DCL-03-035, Decommissioning Funding Reports for Diablo Canyon, Units 1 & 2 and Humboldt Bay, Unit 3, Enclosures 4 - 7

Decommissioning Funding Reports for Diablo Canyon, Units 1 & 2 and Humboldt Bay, Unit 3, Enclosures 4 - 7

ML030990351
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/27/2003
From:	Womack L Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
-nr, DCL-03-035, HBL-03-002, OL-DPR-80, OL-DPR-82, OP-DPR-07
Download: ML030990351 (118)

Text

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-03, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 1 of 16 APPENDIX D DETAILED COST ANALYSES - SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

DMrita. Canvon ltaoerlPIannt rosIe SN" lvTAlIt E D-1 DIABI 0 CAS3ON rPO%%Tt PLNT UNIT I CAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST FSTIMATE (Thoosrool.d-r,20 Doll,.)

Donuimen 1P01.1121-003. 1?..- 0 Ippen'lls.

I'oi 2r f ltb NF)

NRC bite B.,ndi it,

'I I-I, It bi relbt LI,.

I Sunh.r ttlitvly Decriptton O.eo, Rrmove I

Psit Sh p n

Other Continoncy Told I icTerm Restore t

CIY I CF C iF CTCC CF Itn.,.

PERIOD I I SAFSTOR site charactenzation survey 2 Prepare preliminary decommissmrnrg cost 3 Notifcation of Cessation of Operations 4 Remove fuel & source materialn S Notification Of Pemmanent Defueling 6 Deactlivate plant systems b process waste 7 Prepare and submit PSDAR r Review plant dwgs & specs 9 Pertoms delailed rad survey 10 Estimale by product Iventory I I End product descwptlon 12 Detailed by product hventory t 3Define mapr wort sequence t4 Portorm SER and EA I5 Periorm Site Specific Cost Study Activity Specitcations 16 1 Prepare plant and facilities for SAFSTOR 16 2 Ptant systems 16 3 PRant structures and buildings 16 4 Waste management 18 5 Faolity and site dormancy 16 Total D.tait.d Work Procedures 17 I Ptant systems 17 2 Facility closeout & dormancy 17 Total 18 Procure vacuum drying system 19 Drsinlde-nnergize non-cont systems 20 Drain & dry NSSS 21 Drals/de-enenglze contammnated systems 22 Decontsecure contaminated systems Decontmlinatton of Site Bultdings 23 1 Reaclor 23 2 Conainment PenetratIon Area 23 3 Fuel Handhng 23 Totals 2 Pre-pare support equipment tor storage 25 Install containment pressure equal fines 26 Inlenm survey pnor to dormancy 27 Secure buviding accesses 28 Prepare & submi interim report Perlod I Additlonal Costs 29 1Hiazardous Waste Management 10 M.ied Waste Management 31 Spent Fuel Pad Cast. Canister Equipment 32 Spent Futel Loading Campaigns 33 Spent Fuel Ops A Maintenance 34 Spent Fuel Fired Costs 35 lransfer Spent Fuel Cansters to DOE 36 pent Fuel Pool Isntstion Subtotal Period I ActlvIty Costs 279 104 180 104 80 80 120 248 400 84 362 16 120 Note 2 Notel Nol 1:

Note l 24 184 18 120 Note l 12 92 t2 92 18 138 12 92 37 285 60 460 59 453 50 383 37 287 24 184 24 184 194 1,491 352 120 184 120 92 92 128 92 285 460 453 383 287 184 184 1,491 394 333 250 160 160 1 298 379 475

-a 57 435 435 14 110 ItO 71 546 54d 1

9 Hotelt Notel NHotel Note I 9

1 36 187 492 1 11 I 385 34 320 dl 568 1 704 93 280 246 737 907 2,721 58 442 5

39 48 367 Note 7

54 84 641 84 641 24 182 4

34 4

28 7

56 29 225 "137 8 714 1 704 2i0 737 2,721 442 39 367 54 641 641 t82 34 28 56 225 8 114 2q 11.'

