2. Background and Procedural History
In response to issues raised during Phase 1 of the 2009 NDCTP about the lack of transparency and comparability of the decommissioning cost estimates provided for Commission review, the Commission ordered creation of an independent panel (Panel) of decommissioning experts. The Panel was asked to review decommissioning1 cost estimates and practices by California utilities. The Decision specified that Geoffrey Griffiths of TLG Services (TLG), Nicholas Capik of ABZ Engineering & Management Consulting (ABZ), and Bruce Lacy of Lacy Consulting Group, LLC (Lacy Consulting) would be the Panel members. TLG and ABZ have a long history of providing decommissioning cost estimates for California's nuclear plants, and Mr. Lacy was an expert for TURN in Phase 1 of this 2009 NDCTP. Thus, all of the Panel members started with a detailed insider's view of the current decommissioning cost estimates.
The Commission adopted D.10-07-047 on July 29, 2010. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Melanie Darling issued a ruling on August 17, 2010 setting a status conference on August 27, 2010 for the Panel to brief the Commission and parties about the Panel's proposed initial work scope, work plan, and communications plan for the project.
At the status conference, the Panel reported that the project was achievable on schedule and within the approved budget of $275,000, assuming no major changes to the work scope described in D.10-07-047. That decision identified six issues in particular that the panel was to evaluate:
· Identify, compare, and explain the key cost and financial assumptions driving differences in the decommissioning cost estimates between nuclear generating stations at San Onofre (SONGS), Diablo Canyon, and Palo Verde;
· Identify, compare, and explain similarities and differences in decommissioning costs, challenges, and approaches for California's nuclear plants and plants of similar design and configuration in other states;
· Identify and explain financial and cost assumptions that could be applied on a common basis to the estimates for Diablo Canyon, SONGS, and Palo Verde sites;
· Identify and suggest steps that could be taken to minimize decommissioning costs in the future;
· Evaluate whether emerging radiological contamination issues could increase decommissioning costs; and
· Suggest a common format for preparation of decommissioning cost estimates that would permit greater transparency and comparability.
The Panel also agreed to use comparable dollars in the report (e.g., $2008), and added an examination of the definition and role of various "contingency factors" in decommissioning cost estimates.
At the status conference, the Panel, parties, and ALJ worked out a schedule for the Panel to provide interim briefings prior to development of the Final Report in order to get feedback from all stakeholders, including the public. Between September 2010 and December 2010, the Panel provided monthly status reports to the Commission and parties to describe activities performed in the prior month and to identify projected activities in the subsequent month.
On January 25, 2011, another status conference was held in which the Panel provided a preliminary briefing about its work and a draft report to the Commission staff, the ALJ, and other interested parties. The draft report included a number of preliminary recommendations for discussion. The Commission's Energy Division, the ALJ, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and Southern California Edison (SCE) provided comments to the Panel seeking explanations, clarifications, and/or additions to the draft report.
Pursuant to a February 1, 2011 ruling by the ALJ, a full briefing of the Commission, the parties and the public occurred on February 22, 2011. Assigned Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon attended the session which was transcribed for the record. No additional comments were submitted to the Panel after February 22, 2011. On behalf of the Panel, the utilities filed the "Report on Nuclear Decommissioning" (Final Report) on March 1, 2011. The parties were permitted to file comments on the question of whether the panel's recommendations in the Final Report should be adopted by the Commission.
SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) filed brief comments which generally supported the recommendations.2 By email to the service list, TURN expressed support for all of the recommendations. Also by email to the service list, PG&E said it "greatly appreciated the work of the Panel reflected in the Report," but did not expressly support or oppose any of the Panel's recommendations.
1 The term "decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2, and includes only those actions required to terminate the NRC operating license. When used in the Panel's Final Report, the term "decommission" is used with its broader meaning including all post-shutdown activities.
2 SDG&E took no position on recommendations related to SCE's adjustments to the Palo Verde estimates.
