent environmental monitoring programs in support of commercial
nuclear power plants. Many states have chosen to have their own monitoring
programs or to split samples from the licensee’s monitoring program to provide
assurance that the nuclear plant is not having an adverse environmental impact
or is not operating out of compliance with statutes.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
Currently, thirty states in the U.S. have operating commercial nuclear
power plants within their boundaries. Fourteen states have routine environmental
radiation monitoring programs near the sites of these reactors or near the site of
reactors in neighboring states. All of these monitoring programs include the
collection and analyses of radioactivity in soil, water, vegetation, and air samples.
Many of these states also collect and analyze radioactivity in fish, milk, and other
foodstuffs relevant to the food chain in the immediate environment. All but two of
these programs include direct radiation measurements with thermoluminescent
dosimeters (TLD). Two of these states have fixed pressurized ionization
chambers (PIC) that provide real-time, continuous dose rate readings as well as
integral dose measurements. In terms of the number of direct radiation
measurements around each nuclear plant and the number of environmental
samples analyzed each year, the Vermont Department of Health and the Texas
Department of State Health Services have the most extensive independent
monitoring programs in the United States.
Currently, the state of Vermont measures the exposure from direct
radiations with TLDs at 71 separate locations, 34 of which are located sufficiently
far from the nuclear plant to establish the background dose to be subtracted from
the measurements taken at the other locations. Department of Health TLDs are
installed around the Vermont Yankee site fence line, along its site boundary and
in the publicly occupied spaces around the station. Additional Department of
Health TLDs are installed throughout the towns of Vernon and Guilford, and in
locations in Brattleboro, Dummerston, Putney and Wilmington to establish the
background levels of direct gamma radiation. All dosimeters are collected and
analyzed on a quarterly basis, so that a total of 284 direct radiation
measurements are made with TLDs each year.
The Vermont Department of Health uses continuously operating air
samplers to monitor the air near Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in
Vernon, as well as the nearby towns of Guilford, Brattleboro, Dummerston and
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
Wilmington. Air samples are collected and analyzed monthly at 9 locations. Air
samples that are collected include particulate airborne radioactivity collected on
glass-fiber filters plus gases and vapors collected on activated charcoal filters.
The activated charcoal filters are analyzed for gamma radiation emitting
radionuclides associated with nuclear power plant operations, such as iodine-
131. The glass fiber filters are analyzed for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation
from all of the radionuclides that may be released to the air from nuclear power
plant operations. Ground and surface water samples are collected monthly at 13
locations in the area.
Water is collected from separate wells that supply water to two Vernon
farms and to the Vernon Elementary School. Samples also are taken from the
Brattleboro municipal water supply. Surface water is sampled from the
Connecticut River near the plant discharge, downstream of the Vernon Dam, and
in Brattleboro. Water samples are collected monthly by the Vermont Department
of Health and by an environmental monitoring contractor. All water samples are
analyzed for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation emitting radionuclides by the
Vermont Department of Health Laboratory.
To evaluate the food chain, the Vermont Department of Health takes
samples from the soil within which plants grow and obtain nutrients and water
from sediments that support fish and other aquatic species in waterways, from
wild and cultivated vegetation, from fish, and from cow’s raw milk. Every soil,
sediment, vegetation, fish and milk sample is evaluated for gamma radiation
emitting radioactive materials, while raw cow’s milk also is analyzed specifically
for iodine-131.
10.7 Results of Environmental Monitoring around Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station
The Vermont Yankee REMP and the Vermont Department of Health
REMP were implemented before the start of plant operations in 1972. The
number of samples collected and analyzed each year has increased so that
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
today, from the two independent monitoring programs, more than 4,000
measurements are now taken each year. Over the more than 35 years of plant
operation, tens of thousands of samples have been collected around the VYNPS
site and analyzed for plant produced radioactivity. No detectable radioactivity
was identified in the vast majority of samples, and in no case did the detected
levels exceed the most restrictive state or federal regulatory limits or plant license
limits for radionuclides in the environment.413 On a few occasions, detectable
levels of radionuclides that originated from the VYNPS were found in an off-site
sample. In 1999, for example, a small amount of Co-60 was detected in a single
sediment sample collected at the Connecticut River. The source of the activity
was traced to a deficiency in a building air ventilation system that resulted in
slight contamination outside the building with subsequent ground water run-off
from the site. Corrective action was taken to remove this pathway and to
increase the number of environmental samples collected in these areas. Another
off-site sample that did find detectable levels of plant produced radioactivity was
when cooling tower silt and sewage sludge from the plant were disposed of at an
off-site location in 1988. The levels of contamination were very small but
detectable. The contamination was removed and the disposal method was
changed to (approved) on-site disposal. In none of these events was there any
significant radiological impact to any persons or to the environment.
The average dose to the public who live near the Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station is a very small fraction of a mrem each year. The
estimated cancer fatality risk to the average individual due to plant operations is
much less than one in a million414. The only pathway of exposure that has
measurable levels of radiation each year is the direct radiation exposure
413
There is some controversy regarding the TLD measurements obtained by the Vermont Department of
Health in recent years and the need to utilize a conversion factor to convert exposure, which is measured by
the TLDs, to dose, the maximum allowable levels of which are established by regulation. This issue is
discussed in greater detail later in this report chapter.
414
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vol. 1
and 2, 1996, available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
pathway. Of particular interest is the location of the highest dose at the site
boundary. In fact, the highest dose point on the security fence line near the west
site boundary has been used for this purpose, although the actual site boundary
is outside of this fence. This fence line dose point is used to demonstrate
compliance with the Vermont Department of Health dose limit of 20 mrem per
year. The radiation routinely detected at this location is primarily from scattered
gamma radiation emitted from the decay of short-lived nitrogen-16 in the primary
coolant. This source term is well known and has been monitored throughout the
plant operation. Because of the extensive shielding around the reactor core, the
neutron dose at the site boundary is negligible compared to the nitrogen-16
gamma dose. When the plant is not operating, there is no detectable radiation
from the plant at this sampling location. Both VYNPS and VDH have TLDs
located at this location. In addition, the VYNPS has a radiation monitor located
close to the nitrogen-16 source (steam line) that is used to calculate the dose at
the fence. This calculated dose is a more precise dose estimate than is the value
obtained from the TLD measurements. It is quite difficult to measure an annual
dose as small as 20 mrem above the larger natural background radiation level
that exists. The annual direct radiation background was measured by two
separate vendors for the Vermont Department of Health in 2007 with results of
34 and 50 mrem415. The maximum fence line doses (rounded to the nearest
mrem) are listed for the past 20 years (1988 to 2007) as reported by the VYNPS
in their annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports416:
year dose equivalent (mrem)
2007 17
2006 15
2005 13
415
2007 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Surveillance Report, Vermont
Department of Health, June 15, 2008:
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/2007_surveillance.aspx
416
Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 1999-2007,
available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
2004 13
2003 14
2002 13
2001 14
2000 18
1999 16
1998 13
1997 16
1996 14
1995 15
1994 16
1993 12
1992 14
1991 16
1990 14
1989 15
1988 17
The increase in 2006 and 2007 compared to the previous five years is
attributable to the 20% extended power uprate (i.e., increase in maximum power
level) approved by the NRC in 2006 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station.
Prior to 2001, historical pressurized ion chamber (PIC) measurements
made along the plant property line were used by VYNPS to estimate the direct
radiation from the plant's steam cycle and carryover of nitrogen-16. Past
correlation of measurements of site boundary dose rate with different plant power
levels (from shutdown to 100 percent), resulted in an algorithm of predicted
integrated dose from direct radiation based on recorded gross megawatts
generated by the plant over periods of interest. This original method as
documented in the (ODCM) (Revision 29) was applicable during the first calendar
quarter of 2001 up to the refueling outage which began April 27 of that year.