1 3ii I 10 962 It 1'2 3 0110

-700 557 557 158 29 49 106 7 577 tlt J 4 1

)i t15it 1i t3t v '-l I/l:',(; Se$I,

-, III I

Dtdblo Cninvon lowler Plant Decormnrlloionng costl Stnor TABLE D-l Dl %BLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT I SAtFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTI ITE (Thousands of009 2 Dollars)

Doctnm~ent I'l1-1 121 00lI, WIe: tI Apprentdrv 13. ling,j. of 16

. 11 I I.-

Ii..
.......

i.1 I
It
I I,,, f. I... h-I 11) v n hr r

.t^-lvlv n-rrlntlnn n..--

Remov Pack Ship Burial Other Costlanescy Total LloTerm Restore A LF 11 ( F CLI 0TCC CF llors I

oumner wetivily utscriptton oeun aexuve Penrod I Undislobutled Costs I Decon equipment 2 Decon supplhes 3 Process tiquld waste 4 Insurance 5 Property loaes 6 Health physsos Supples 7 Small loot allowance 8 Disposal of DAW generated 9 Plant energy budget 10 NRC ISFSI Feet It NRC Fees 12 Emergency Planning Fees 13 Sde Security Cost Subtotal Undlstrtlbutd Costs Partod I Stalf Costs DOC Stalf Cost Utily Staff Cost TOTAL COST TO SAFSTOR PERIOO 2 Salstor Annual Malotenanc-Cost I tuarterly Inspection 2 Seml-annual environmennl survey 3 Prepare repons 4 Health physics supplies 5 tnsurance 6 Property tWes 7 Ontposal of contaminated solid waste 8 Bitumnous mrot replacemntl 9 Maintenance suppies 10 Plant energy budget II NRC ISFSI Fees 12 NRC Fees 13 Emergency Planning Fees 14 Sle Secunty Cost 5 Site maintenance staff PerIod 2 Addittonal Costs 11 Spent Fuel Pod, Cask Canister. Equgpreot 17 Spent Fuel Loading Campaigns I8 Spent Fuel Ops & Maintenance 19 Spent Fiel Flred Cosis 20 Spent Fuel Security 21 Transler Spent Fuel Canisters lt DOE PERIOD 2 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE TOTALS 687 655 248 408 36 92 594 244 14 681 1 412 1,704 809 28 404 78 2.215 103 790 790 164 818 818 340 t 605 1 805 170 1875 1.875 102 509 509 S

42 42 415 2.435 2,435 121 930 930 3

28 28 40 445 44S 8

82 82 332 2.547 2.547 1,803 12,107 12 107 3 433 28 323 28,323 8,190 58,565 58,585 3 495 1 681 331 9.509 9 840 1.590 444 687 257 2 093 5,234 22 890 3 498 1 B88 3,404 862 687 257 2,093 41,071 3,496 1.686 54 992 2

58

'111 41 120 84 84 117 28 210 2 853 1,083 124 81 122 28 81 41 5,123 Note I Note I Note I 14 70 70 iI 122 122 11 54 54 30 150 150 13 96 96 8

70 70 12 129 129 3

31 31 32 242 242 428 3 281 3 281 162 1 245 1 245 19 143 143 9

70 70 la 141 141 4

32 32 9

70 70 780 5 946 5 946 102 28 102 II (.4 S et irsrt.

1 '5

DInbhto(..nlnoPouwerPlant -

Deconimntssmotnin Cost Stud,.

TAttLE D-l DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT I SAFSTOR DECOiMMISSIONING COST ESTIMLATE (Thoag nds ot(002 Dollars)

Doromen'nft0 l-11-tl -OJ, RHev. O Appenric

n.

I )lse I or IA Nl NRC St.

lB.".[ ete 10LICF hi trts L"bo I

Activity De-r-iptios DOron Rlemone Peck Ship Burial other Contitgercy Total LicTern Reatore A CF tir F CCF

(:TCC CF llur PERIOD 3

I Re,,"se plant dogs b specs 2 Perform detailed rad savey 3 End product descrption 4 Detailed by produac nenilry 5 Defne major work sequence 5 Pertorm SER and EA 7 Perform Sdte-Specrfic Cost Study 8 Preparelsub-I Llcerse Temination Plan 9 Receive NRC approval ot lematalon plan Activity Speciflaltlona 10 1 Re-activate pbanl & temporary factlites 102 Planl systems 103 Reactor internals 104 Reactor vessel 105 5Btotcleat shield 108 Steam generators 10 7 Reonlorced concrete 108 Turbine

& condenser 10 9 Ptanl structures & huildings 10 10 Waste management 10 11 Faciity

& sile ctoseout 10 Total Planning & site Preparations 11 Prepane dismant1ng sequence 12 Ptant prep & temp woses 13 Design water clean-up system 14 Rigging/CCEsIootlng/etc.