During the 2001 refueling outage, the station implemented Noble Metal
Chemistry (NMC) in the reactor coolant system as a precursor to also using
Hydrogen Water Chemistry to help counter stress corrosion fatigue of the reactor
coolant system. As a secondary consequence of this change in coolant
chemistry, the expected carryover of nitrogen-16 in the steam cycle could no
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
longer be expected to follow a simple correlation with gross power output as
originally measured. Following the 2001 plant outage, a new set of PIC
measurements along the west site boundary were made over a six week period,
with the results correlated with in-plant dose rates measured by the four Main
Steam Line Radiation Monitors (MSLRM) over the same period. A new
correlation method was derived that allowed changes in the nitrogen-16
carryover in the main steam flow to be directly related to changes in the site
boundary dose without consideration of gross power output. Direct doses at the
maximum site boundary location from radiation sources in the steam cycle used
this new method to account for accumulated doses on the site boundary and
nearest resident situated along this same boundary line following return to power
from the refueling outage (May, 2001). The decrease in the reported annual
doses after 2000 are due to this change in the calculation algorithm.
There is some controversy regarding the TLD measurements obtained by
the Vermont Department of Health in recent years. Environmental TLD
measurements are given in exposure units of mR (milliRoentgens). The doses
calculated by the VYNPS are in dose equivalent units of mrem, as is the
compliance dose limit. A common practice is to assume that a mR and a mrem
are equal when, in fact, they are not. To assume that they are equal results in an
overestimate of the dose reported from the TLD measurements. Until recently,
the VDH assumed this equality which, in turn, caused a discrepancy between the
VYNPS and the VDH dose estimates. Starting with the 2007 annual report, the
VDH is correctly estimating the dose by applying the conversion factor of 1 mR
equal to 0.6 mrem, a factor that has been calculated using accepted scientific
principles by health physicists from the Oak Ridge Associated Universities
(ORAU)417. The exposure measurement, in mR, is an estimate of the number of
gamma and X- radiations (photons) that are incident at the measurement point
417
An Evaluation of Direct Gamma Dose at the Site Boundary of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station, A.J. Boemer and J.A. Chapman, ORAU, January, 2007. available at:
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/013107Site%20BoundaryEvaluation.pdf
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
and is a reasonable approximation of the dose at the surface of the (hypothetical)
body at this location. The number and average energy of photons reaching the
internal organs of the body would be considerably less than those at the surface.
The factor 0.6 is based on the energy of photon radiations measured at the fence
line dose point and the expected dose distribution in the organs and tissues of a
hypothetical person at this location.
10.8 Studies Examining Health Effects Around Nuclear Power
Plants
The NRC summarized studies of health effects around nuclear power
plants in a Fact Sheet418. The following observations and references, except for
the VDH study listed last, were taken from this fact sheet.
1. In 1990, at the request of Congress, the National Cancer Institute419
conducted a study of cancer mortality rates around 52 nuclear power
plants and 10 other nuclear facilities. The study covered the period from
1950 to 1984, and evaluated the change in mortality rates before and
during facility operations. The study concluded there was no evidence that
nuclear facilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia
or from other cancers in populations living nearby.
2. In June 2000, investigators from the University of Pittsburgh420 found no
link between radiation released during the 1979 accident at the Three Mile
Island power plant and cancer deaths among nearby residents. Their
study followed 32,000 people who lived within five miles of the plant at the
time of the accident.
418
NRC Fact Sheet, Backgrounder on Radiation Protection and the “Tooth Fairy” Issue:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/rad-monitoring-and-tooth-fairy.html
419
National Cancer Institute (NCI), 1990. Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities. Bethesda,
Maryland.
420
University of Pittsburgh, June 2000
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
3. The Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering421, in January
2001, issued a report on a study around the Haddam Neck nuclear power
plant in Connecticut and concluded radiation emissions were so low as to
be negligible.
4. The American Cancer Society422 in 2001 concluded that although reports
about cancer clusters in some communities have raised public concern,
studies show that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants
than they do by chance elsewhere in the population. Radiation emissions
from nuclear power plants are closely controlled and involve negligible
levels of exposure for nearby communities.
5. Also in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology423
reviewed claims that there are striking increases in cancer rates in
southeastern Florida counties caused by increased radiation exposures
from nuclear power plants. However, using the same data to reconstruct
the calculations on which the claims were based, Florida officials were not
able to identify unusually high rates of cancers in these counties
compared with the rest of the state of Florida and the nation.
6. In 2000, the Illinois Public Health Department424 compared childhood
cancer statistics for counties with nuclear power plants to similar counties
without nuclear plants and found no statistically significant difference.
421
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, Spring 2001. Bulletin of the Connecticut Academy
of Science and Engineering, Volume 16.2.
422
American Cancer Society (ACS), 2001c. “1998 Facts & Figures. Environmental Cancer Risks.”
Accessed online:http://www.cancer.org/statistics/cff98/enviromental.html
423
Florida Department of Health (FDOH), July 17, 2001. Report Concerning Cancer Rate in Southeastern
Florida. Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Division of Environmental Health, Tallahassee, Florida.
424
Illinois Department of Public Health, Fall 2000. Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Newsletter,
Illinois Department of Public Health, Division of Epidemiologic Studies, 605 W. Jefferson St., Springfield,
Illinois.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-18
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
7. Starting in 2006, the State of Vermont Department of Health425 , working
with the Department of Health Cancer Registry and the Department of
Health Vital Records Office, started reporting information about the health
of people in Windham County and in the six towns nearest the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Cancer fatality and mortality data for the
years 1994 - 2005 have been evaluated. For all cancer types combined,
for invasive thyroid cancer and for leukemia, the rate of cancer incidence
in the six towns near Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Brattleboro,
Dummerston, Guilford, Halifax, Marlboro and Vernon) was lower than
rates in Windham County, and in the rest of Vermont and the United
States white population as a whole. The pediatric cancer incidence rate in
Windham County also was lower than that in Vermont and the United
States white population as a whole.
10.9 Conclusions
The radiological impact of current and past operation of the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station has been examined from a variety of perspectives
and was found to be small, based on the criteria of the NRC for the category of
lowest impact. The maximum dose to the public from effluent releases is
negligible compared to natural sources of radiation and radioactivity. The
maximum direct radiation dose to the nearest resident continues to be below
regulatory limits. The radiological impact from the small number of off-site
environmental samples that detected plant produced radioactivity (well below any
regulatory limit) is negligible. No effect of plant aging that would significantly
affect the radioactive effluents or the direct radiation exposure pathway has been
identified. Both maximum individual and average doses are expected to remain
well within design objectives and regulations. Because no reason was identified
to expect effluents to increase in the period after license renewal, continued
operation well within regulatory limits is anticipated. The significance of radiation
exposures to the public attributable to operation after license renewal is expected
425
2007 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Surveillance Report, Vermont Department of Health,
June 15, 2008: http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/2007_surveillance.aspx
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-19
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 10 Radiological Impact of Vermont Yankee
to continue to be small. The estimated cancer fatality risk to the average
individual due to plant operations is much less than one in a million426.
426
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vol. 1
and 2, 1996, available in NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 10-20
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
11.0 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Chapter 11 considers the economics of a decision to extend the operating
license of Vermont Yankee (“VY”) an additional 20 years. The analysis
presented herein represents a cost/benefit analysis of the value added to the
state government, to the economy in general, and to the electric ratepayers
through continued operation of the facility. If the operating license is not
extended, these economic effects would be diminished until completion of the
decommissioning, at which point they would cease entirely. However, the same
decommissioning process would need to take place at the end of any license
extension period. Chapter 6 of the report reviews decommissioning, including
the decommissioning fund and the costs of decommissioning. Four components
of the economic analysis are presented in Chapter 11.
• Tax Revenue/Burden Analysis – estimates government revenues
generated by the facility versus additional burdens placed upon the
government. The analysis is presented in Section 11.1.
• Economic Impact Analysis – estimates the impact on total value added,
industrial output and employment associated with continued operation of
Vermont Yankee, including impacts associated with Vermont Yankee
operating expenditures and employee compensation spent on personal
consumption in the state. An Input/Output model is developed to conduct
this analysis, as described in Section 11.2.
• Revenue Sharing Arrangement – Entergy has agreed to share a portion of
its revenues from Vermont Yankee that are in excess of a negotiated
strike price. The shared revenue would be to the benefit of certain
Vermont ratepayers. Section 11.3 describes the revenue sharing
agreement and value.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-1
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
• Potential for Reduced Power Cost – There exist the potential for Entergy
to sell power to Vermont utilities from the Vermont Yankee facility at some
unknown discounted rate. Section 11.4 estimates the value to ratepayers
of a possible 5%, 15%, or 25% reduction from market prices.
11.1 General Assumptions
The following list outlines the general overall assumptions made in relation
to the economic analysis.
• The study period is 2013 through 2032. The economic input/output model
used for much of the analysis can only handle calendar year impacts.
Therefore, although the extended operating license would be valid for
March 2012 through March 2031, this analysis uses calendar years 2013
through 2032. The slight shift in timing would have a negligible impact on
the results.
• For tax revenues and receipts, a discount rate of 4.9% is used to estimate
total discounted impacts in 2012 dollars. The discount rate is equivalent
to the bond rate of a Vermont 20-year General Obligation bond. For the
revenue-sharing analysis, a discount rate of 8.5% is used, which is the
average utility cost of capital according to the Department of Public
Service.
• The facility will have a net capacity of 620 MW in each year of the study
period. Due to refueling outages every 18 months on average, capacity
factors are estimated on three-year cycles. In 2013 and 2014, the net
capacity factor is estimated to be 89%, and in 2015 it is estimated at 97%.
This cycle is then repeated every three years. These estimates are based
on refueling outages lasting 30 days.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-2
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
• It is assumed that 50% of Vermont Yankee employees reside in
Vermont.427 It is assumed that this proportion will hold constant
throughout the study period.
• The Input/Output model has several implicit assumptions associated with
its use. Those assumptions are identified in detail in Section 11.2.1
below.
11.2 Summary Results of Analysis
Continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility represents a
substantial economic value to the state of Vermont and its citizens. With just
over 500 employees, Vermont Yankee currently ranks among the 60 largest
private and public employers in Vermont.428 It plays a larger role in the Windham
County area, where it ranks in the top 5 of employers according to the
Brattleboro Area Chamber of Commerce. The cost/benefit analysis conducted in
this study indicates that positive value is created for the local and state
governments, the economy as a whole, and the electric ratepayers of the state if
the plant continues to operate an additional 20 years. The total 20-year value is
estimated to range from an extreme low potential of $1.5 billion to an extreme
high of $5.1 billion, representing between 0.2% and 0.6% of estimated Gross
State Product over the 20 years.429 The base case value is $3.6 billion over 20
years. These results can be construed to represent the likely cost to the
economy of shutting down Vermont Yankee in 2012 as opposed to extending its
operating license. Although it could be argued that the decommissioning process
would provide for mitigated economic activity beyond 2012, decommissioning
would occur at the expiration of the extended license as well.
427
The prefiled testimony of Richard W. Heaps on behalf of Entergy (Public Service Board Docket No.
7440) indicated 50% of VY employment resided in state. Current information seems to indicate that 218 of
502 current employees, or 43%, reside in Vermont. This study uses the 50% figure since employee
turnover and changes in states of residence may impact the percentage.
428
Vermont Department of Labor.
429
Assumes Gross State Product grows by 4% per year through 2012 and then grows by a simple trend
through 2032.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-3
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Table 11.0 summarizes the range of positive economic impacts associated with
continued operation of VY for another 20 years. The base (or middle) case
represents our best expectation.430 Table 11.1 summarizes the basic
assumptions for each of the range scenarios.
Table 11.0
Summary of Economic Impacts ($Millions)
20-Year Total of Nominal Values
Extreme Low Base Extreme High
Component Case Case Case
Govt Revenues Net of Burdens $173.4 $237.8 $282.1
Value Added – Econ. Activity $1,095.9 $1,289.3 $1,482.7
Revenue Sharing Agreement $259.5 $938.8 $1,441.1
Potential Electric Rate Discount $0.0 $716.1 $1,193.5
Value Added – Rate Discount $0.0 $421.3 $702.2
Total $1,528.8 $3,603.3 $5,101.6
Jobs Supported by Value 21,298.0 30,079.4 36,884.2
Added*
20-Year Net Present Value**
Extreme Low Base Extreme High
Component Case Case Case
Govt Revenues Net of Burdens $105.1 $143.3 $169.6
Value Added – Econ. Activity $642.1 $755.5 $868.8
Revenue Sharing Agreement $159.0 $587.8 $908.0
Potential Electric Rate Discount $0.0 $178.2 $296.9
Value Added – Rate Discount $0.0 $231.0 $385.0
Total $906.2 $1,895.8 $2,628.3
Jobs Supported by Value 21,298.0 30,079.4 36,884.2
Added*
Average Annual Value Over 20 Years
Extreme Low Base Extreme High
Component Case Case Case
Govt Revenues Net of Burdens $8.7 $11.9 $14.1
Value Added – Econ. Activity $54.8 $64.5 $74.1
Revenue Sharing Agreement $13.0 $46.9 $72.1
Potential Electric Rate Discount $0.0 $35.8 $59.7
Value Added – Rate Discount $0.0 $21.1 $35.1
Total $76.5 $180.2 $255.1
430
In the case of “Potential Electric Rate Discount” the 15% reduction case does not actually represent an
expectation, but is more simply the middle of the three scenarios run for that component of the analysis.
Making any guess as to what contract might be negotiated between Entergy and Vermont utilities would be
speculative.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-4
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Jobs Supported by Value 1,064.9 1,504.0 1,844.2
Added*
* – Measured in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) job-years. 1 job held for 20 years would equate to 20
job-years.
** – The discount rate for government revenues and burdens and value added is the general
obligation bond rate of 4.9%. The discount rate for revenue sharing and rate discount is an
average electric utility cost of capital of 8.5%.
Table 11.1
Components of the Three Cases
More
Compone Extreme Low Base Case Extreme High Detail
nt Case Case s
Government 1. Low economic 1. 25% of per 1. High economic
Rev/Burden impact for capita state impact for
Analysis taxes collected and local taxes collected
2. 15% higher burdens 2. 15% lower
state & assigned to state &
government out-of-state government
burdens per employees burdens per
capita capita
11.1
3. 75% of per 3. 0% of per
capita state & capita state &
local burdens local burdens
assigned to assigned to
out-of-state out-of-state
employees employees
Value Added 1. Operating 1. Expected 1. Operating
Through budget and operating budget and
Economic salaries lower budget and salaries higher 11.2
Impact by 15% salaries by 15%
Revenue 1. Market prices 1. Base case 1. Market prices
Sharing 20% lower than market price 20% higher
base case projections than base case
2. Vermont 2. Vermont 2. Vermont 11.3
Utilities with Utilities with Utilities with
55% share of 92.5% share of 92.5% share of
revenue shared revenue shared revenue shared
Electric Rate 1. No discount 1. 15% discount 1. 25% discount
Discount from market from base case from base case
market prices market prices
2. 45% of VY 2. 45% of VY 11.4
energy sold to energy sold to
Vermont Vermont
utilities utilities
Given that it is such a large employer in Windham County, the closure of
VY would potentially have considerable negative impacts on the local town and
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-5
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
county economies. If Entergy moved its employees after decommissioning, the
local real estate market would likely see a depression in home values with a
relatively high number of homes entering the market in a short period of time.
That, in turn, might be enough to suppress new home construction for some time,
having adverse impacts on the construction sector as well. According to the
2000 Census, construction jobs represented nearly 8% of all jobs in Windham
County.431 Furthermore, the economy would lose the value of family members of
VY employees that also worked in local jobs. If employees are not moved, it
would create additional burdens on local governments and lead to a temporary
increase in local unemployment rates. Although these ancillary impacts are
important to consider, they were not quantified for this study.