15 Pronsre easktlirinenr

& containers Detailed Work Procedures t8 1 Plant systems 16 2 Vessel head 163 Reactorintemats 18 4 Rematning buildings 16 5 CRD coaling assembhy 16 6 CRD housings & ICt lubes 15 7 tIcore instrumentntao 188 Reactorvesset 169 FIe'ility ctsem, 16 10 Missile shields 16 11 lologinc shield 18 12 Steam generators 15 13 Remntorced concrete 18 14 Turbhne

& condensers 16 IS Asinilary buildmng 16 16 Reactor buldng 18 Total Prrlod 3 Addittonal Costs 17 Site Cha ractenlation Subtolal PerIod 3 Actllty Costs Period 3 Undistributed Costs I DOC statl relosuton eeors*.es 2 Insuirance 388 so 104 600 248 400 328 55 12 16 90 3,

60 49 423 Note I 92 120 690 285 4b0 377 Note I 423 92 120 690 285 460 377 589 333 568 520 40 250 128 64 250 368 72 3,181 192 2.304 112 1,950 g8 88 50 85 78 8

37 19 10 37 55 I1 477 29 346 17 293 15 57 30 30 18 12 12 12 44 14 5

14 55 12 37 33 33 Ji7 878 393 853 598 48 287 147 74 287 423 83 33 69 810 345 853 598 48 287 74 143 423 41 3 220 68 38 74 74 143 41 438 221 221 2 650 2 850 129 129 2 243 2,243 113 113 379 200 200 108 s0 80 80 290 98 38 98 368 e0 250 2VS 2t8 2 779 435 230 230 124 92 92 92 334 110 41 110 423 92 287 25t 251 11Yi 392 230 230 31 92 92 92 334 98 4t 110 423 46 226 226 2621 44 93 55 4;

287 25 25 575 10Oi 303 1 314 t 314 12 "pi 13 754 7 'I',

I 10 14 IS, l 0t3 1 306 196 1 502 1 502 146 1S 161 161 71 it %eI

• rt(.-s, I/ne.

Diallo Cann.on Power Platnt Decomn.m.sunn.ng Cost Stldv.

TABLE D-l DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT I SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTVIMATE (Th.ousassds nt2O02 Dolleret Dsra-ntl01.l

-121 00o? n,, 0 A.pprtnilrn D, IPage Sot to; ID NKC bSt.

lionel stIle 1i9i bI l rflt I hr-I Nurber

%etIvltv Deseription Decon llenove PeckI ShIp Burial Other Coetlereney Total LieTerm Retor.

A LF It CF CCF GTCC CF IIler l

Pertod 3 Undistributed Costs (cont) 3 Property taxes 4 Health physics suppfies 5 Heavy equipment renatl 6 Disposal or DAW generated 7 Piant energy budget 8 NRC Fees 9 Sie Secunly Cost Subtotsl Undistributbd Costs Period 3 Stalf Costs DOC Siaff Cosl Utility Stall Cost TOTAL PERIOD 3 COST PERIOD 4 Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 181 Reactor Coolant Piping 1t2 Pretssuner Reter Tank 18 3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 184 Pressurlzer 18 5 Sleam Generators 18 6 CRDMsACIServrce Structure Removal 18 7 Reactor Vessel Inlemabs 188 Reactor Vessel 18 Totals 1 9 Remove spent luel racks Removal of Major Equipment 20 Main Turtise/Geenrator 21 Main Condensers Disposal of Plant Systems 22 1 Auxllary Steam 22 2 Auxitlary Steam (RCA) 22 3 Capltal Additions 85-2002 (clean) 22 4 Capiltal Additions 85-2002 (conlammnated) 22 5 Chemical & Volume Control 226 Chemical & Volume Conirol (Insulated) 22 7 Component Cooling Water 22 8 Component Coolrng Waler (RCA) 22 9 Compressed Ar 22 1 0 Compressed Air (insulated) 22 11 Compressed Air (RCA Insulated) 22 t2 Compressed As (RCA) 22 13 Condensate System 22 14 Condensate System (Insulated) 22 IS Containment Spray 22 18 Diesel Engine-Cenerator 22 17 Dresel Engmne-Generalor (insulated) 2218 Elecdrcal (Clean) 22 19 Electricalt(Contam-aled) 22 20 Etectncail (Conlamrsaltd) - FHi 22 21 Electicail (Deconlaminaled) 22 22 Electrical (Deconlamnraled) FH0 22 23 Eslraicton Steam & Heater Drip 22 24 Fe-d aler System 22 25 Feedmaier System (lnsulaled) 300.