11.3 GOVERNMENT REVENUE VS. BURDEN ANALYSIS
The revenue/burden analysis focuses on the economic impact to state and local
governments. The analysis seeks to ascertain if the additional burdens placed
on the government by the continuation of operations at Vermont Yankee are
adequately covered by additional tax revenues generated. The key aspect of the
analysis is to identify only revenues and burdens that would not otherwise arise
without the plant in operation.
11.3.1 Revenues
There are four primary revenues quantified in this analysis – taxes
associated with increased economic activity, state income taxes collected on
salaries of full-time Vermont Yankee employees,432 continuation of the Electrical
Energy Tax, and continuation of the Education Property Tax. The base case net
present value, 20-year total, and average annual value of each of these
components is presented in Table 10.1.
Table 11.2
Base Case Summary of Revenues ($2012, Millions)
20-Year 20-Year Annual
431
U.S. Census Bureau.
432
As stated earlier, we assume that 50% of employees reside in Vermont. However, the state collects
income taxes on all income earned in Vermont. Therefore, non-residing employees pay state income taxes
as well as residing employees.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-6
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Revenues Total NPV Average
Taxes Through Economic $148.8 $87.3 $7.4
Activity
Income Tax on Full-Time $67.8 $40.3 $3.4
Salaries
Electrical Energy Tax $57.3 $36.0 $2.9
Education Property Tax $41.8 $26.3 $2.1
Total Quantified Revenue $315.7 $189.9 $15.8
Significant tax revenues are generated through the economic activities
carried out in the state by Vermont Yankee and its employees. These taxes are
estimated by the input/output impact model. The taxes collected by state and
local government average about $7.4 million per year, representing a 20-year
total of $148.8 million and a net present value of $87.3 million. The impact
analysis is described in more detail in section 11.2 below. The impact model
estimates corporate profit, dividend, indirect business, personal and social
insurance tax revenues for the state and local governments combined. Indirect
business revenues include motor vehicle license taxes, business license fees,
documentary and stamp taxes, property taxes, rent and royalties, special
assessments, fines, settlements, donations, sales taxes, and severance taxes.
Personal tax revenues include household estate tax, household personal income
tax, household personal motor vehicle fees, fines, donations, hunting and fishing
licenses, and property taxes. Social insurance revenues include employee and
employer contributions to retirement plans, temporary disability insurance, and
worker’s comp.
Full-time salaries to Vermont Yankee employees are expected to average
over $100 million per year throughout the study period. Personal income taxes
paid on those salaries represent a significant revenue source for Vermont. For
this analysis, a 3% effective rate on gross wages is assumed.433 Note that the
taxes through economic activity discussed in the preceding paragraph include
personal income tax; however, these are not income taxes directly on the
433
The effective tax rate was provided by the Vermont Department of the Treasury and the Department of
Public Service. Using a constant 3% effective rate is conservative as expected generally rising wages
would put more earners into higher tax brackets and raise the effective rate in latter years.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-7
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Vermont Yankee salaries but are income taxes collected based on the economic
activity generated by VY. In order to avoid double-counting, the direct taxes on
salaries are removed prior to running the input/output model that estimates the
taxes due to economic activity (described further in Section 11.2). The state
income taxes on full-time wages average $3.4 million per year, totaling $67.9
million over 20 years. Discounting the annual revenues at the state General
Obligation bond rate of 4.9% per year yields a 2012 NPV of $40.3 million.
In 1961, the state legislature approved an electric energy tax on electric
generating plants with name-plate generating capacity of 200 MW or greater,
effective July 1, 1965.434 Vermont Yankee was the only facility subject to the tax.
Beginning in 1972, the tax was based on a percentage of the appraised value of
the facility.435 In 2004, the tax was restructured to a tax based on net megawatt
hours of generation produced by the facility.436 This tax is still in effect today.
The structure of the current electric energy tax is shown in Table 10.2. It is
assumed for the revenue/burden analysis that the taxes generated by this
structure will approximate the taxes levied on energy production in the future
should the operating permit be extended. Over three calendar years, the plant is
projected to produce 4.86 GWh per year on average. The resultant electrical
energy tax from that level of generation is $2.9 million per year, $57.3 million total
over 20 years, or a net present value of $36.0 million in 2012 dollars.
Table 11.3
Current Structure of Electrical Energy Tax
Average MWh Generated1 Electric Energy Tax
Less than 2,300,000 $2.0 million
2,300,000 to 3,800,000 $2.0 million plus $0.40 per MWh
in excess of 2,300,000
3,800,000 to 4,200,000 $2.6 million
434
The electrical energy tax in effect prior to 1961, which was repealed effective July 1, 1965, provided
that “the emergency board finds by unanimous vote that an atomic generating plant of not less than 200,000
kilowatt capacity has been constructed in the State of Vermont and has been put into commercial
operation” (Act No. 232 of 1961 and Act No. 188 of 1965).
435
Act No. 376 of 1967.
436
Act No. 50 of 2003.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-8
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Over 4,200,000 $2.6 million plus $0.4 per MWh
in excess of 4,200,000
1 Average of previous three calendar years.
Prior to 2000, a local school property tax was paid to the Town of Vernon
by Vermont Yankee. This tax was replaced by the Electric Generating Plant
Education Property Tax.437 The local education tax was eliminated and a state
tax was assessed as a percent of net book value, much like the Electrical Energy
Tax at the time. When the Electrical Energy Tax was moved to a generation-
based tax, the Education Property Tax was moved to the same basis. Table
10.3 shows the current structure of the tax. As with the Electrical Energy Tax,
the current structure is used to estimate taxes collected into the future. With a 3-
year average generation of 4.86 GWh per year, the tax revenues equal $2.1
million per year, a 20-year total of $41.8 million, or a net present value of $26.3
million.
Table 11.4
Current Structure of Electric Generating Plant Education Property Tax
Average MWh Generated1 Education Property Tax
Less than 2,300,000 $1.465 million
2,300,000 to 3,800,000 $1.465 million plus $0.29 per MWh in
excess of 2,300,000
3,800,000 to 4,200,000 $1.900 million
Over 4,200,000 $1.900 million plus $0.29 per MWh in
excess of 4,200,000
1 Average of previous three calendar years.
11.3.2 Burdens
Specific burdens placed on the Vermont government due to operation of
Vermont Yankee include the time of a nuclear engineer and support staff, and
burdens placed on the Department of Public Service (public advocacy), the
Department of Public Health, and the Agency of Natural Resources. It is
important to note that the burdens measured are only the time specifically
437
Act No. 60 in 1997.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-9
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
allotted to issues associated with the Vermont Yankee facility for these
departments. Burdens were also estimated to show the impact on infrastructure
and support services for both state and local governments. Police,
transportation, fire, and other government functions are burdened by the
additional 514 VY employees. The value of all of these burdens is summarized in
Table 11.5.
Table 11.5
Base Case Summary of Burdens ($2012, Millions)
20-Year 20-Year Annual
Burdens Total NPV Average
Dept. of Public Service $7.4 $4.3 $0.40
Dept. of Public Health $1.3 $0.8 $0.06
Agency of Natural $0.3 $0.1 $0.01
Resources
Other State Burdens $61.4 $36.7 $3.07
Other Local Burdens $7.5 $4.5 $0.38
Total Burden $77.9 $46.4 $3.92
The burdens placed on the Department of Public Service include a nuclear
engineer and his support staff, and public advocacy. The nuclear engineer and
support staff burden is estimated at $150,000 in total salary per year. The
Department of Public Service estimates a burden of 25% of an average lawyer’s
time per year, or a burden of $25,000 per year, although at times the burden can
expand greatly. The burden on the Department of Health is estimated at 25% of
the year of an average $85,000 salary, or $21,250 per year, and support at 25%
of $38,000 per year ($9,500). Finally, an estimate of the burden on the Agency
of Natural Resources is 20 hours per month, or 240 hours per year (12% of
hours) at an average salary of $50,000 per year. All burdens are escalated at a
rate of 5% per year to approximate average salary and benefits increases over
time. These estimates were provided to the Department of Public Service from
the various departments.
The existence of Vermont Yankee and its employees places a burden on
government services and infrastructure in general. For instance, roads, schools,
personal protection, nursing, and libraries are some services that are affected. In
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-10
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
order to estimate the burden on both the state and local governments associated
with the 257 VY employees residing in Vermont,438 an average government
expenditure per capita was estimated from the FY 2007 financial statements for
the state of Vermont and the Town of Brattleboro. Brattleboro is a town located
near the facility and financials were obtainable on the Internet; therefore, they
were selected to represent local government expenditures.
The per capita government expenditure of interest needs to represent
those costs that vary to a high extent with the population. For both the state and
town budget, GDS identified line items that it felt were highly variable with
respect to population and included those items in an average per capita
expenditure. For the state of Vermont, 88% of the total budget was included in
the calculation, and for the Town of Brattleboro 65% was included. The resultant
rates were $5,958 per person for the state and $732 per person for the local
government. These rates were then escalated at 3.2% per year, which is an
average of the Employment Cost Index and the GDP-IPD. The escalated rates
were then applied to 257 employees as a method to quantify the impacts on state
and local governments to serve and protect the in-state employees. The non-
resident employees also place some level of burden upon the government due to
their transportation into and time spent in Vermont. Due to the difficulty of
quantifying this aspect of the burden, GDS simply used 25% of the in-state
resident rate in the base case analysis.
The estimated burden on the state of VY employees is a 20-year total of
$61.4 million, or an average of $3.1 million per year. Using the General
Obligation bond rate of 4.9%, the discounted net present value total is $36.7
million. Local burdens total $7.5 million over 20-years, or an average of $0.4
million per year. The net present value total is $4.5 million.
438
The 257 is 50% of 514 employees. Although current data from Entergy indicates 218 employees reside
in Vermont, this analysis assumes 514 employees and a 50% level of employees living in state.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-11
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
11.3.3 Revenue/Burden Comparison
The revenue/burden analysis indicates that the revenues collected by
Vermont and local governments exceed the burdens generated by the plant.
Table 11.6 shows the annual revenues and burdens as estimated above and
calculates a revenue-to-burden ratio. A ratio greater than 1.0 means that the
revenue generated by Vermont Yankee exceeds the burden, providing additional
value to the taxpayers. Under the base case, the revenues of Vermont Yankee
consistently exceed the burdens by a ratio of $3.80 to $4.40 revenue generated
for every $1.00 of burden placed on state and local governments.
Table 11.6
Base Case Revenue-To-Burden Ratio by Year
Total Total Burdens Revenue-To-
Year Revenues ($ Millions) Burden Ratio
($ Millions)
2013 $12.2 $2.8 4.4
2014 $12.5 $2.8 4.3
2015 $12.4 $3.0 4.1
2016 $13.1 $3.1 4.3
2017 $13.5 $3.2 4.2
2018 $13.3 $3.3 4.1
2019 $14.3 $3.4 4.2
2020 $14.7 $3.5 4.2
2021 $14.5 $3.6 4.0
2022 $15.4 $3.8 4.1
2023 $15.9 $3.9 4.1
2024 $15.7 $4.0 3.9
2025 $16.8 $4.2 4.0
2026 $17.3 $4.3 4.0
2027 $17.1 $4.4 3.8
2028 $18.4 $4.6 4.0
2029 $18.9 $4.8 4.0
2030 $18.7 $4.9 3.8
2031 $20.2 $5.1 4.0
2032 $20.8 $5.3 4.0
Annual Avg $15.8 $3.9 4.1
20-Year Tot $315.7 $77.9 4.1
20-Year NPV $189.8 $46.4 4.1
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-12
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
The reader may note that in Table 11.6 above, the revenues in every third
year decline slightly. This is due to the fact that contract labor for outages are
not present in one out of every three years, thereby reducing the benefits of sales
and other taxes collected from the temporary workers. The labor budget and
treatment of contract workers is detailed further in Section 11.2.3.
Extreme Low Case Scenario
Three components of the revenue/burden analysis are modified to
produce the extreme low case. First, the taxes collected through economic
activity are based on the low economic activity case (VY operating budget 15%
lower than base case, see Section 11.2). Since there is less economic activity
generated under the low economic impact case, there is less tax collected
through that activity. The per capita government expenditures are increased by
15% in the low case, thereby increasing the burdens placed on the government
by VY employees. Finally, the portion of the per capita burdens for out-of-state
employees is raised from 25% in the base case to 75% in the extreme low case.
Revenues in the extreme low case average $14.7 million per year for a 20-year
total of $293.4 million and a NPV of $176.7 million. The burdens total $6.0
million per year for a total of $120.0 million over 20 years, or a NPV of $71.6
million. The total revenue-to-burden ratio under the extreme low case is 2.4 to
1.0.
Extreme High Case Scenario
The high case scenario assumes the taxes generated through a high
economic activity scenario (VY budget 15% higher than base case, see Section
11.2). Also, the per capita government expenditures are reduced by 15% and
there is no burden assigned to employers residing outside of Vermont. High
case revenues have a net present value of $202.9 million. The 20-year total
revenue is $338.0 million, or an average of $16.9 million per year. High case
burdens are a NPV of $33.2 million. The 20-year total burdens equal $55.8
million, an average of $2.8 million per year. The total revenue-to-burden ratio
under the extreme high case is 6.1 to 1.0.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-13
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Table 11.7
Summary of Revenue/Burden Scenarios, 20-Year Totals ($Millions)
Rev Net of Rev/Burden
Case Revenues Burdens Burdens Ratio
Extreme Low $293.4 $120.0 $173.4 2.4
Base $315.7 $77.9 $237.8 4.1
Extreme High $338.0 $55.8 $282.2 6.1
Table 11.8
Summary of Revenue/Burden Scenarios, 20-Year NPV ($Millions)
Rev Net of Rev/Burden
Case Revenues Burdens Burdens Ratio
Extreme Low $176.8 $71.6 $195.2 2.5
Base $189.8 $46.4 $143.4 4.1
Extreme High $202.9 $33.2 $169.7 6.1
11.3.4 Net Present Value Revenues and Burdens
In order to get the discounted net present values for revenues and
burdens displayed in Table 11.6, a discount rate of 4.9% is applied to the annual
cash flows. This discount rate is the current rate for a state General Obligation
bond, according to the Vermont Department of Treasury. For the base case, the
20-year net present value of revenues is $189.8 million and the net present value
of burdens is $46.4 million, resulting in a net positive impact on the government
of $143.4 million. A way to interpret the significance of this net increase in
government revenue is that if the government wanted to match the value of the
Vermont Yankee stream of net revenues, it would have to invest $143.4 million
dollars in 2012 and earn 4.9% interest on it for 20 years. The extreme low case
revenues net of burdens in net present value terms is $105.1 million and the
extreme high case is $169.7 million.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-14
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
11.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The chief aim of an economic impact analysis is to determine the
multiplicative effects of a direct change in demand within an industry in the local
economy. Continuing operation of the Vermont Yankee facility another twenty
years will create stimulus in the economy to the extent that money is spent in-
state and employment is drawn from the Vermont labor force. When the plant
spends a dollar, that dollar has multiplicative impacts on the economy as it is
cycled through various industries as they purchase goods and services. An
economic input/output model quantifies the multiplicative effects of such
spending within a study area. A description of the model methodology, inputs
and assumptions, and results follows.
11.4.1 Input/Output Modeling
Input/output (“I/O”) analysis is a means of examining relationships within
an economy, both among businesses and between businesses and final
consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for consumption in a
given time period. The resulting mathematical formulas allow for examination of
effects of a change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy.
There are two components of an I/O model – the descriptive model and the
predictive model.
Descriptive Model
The descriptive model is a set of tables that describe a local economy in
terms of the flow of dollars from purchasers to producers within a region. Trade
flows are also a part of the model. They describe the movement of goods and
services within a region and the outside world (regional imports and exports).
Social Accounting data is also included in the descriptive model. This data
describes non-industrial transactions, such as payment of taxes by businesses
and households.