553 594 14 1,412 838 245 1 578 75 375 375 83 635 635 415 2,435 2.435 125 96" 961 25 270 270 237 1 814 1814 1.169 8,t13 8 153 3,496 3J496 9 509 9 509 2,158 594 14 1 412 2 805 9,8t0 2

54 21,626 2.158 594 14 1.412 47 696 1.427 10,937 10.937 3,244 24,870 24 870 8 055 59 929 58 916 1 013 3,498 22 097 215 19 38 617 15 54 71 290 323 179 20 69 34 2 839 56 958 2,820 6 973 36 35 362 1,895 D1 3.730 430 6 559 18 3

3 12 313 792 8

411 294 1,835 173 226 1,653 905 11,894 1.061 3438 4.999 24 347 261 2 485 2,762 101 492 492 68 336 336 485 2.533 2 533 337 1.998 1 988 4,398 24,371 24,371 297 1,528 1 528 3.497 12,085 12,085 4,831 13,444 13.444 14,011 56 777 56 777 429 559 4.091 2 318 22,200 2,627 2,857 6,481 41,363 2.580 376 3,145 3521 584 584 4649 602 1,995 8867 24 566 t 636 8,358 22,215 65 880 8 452 2

1,034 337 482 2.232 2,232 3se 712 19" 1264 1,264 1,067 827 391 2 285 2 285 8119 24,147 240 238 120 344 804 348 t28 539 114 4

22 397 t.107 358 198 ItS 7

t 407 578 174 3 895 1,171 475 53 284 18 a

8 504 3

184 361 189 184 509 51 690 157 3 824 1179 561 419 64 3 955 I85 828 311 649 114 716 716 68 615 515 18 138 114 642 642 405 2 249 2 249 142 733 733 19 147 238 1 467 1 467 17 131 1

5 7

37 37 123 877 677 850 5,781 5781 266 1,803 1 803 134 893 893 18 136 1

8 211 1 618 207 1 204 1 204 53 291 291 1 567 9417 9417 380 2.136 2.136 258 1 658 t 658 60 424 424 168 1 102 1 102 138 147 131 t36 I613 1,247 455 5.424 5 529 2 830 8,t26 1r 747 8.148 3 078 12 581 2 744 38 S1t 9.314 25 117 8111 I 622 2 760 178 32 770 tI 689 1122 9t 211 It at If) 07 1 212

, 512 7 1,6." Srtlveq, /blw

Dl(rhlo('cnonnPorwer I1nn r

Dec omm Isslionin Cosl Slv.TnE-TAttLE D-I DIABtLO CAN) ON POWER PLANT UNIT I SAFSTOR DFCOMIMISSIONING COST ESTIMLATE (ThoIs.ned of 200l Doller.)

Doresoc.'otPD l-t I 12-Rev' 0

,Ippendix D, I'itge 6 of 16 IL' C

hite a-al B

ite Ul t

F l 61 Lrit I aobhr

'ti Mrtber

- AcivIt) Drc~iptlion Deron Remove P.tk Sbtp Burial Other CeetIoeneey Total LIeTerm Restore

(

%CF

' LF C CF l:TrCC CF lb.,

I DIsposal or Plant Systems (coal) 22 26 Feedmaler Syslem (RCA lesulaled) 22 27 Feedwoaer System (RCA) 22 28 Fire Protection 22 29 Fire Prolection (RCA) 22 30 Gaseous Radwasle 22 31 HVAC (Clean Insulated) 22 32 HVAC (Clean) 22 33 idAC (Contaminaled Insulaled) 22 34 i1VAC (Contaninaled) 22 35 WiVAC (ConlamInated)

. FHB 22 38 ttuiud Radwasle 22 37 Liquid Radwssle (Insulaled) 22 38 8ube 08r DOstrnbuton