Predictive Model
The regional economic accounts developed in the descriptive model are
used to construct local level multipliers. Multipliers describe the response of the
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-15
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
economy to a stimulus (change in demand or production). The set of multipliers
comprise a predictive model. The predictive model can be used to determine the
impact on the local economy caused by a one dollar change in final demand for
any given industry. Industries providing goods and services for consumption
purchase goods and services from other producers. These other producers, in
turn, purchase goods and services. These are called indirect effects of the
change in demand in the original industry. They continue until leakages from the
region (imports, wages, profits, etc.) stop the cycle. Furthermore, a predictive
model can determine the induced effects in an input-output analysis. Induced
effects are the impacts associated with increased household consumption
associated with the economic activity generated by the stimulus.
Key Assumptions
There are five key implicit assumptions associated with an input/output
model.
Constant Returns to Scale – An industry’s list of expenditures, called its
production function, is considered linear. If additional output is required,
constant returns to scale assumes all inputs increase proportionately.
No Supply Constraints – Supplies are assumed to be unlimited. An
industry has unlimited access to raw materials and its output is only limited
by demand.
Fixed Commodity Input Structure – This assumption requires that changes
in the economy will affect the industry’s output, but not the mix of
commodities and services it requires for production. In other words, this
structure implies that price changes will not force a producer to use a
substitute good.
Homogenous Sector Output – Some industries produce multiple
commodities. Homogenous sector output means that the proportions of
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-16
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
all commodities produced by an industry remain the same, regardless of
total output. An industry will not increase the output of one product
without proportionately increasing the output of all its other products.
Industry Technology Assumption – This assumption is that an industry
uses the same technology to produce all of its products. An industry is
assumed to have a main or primary product and all other products are
byproducts of the primary production. This assumption comes into play in
the development of a descriptive model when data is collected on an
industry-by-commodity basis and is converted to industry-by-industry
matrices.
11.4.2 IMPLAN Software
The software used by GDS Associates in conducting I/O analysis is
IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0. The software was developed by the
Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG, Inc.). A database of data required to develop a
descriptive model for the state of Vermont was purchased from MIG. The data is
derived from several federal sources including the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census Bureau. For this analysis,
Vermont data for 2006 was the most recent database available.
The IMPLAN software develops the descriptive and predictive models. It
then allows the user to conduct impact analyses with the resultant multipliers.
IMPLAN has an industry sectoring scheme that roughly tracks both the North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) 1997 commodity classifications. To perform an impact analysis,
the user would input an impact to a selected industrial sector and analyze the
multiplier effects of that change. IMPLAN produces resultant direct, indirect, and
induced impacts for value-added, employment, and output. Value-added is a
composite of employee compensation, proprietor income, other property income,
and indirect business tax (described earlier). Output is the value of production
for a given period.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-17
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
11.4.3 Inputs and Assumptions
There are two ways in which operation of Vermont Yankee will stimulate
the Vermont economy – annual operating expenses spent in-state and the
personal consumption behavior of the in-state employees.439 Therefore, GDS
had to estimate operating expenses for the plant and what proportion of those
expenses would be spent in-state. Those values then become direct changes in
demand in the IMPLAN I/O model.
Projected Operating Budget
Fuel is sourced from outside of Vermont; therefore, the operating budget
prepared by GDS is net of fuel costs. Entergy did not provide operating expense
information in response to data requests, other than salaries. Therefore, we had
to estimate expenses based on the salary level and our experience in working
with other nuclear facilities. We used a budget breakdown from a similar nuclear
facility as displayed in Figure 11.1 to generate a budget for 2008. The payroll
budget was escalated using the Employment Cost Index (3.71%) and other
operating and maintenance categories were inflated using the GDP-IPD (2.69%).
Payroll Major Maintenance
Figure 11.1 6%
56%
Breakdown of Operations Budget Net of Fuel
Materials & Supplies
6%
Outside Services
14%
Other
3% Licenses, Permits &
Insurance Fees
2% 13%
439
Out-of-state employees would have some positive impact on the state economy due to their expenditures
in state while commuting and working at the facility (for example, buying lunches or gasoline). It would
be highly speculative to quantify how much the 50% of out-of-state employees might spend in a year in
Vermont, so excluding their benefits is being conservative.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-18
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
According to Entergy, the payroll in 2007 was approximately $56 million
for 454 employees, and that, in the long-run, the plant will employ 514
employees. Our analysis assumes that Entergy actually hires the additional 60
employees per its expectations. Therefore, grossing up for additional employees
and inflation, the 2008 payroll excluding contract outage labor is $64 million.
Contract outages are expected to require an additional 800 staff for 30 days at a
2008 per diem of $113.440 For the purposes of economic analysis, the contract
outage is expected two out of every three years, adding $2.7 - $6.5 million per
year with an outage in payroll expenses over the next 20 years. Based on the
breakdown above and these payroll figures, the estimated 2008 operating budget
net of fuel is $120.9 million. The budget is projected to reach $263.0 million by
2032, an average annual increase of 3.3% per year.
Estimating In-State Expenditures
Having the total operating budget in place, the next step in the
development of I/O inputs is to estimate what percentage of the expenditures will
be spent in-state. Typically, the percentages are based on estimates since
defining in- and out-of-state expenditures at a detailed level is costly and time-
consuming and provides only marginal improvement in the results.
Payroll – It is assumed that all of the per diem for contract outage labor is spent
in Vermont while the crews are working at the nuclear facility. The effects of
permanent payroll are estimated using household personal consumption patterns
provided by IMPLAN. These patterns include historical Regional Purchase
Coefficients that estimate the amount of consumption spent out-of-state.
However, income taxes and savings are not removed, so GDS has to estimate
the amount of total salary that goes toward federal and state income taxes and
into savings. Data available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was
used to estimate the savings and tax rate. BLS data for the Northeast region of
440
The IRS-approved per diem rate in 2007 is $109 and was provided by Entergy as an estimate for
contract labor cost. The 2008 figure is escalated at the Employment Cost Index to reach $113.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-19
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
the United States for 2004 and 2005441 indicate that average income before
taxes was $62,059. Personal consumption in the region averaged $47,017,
leading to an average rate of 24.2% of income spent on income taxes and put
into savings. Therefore, for the 2013 full-time salary of in-state employees of
$39.2 million, $9.5 million is expected to go toward taxes and savings, leaving
$29.7 million spent on personal consumption both in and out of the state.
According to the IMPLAN model, every $1 spent in personal consumption by a
VY employee produces a benefit of $0.37 in direct total value added and an
additional indirect and induced effect of $0.16 for a total of $0.43 in total value
added. Multipliers are shown in a single table later in the chapter.
Non-Labor O&M Expenditures - The in-state allocations of spending for all non-
payroll and non-fuel operating budgetary items are shown in Table 11.8. It is
assumed that major maintenance, waste and ash disposal, dues and
subscriptions, travel and meals, fees, and other expenses will be completely
sourced out-of-state. Given the assumptions shown in Table 10.8, 32.2% of the
non-payroll budget will be spent in-state.
Table 11.9
Estimated In-State Spending – Non-Payroll Budget Items
Est. Percent Percent of
Percent of Spent In- Budget
Expense Item Budget State Spent In-
State
Outside Services 14.14% 40% 5.66%
Fees 7.07% 0% 0.00%
Licenses & Permits 6.09% 50% 3.05%
Materials & Supplies 5.70% 75% 4.28%
Major Maintenance 5.56% 0% 0.00%
Insurance 1.95% 50% 0.98%
Dues & Subscriptions 1.88% 0% 0.00%
Travel & Meals 0.85% 0% 0.00%
Waste & Ash Disposal 0.30% 0% 0.00%
Rent & Lease 0.17% 50% 0.09%
Other Expenses 0.05% 0% 0.00%
441
At the time this report was drafted, these were the two most-recent years available for this data.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-20
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Utilities 0.02% 100% 0.02%
Subtotal – Non-Payroll 43.78% 32.2% 14.08%
Assignment of In-State Expenses to Industry Impacts
In order to complete an I/O impact assessment, a direct impact must be assigned
to a specific industry. The IMPLAN model then estimates the multiplicative
effects of that direct impact on the state economy. The IMPLAN software has a
rich set of industries in which impacts can be assigned, roughly corresponding to
the North American Industry Classification System442 (NAICS) categories. Still,
making assignments is an approximation as perfect matches are not always
obvious.