& Punfinalon 22 39 MakIe-up Waler 22 40 Make-up Waler (Insulaled) 22 I Make-up Waler (RCA Insulated) 22 42 Make-up Water (RCA) 22 43 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolanl 22 44 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 22 45 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) 22 48 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA Insulated) 22 47 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA) 22 48 Nuclear Steam Supply Samplmng 22 49 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling (Insulated 22 50 Oil7 Waler Separator & TB Sump 22 51 Residual Heal Remonal 22 52 Safety Injection 22 53 Safety Infection (Insulated) 22 54 Safety InIecion (RCA Insulated) 22 5 Safety Iniecron (RCA) 22 58 Saiboaler System 22 57 S*erte Cooling Waler 22 58 Service Cooling Waler (RCA) 22 59 Spent Fuel Pit Coofing 22 60 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling-FHB 22 61 Turbine Steam Supply 22 62 Turbine Steam Supply (RCA) 22 83 Turbine and Generator 22 04 Turbine and Generator (Intulated) 22 Totals 23 Eredc scaffolding for systems remooal 4D*eonlarinatlon of Site Buildings 24 t Reaclor 24 2 Capital Additions 85-2002 24 2 Containment Penelralion Area 24 4 Fuel Handling 24 Totals 25 Lteense Termnalton Survey 25 CRISS conlionatory survey 27 TermInate ticense Period 4 Additional Costs 28 Vostel b Internals GTCC Disposal Subtotal Period 4 Activity Costs IlI 260 195 70 19 235 263 1124 270 528 65 173 238 21 36 188 65 13 86 103 32 20 244 84 S

37 209 127 77 24 57 80 1.128 778 101 SI

2.

856 4.138 18 7

448 I

I 44 1

0 27 I I 5

309 3

1 88 4

2 103 88 28 1 707 156 599 128 27 240 1,

198 274 211 6

161 22 124 30 2

20 45 49 78 28 252 21 189 188 4 522 1I78 238 49 25 158 51 319 319 3

16 18 155 1 013 1,013 68 390 390 22 119 119 3

21 35 270 102 604 804 461 2,783 2.783 109 652 652 278 1.489 1.489 28 148 148 67 402 402 35 271 3

24 12 70 70 65 375 375 28 (5t 151 2

Is 0

1 1

7 7

28 142 142 33 181 181 9

48 46 15 95 95 211 1,249 1,249 33 195 195 2

10 10 14 79 79 115 577 677 19 145 12 88 9

54 54 65 402 402 76 462 462 960 6,609 6.609 371 2 328 2.328 61 398 398 20 121 121 9 027 5 348 53 227 21 270 271 24 Is 148 88 3 019 1,I10 108 67 765 218 255 4 22 124 2 624 123 5 9t4 4 482 I 829 475 S 804 5 362 23 174 5 5419 12 332 1 523 J 879 5614 521 e83 4 307 1,555 315 17 106 2.009 2571 806 872 5.784 1,961 121 871 7,141 2 926 1.855 560 1 347 1 083 25 947 18372 2 272 1 150 7i9 623 so 132 1.0S7 5.390 5 390 1.104 18 227 524 1 872 897 112 328 342 I 187 366 176 4

2 17 8

22 11 110 197 9 974 449 113 475 100 604 274 11 167 822 5592 105 13 213 3 425 (o 490 184 90 41 190 190 259 1.123 1.123 543 2 320 2 220 4 288 20 124 20 124 1 678 7 270 7.270 32 137 137 note 2 1 982 is811 Iit 19S 11t 114 167 O il i1l0 24 588 280 1.1 76 1,496 2f 544 45 716 711 19 3524

. 1 5. 1 120465 lint Iet*

7

.1 1S:1

11.

1 I' 2 M0 il 312 7lltO 2073

-l 510 3i1t49 II

cer tt, -

/1tt.

Dirlis Cinvon Power Plant ocornrissronxng Cost Stru' TAtILE D-I DIABLO CANYON PM ER PlNT UNIT I SAFSTOR DECOMiMISSIONING COST ESTUIMTE 4Thuxaade of 1002 Dollrs)

Dxocrnene/POI-ll21 IOt. ie, t Appen d12. Puge 7 of lb Number ex ttIpl Deernpttxa Punod 4 Undistobuted Costs I Deon equipment 2 Denon supplies 3 DOC staff relocation expenses 4 Process Biquid waste S Insurance 6 Property taxes 7 Health physics supplies 8 Heavy equipment rental 9 SmaN tooi allowance 10 Pipe cuffing equipment 1I DiSposal of DAW generated 12 Decommlssioning Equipment Disposition 13 Plant energy budget 14 NRC Fees 15 Site Security Cost 16 LLRW Pocessing Equipment Subtotal Undistrlbuted Costs Period 4 Staff Costs DOc Staff Cost Utllity Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 4 PERIOD 5 Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings 29 1 Reactor 29 2 Capital Additons 85-2002 29 3 Containment Penetration Area 29 4 Fuel Handing 29 5 Mlscelsaneous 29 6 Turbine 29 7 Turbine Pedestal 29 Totals Sile Closeout Activites 30 Grade & lndscape slte 31 Final report lo NRC Subtotal Period 5 ActIvity Costs Penod 5 Undlstnibuled Costs I Insurance 2 Property laxes 3 Heavy equipment rental J Smau toot allowance S Plant energy budget 6 Sile Secunly Cost Subtotal Undistrlbuted Costs Period 5 Stall Costs DOC Slall Cost Utility Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 5 nIN11 i