The IMPLAN software contains personal consumption spending patterns for
different income-level homes. These patterns apportion personal consumption
across all industries relative to historical patterns obtained from Census Bureau
and Bureau of Economic Analysis databases. For measuring the effect
associated with consumption by full-time employees, GDS used the consumption
patterns for homes with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000. For contract
labor, the payroll expenses are divided among food services, hotels and motels,
and gasoline station industries. Utilities are assigned to natural gas,
water/wastewater, and telecommunications. It is assumed that materials and
supplies will be sourced from both wholesale and retail sources, with the retail
sources including building material and garden supply stores (i.e., Home Depot
and Lowes) and general merchandise stores. Outside services expenses are
allocated to legal, accounting, engineering, computer services, and
environmental consulting. Rent and lease expenses are assigned to the real
estate industry and licenses and permits are assigned to state and local
government, non-educational. Finally, insurance is split between insurance
carriers and insurance agencies and brokerages. Table 11.9 uses 2014 (outage
442
NAICS is the industry classification system adopted by the United States Office of Management and
Budget in 1997. Prior to the use of NAICS, the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system was in
place.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-21
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
year) and 2015 (non-outage year) in-state expenditures to demonstrate the
relative proportions of the operating budget assigned to each industry as a direct
impact.
Table 11.10
Industry Assignment of In-State Expenditures – 2014 and 2015
2014 2014 2015 2015
Industry Dollars Percent Dollars Percent
Personal Consumption $30,756,832 56.9% $31,896,644 60.9%
Pattern*
State & Local Govt. – Non $4,318,530 8.0% $4,434,839 8.5%
Edu.
Legal Services $2,807,541 5.2% $2,883,155 5.5%
Hotels and Motels $2,477,152 4.6% $0 0.0%
Wholesale Trade $2,020,987 3.7% $2,075,417 4.0%
Building Mat. & Garden $2,020,987 3.7% $2,075,417 4.0%
Supply
General Merchandise Stores $2,020,987 3.7% $2,075,418 4.0%
Arch./Engineering Services $2,005,387 3.7% $2,059,397 3.9%
Accounting & Bookkeeping $1,203,232 2.2% $1,235,638 2.4%
Environmental Consulting $1,203,231 2.2% $1,235,637 2.4%
Computer Related Services $802,155 1.5% $823,759 1.6%
Insurance Carriers $691,391 1.3% $710,012 1.4%
Insurance $691,390 1.3% $710,011 1.4%
Agencies/Brokerages
Food Services & Drinking $619,288 1.1% $0 0.0%
Gasoline Stations $278,680 0.5% $0 0.0%
Real Estate $120,550 0.2% $123,797 0.2%
Natural Gas Distribution $9,455 >0.1% $9,709 >0.1%
Water and Sewer $9,455 >0.1% $9,709 >0.1%
Telecommunications $9,454 >0.1% $9,710 >0.1%
TOTAL DIRECT IMPACTS $54,066,684 100.0% $52,368,269 100.0%
* – Salaries of employees residing in Vermont (50% of all employees)
Extreme Low and High Cases
The operating budgets and salaries described above were allowed to vary by +/-
15% in order to establish the extreme cases. The extreme low case has budgets
15% below the base case. The extreme high case has budgets 15% above the
base case. A higher budget will lead to greater economic activity and therefore
larger value added impacts.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-22
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
11.4.5 Impact Analysis Results
An Input/Output predictive model uses direct impacts on an industry and
runs it through the set of multipliers to calculate the additional value associated
with increased economic activity. There are three impacts measured in the I/O
output.
• Direct Demand Effects – The impacts that directly impact an assigned
industry. In the Vermont Yankee analysis, these are the in-state operating
and personal consumption expenditures (the values in Table 10.9 are
direct effects).
• Indirect Effects – The impacts caused by the iteration of industries
purchasing from industries resulting from direct demand changes.
• Induced Effects – The impacts on all local industries caused by the
expenditures of new household income generated by the direct and
indirect effects.
The total economic impact is the sum of the direct plus indirect and induced
effects.
The levels of indirect and induced effects for a demand change in a given
industry are described by the multipliers developed during the descriptive
modeling stage of an I/O analysis. As an example, a $1 direct input into the
Wholesale Trade industry will produce $0.20 in indirect effects and $0.31 in
induced effects based on Vermont multipliers. A table of multipliers for impacts
on the economy specific to VY operations is exhibited in Section 11.2.6. In order
to measure the true economic impact of operations of the Vermont Yankee
facility an additional twenty years, the direct effects described in Table 11.9 are
input into IMPLAN and the indirect and induced effects are observed.
Three key output variables were measured for the impact analysis.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-23
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
• Total Value Added – Value added is a measure of a single industry’s
contribution to Gross State Product (GSP). It is the difference between
total output and the cost of intermediate inputs. Value added can be
broken down into employment compensation, proprietary income, other
property type income, and indirect business taxes.
• Employment – The equivalent average number of full time jobs supported
by the industry output each year. Employment figures are therefore best
understood in terms of job-years. One full-time worker working twenty
years would equate to 20 job-years. Employment includes salary
employees as well as self-employed jobs.
• Taxes and Other Government Revenues – All government collections
from the normal operation of business and through personal consumption.
This output is used in the revenue/burden analysis presented in section
11.1 of the report.
Value-Added
On average, the annual economic impact of continued operation of
Vermont Yankee on the state economy is $64.5 million in total value added,
comprised of $44.8 million (69%) in direct impacts and $19.7 million (31%) in
indirect and induced effects. Using an estimated Gross State Product of $30
billion in 2012,443 Vermont Yankee’s impact represents 0.22% of GSP (value-
added) in Vermont per year. Over the timeframe of 2012 to 2032, the total direct
value added is $896.5 million and the indirect multiplier effects are $392.8 million,
for a total 20-year value added of $1.3 billion. Using the General Obligation bond
rate of 4.9% to discount the annual cash flows yields a base case total value
added NPV of $755.5 million in 2012 dollars. Table 11.10 shows the base case
value added associated with 20 additional years of Vermont Yankee operations.
443
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports 2007 GSP at $24.5 billion. Growth of 4% per year would
yield a GSP of nearly $30 billion by 2012. GSP growth averaged 4.5% per year over the most recent 5
years and averaged 4.0% per year over the most recent three years.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-24
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Table 11.11
Base Case Summary of Total Value Added ($Millions)
Direct Indirect & Total Direct Indirect %
Year Effects Induced Value Effect % of of Total
Effects Added Total
2013 $28.6 $13.8 $42.4 67.5% 32.5%
2014 $29.8 $14.3 $44.1 67.6% 32.4%
2015 $29.0 $13.7 $42.7 67.9% 32.1%
2016 $32.5 $15.3 $47.8 68.0% 32.0%
2017 $34.0 $15.9 $49.9 68.1% 31.9%
2018 $33.2 $15.2 $48.4 68.6% 31.4%
2019 $37.3 $17.1 $54.4 68.6% 31.4%
2020 $39.1 $17.8 $56.9 68.7% 31.3%
2021 $38.3 $17.1 $55.4 69.1% 30.9%
2022 $42.9 $19.2 $62.1 69.1% 30.9%
2023 $44.9 $19.9 $64.8 69.3% 30.7%
2024 $44.1 $19.2 $63.3 69.7% 30.3%
2025 $49.3 $21.5 $70.8 69.6% 30.4%
2026 $51.7 $22.3 $74.0 69.9% 30.1%
2027 $51.0 $21.5 $72.5 70.3% 29.7%
2028 $56.9 $24.2 $81.1 70.2% 29.8%
2029 $59.8 $25.1 $84.9 70.4% 29.6%
2030 $59.1 $24.3 $83.4 70.9% 29.1%
2031 $65.9 $27.2 $93.1 70.8% 29.2%
2032 $69.2 $28.3 $97.5 71.0% 29.0%
Average $44.8 $19.6 $64.4 69.6% 30.4%
20-Yr Total $896.5 $392.8 $1,289.3 69.5% 30.5%
20-Yr NPV $523.1 $232.4 $755.5 69.2% 30.8%
Under the low case scenario with budgets 15% lower than the base case,
the 20-year total value added equals $1.1 billion, an average of $54.8 million per
year. The net present value under the low case is $642.1 million. Budgets 15%
greater than the base case produce an annual average total value added of
$74.1 million per year, totaling to $1.5 billion over 20 years. The NPV with a
4.9% discount rate equals $868.8 million. Table11.12 summarizes value added
for the three scenarios.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-25
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Table 11.12
Summary of Value Added Scenarios ($Millions)
20-Year 20-Year
Case Total NPV
Extreme Low $1,095.9 $642.1
Base $1,289.3 $755.5
Extreme High $1,482.7 $868.8
Employment
According to the IMPLAN model, the economic activity associated with
and spurred by Vermont Yankee operations would support 1,208 full-time
equivalent jobs per year on average. As of August 2008, total employment in
Vermont was approximately 306,500,444 meaning Vermont Yankee’s employment
contribution equals 0.4% of current state employment levels. Of the total annual
number of jobs, 257 (21%) jobs are from Vermont Yankee itself (514 total
employees, with half living in Vermont), 631 (52%) jobs are from direct economic
effects, and 319 (27%) jobs are from indirect and induced economic effects.
Over twenty years, the economic activity would support a total of 24,150 job-
years. The value added in the extreme low scenario would support a 20-year
total of 21,300 job-years. The extreme high case value added would sustain a
20-year total of 27,000 job-years. Table 11.13 shows the base case annual job-
year impacts from continued operation of Vermont Yankee and Figure 11.2
shows the totals for the three scenarios.
444
Bureau of Labor Statistics, seasonally adjusted, preliminary non-farm employment. Data extracted from
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost on October 6, 2008.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-26
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
Table 11.13
Base Case Summary of Employment Supported by Economic Activity (Job-
Years)
VY Direct Indirect Total VY % of Direct Indirect
Year Jobs Effects & Add’l Total % of % of
Induce Emp. Total Total
d
Effects
2013 257.0 576.3 286.7 1,120.0 22.9% 51.5% 25.6%
2014 257.0 581.5 289.4 1,127.9 22.8% 51.6% 25.7%
2015 257.0 546.5 277.5 1,081.0 23.8% 50.6% 25.7%
2016 257.0 593.2 296.0 1,146.2 22.4% 51.8% 25.8%
2017 257.0 599.6 299.2 1,155.8 22.2% 51.9% 25.9%
2018 257.0 564.2 287.6 1,108.8 23.2% 50.9% 25.9%
2019 257.0 613.7 307.2 1,177.9 21.8% 52.1% 26.1%
2020 257.0 621.3 311.5 1,189.8 21.6% 52.2% 26.2%
2021 257.0 585.4 299.5 1,141.9 22.5% 51.3% 26.2%
2022 257.0 636.0 319.7 1,212.7 21.2% 52.4% 26.4%
2023 257.0 643.9 324.0 1,224.9 21.0% 52.6% 26.5%
2024 257.0 607.9 312.1 1,177.0 21.8% 51.6% 26.5%
2025 257.0 660.4 333.2 1,250.6 20.6% 52.8% 26.6%
2026 257.0 669.1 338.0 1,264.1 20.3% 52.9% 26.7%
2027 257.0 632.8 326.1 1,215.9 21.1% 52.0% 26.8%
2028 257.0 687.5 348.2 1,292.7 19.9% 53.2% 26.9%
2029 257.0 697.2 353.5 1,307.7 19.7% 53.3% 27.0%
2030 257.0 660.5 341.6 1,259.1 20.4% 52.5% 27.1%
2031 257.0 717.6 364.8 1,339.4 19.2% 53.6% 27.2%
2032 257.0 728.3 370.8 1,356.1 19.0% 53.7% 27.3%
Average 257.0 631.2 319.3 1,207.5 21.3% 52.3% 26.4%
20-Yr 5,140.0 12,622. 6,386.6 24,149. 21.3% 52.3% 26.4%
Total 9 5
Figure 11.2
Summary of Employment Scenarios
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-27
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
30,000
20-Year Total Job-Years
27,001
25,000
24,149
20,000
21,298
Supported
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Extreme Low Base Case Extreme High
Case Case
Taxes Generated by Economic Activity
The tax impacts associated with Vermont Yankee operations were
discussed in Section 10.1 in regards to their use in a government
revenue/burden analysis. The IMPLAN model estimated that taxes generated by
the operations of the facility and the consumption of its employees would
average $7.4 million per year. The breakdown of those taxes is displayed in
Figure 11.3.
Figure 11.3
Breakdown of Taxes Generated from Economic Activity
(Based on Average Annual Tax Impact, 2013-2032)
Personal Taxes,
$1,228,049 , 17%
Social Insurance
Taxes, $43,907 ,
1%
Corporate Profit &
Indirect Business Dividend Taxes,
Taxes, $5,323,433 $842,161 , 11%
, 71%
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-28
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
11.4.6 Other Considerations from the Impact Analysis
The IMPLAN impact analysis results presented in the prior section
estimate the impact on the state economy of continuing operations of Vermont
Yankee. If the operating license of Vermont Yankee is not extended, once
decommissioning is complete and the facility is completely off line, several
impacts may arise that are not quantified in this analysis. For instance, if Entergy
moved all or a large percentage of the employees out of Vermont, the impact on
the local housing market could be severe as a high number of houses hit the
market concurrently. This concern was expressed by the Windham County real
estate community at public meetings held by the Department of Public Service as
part of preparation of an Economic Study the DPS conducted in January 1999:
Members of the Windham County real estate community expressed
concern at public meetings that a sudden closing of Vermont Yankee
would have a severe impact on real estate values in Windham County. It
was stated that Brattleboro, Putney and Vernon would be the most
impacted towns and that it could take many years to absorb the houses
which would be put on the market in the event of such a closing. In
addition, if the supply of houses for sale in the market increased enough,
new housing starts would be severely reduced impacting the construction
trades.445
According to the 2000 Census, constructions jobs made up 8% of all jobs
in 2000. Along with the negative effect on the housing sector would be collateral
impacts on the economy through lost value from spouses and other family
members of VY employees who work in Vermont. If Entergy does not move the
employees, then the unemployment rate would increase in the short-term and
stay high until the economy was able to absorb the influx of jobless citizens.
That, in turn, would increase the burdens on the government. As with the
housing market, these impacts would be severely felt in and around Windham
445
Vermont Yankee Economic Study, January 1999. Technical Report No. 43. Department of Public
Service.
GDS Associates, Inc. Page 11-29
Report to Vermont Department of Public Service on Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Chapter 11 Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis
County, where Vermont Yankee is one of the top 5 employers in the area.446
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in Windham County in
2007 was 22,512. According to Entergy, 45% of VY employees live in the
county. That means just over 1% of jobs in Windham County are sourced from
Vermont Yankee.
Another negative consequence of losing Entergy’s presence in Vermont is the
loss of charitable contributions made by Entergy. Entergy VY has been a
contributor to local charities and expects to continue to do so. VY estimates
based on historical experience that it will donate an average of $380,000 per
year, or $7.6 million total over 20 years. The Department of Public Service has
verified that VY is a significant benefactor of several local charities including
United Way. Although Entergy has estimated an amount of charitable donation
that might be lost if the VY license is not renewed, GDS Associates and the DPS
believe the true amount is unknown at this time and has not added such impacts
into the quantified analysis of this report.
11.4.7 Impact Analysis Multipliers
The multipliers that are used by the IMPLAN model to estimate direct,
indirect, and induced effects are provided below. These multipliers can be used
to determine the various impacts measured in the I/O analysis for a $1 change in
VY operating activity. Each industry sec