oi e

t C i B t a rti I

L F, tLFK t

• e d t L atbi r Derun Remone Pock Slit Seria Other Casitlixfeay Total LicTermi Restore

%C1, hIP CLF GTLCCCF Ilnir e 687 699 1,306 271 3 233 5651 525 Ott.

1,658 11 626 4.143 45.938 151 1,238 I 341 8.396 267 745 28 2 942 4

231 299 3091 265 480 1,20S 690 8 420 855 8 929 103 790 790 175 874 874 196 1 502 1,502 372 1.758 1,756 27 295 295 606 4 041 4 041 848 8 499 5 849 79 604 544 137 1.048 1 048 683 5,071 5.071 131 o55 855 181 1,387 I 248 80 760 760 814 8 243 6 243 128 983 983 4 931 32,708 31 859 850 60 7281 572 139 849 7 853 3 868 83,767 1,844 1,844 363 to ross 778 20 045 15,188 2275 17,443 17,443 2

• 28,365 4.255 32 620 32 620 2.362 55,436 88 910

',60s 249.790 245 922 5 365 584 604 835 460 8,887 10 423 1.317 20 2 512 938 12 202 1.395 13 597 3 820 154 3 374 17572 1,033 7.921 1.1 18 121 63 486 198 1,514 1

3 23 377 2 858 141 1 079 1 830 14 032 1,3 125 125 65 93 965 4 602 1 844 r 7773 209 1 605 19 143 1

2058 15780 I5 88 8 732 121 49 437 51 1,363 23 2 888 1.078 88 12 644 1 605 43 32 14 249 71 4 393 177 107 1110 5 384 08 212 11 258632 102 078 1, 766 6 074 17,063 249 42 836 11,300 181 3637 4 507 I8S 991 8

71 573 4 393 23 177 14 107 145 1,110 75 S

sesi5 702 5 384 277 2 120 1 9(

3.798 29 143 3,5 IlS 153 I

pli.G

• t.Ies, lire.

Dmbla Cl(nnvon l'oh, rr PlantI Drrommisitoni'ng Coil SMuthd TABLE D-l Dl %RLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT I SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Th.....del of 2002 Dollars)

.lppenrix UIng 6w of la

.II)It (

S't.

Ilro t

oC 116

.r.t....r I Su!b,-r Aetils I Deytetipon Deen Renove Pack 9hip l.lu.I Olher Coatingesrp Total LieTerrm Rstore 6 OtF tB CF C

tF CTr ('IF IIto,,

TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 7547 66.530 9,725 2.645 60.2a 347,434 89,325 583,451 552,938 30.513 93,581 1051 584 604 1 0099 379 Total cost to decommsston wilh Total NRC tIcense brm narlon cost Is Non-nuclear demolition cost is Total buritl lte radwasle volume buned Total 10CFR5t greater than class C "aste burred Total scrap metal released from site Total craft labor requirementL t8 09%

contlngency S5 94 77%

or 55 5 23%

or S

S3,450 824 52 937 505 30,513 319 101616 cubecfeeI 604 clubc feet 12 215 tons 1,099 379 person hounr NOTES'

• 0 todcalles costs lest than S500

1) This acflvity Is performed by the decommrsson-g staff tofolnig plant shutdown, the costs for hls are included mt hs penod's slaf eosl

2) Ths acthfly, wh ie performed after 6nal plant shutdoo, Is considered pad of operations and therefore no decommissioning costs are hdrcuded for ths achlhy I1 ( S1 It

1. 0S. I tr,.

Dtitblo Canvon Power 'lrnnt H-p.n

-1s.

Dt necon-missioninax Cost Studn

• TABLE D-2 vljor-nic 0, tlnu 9sf lb DIABt 0 CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT !

O kFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Tbous..ds of 2002 Dollars) it)

NHC Sri.

IIer-a site to (IA it 1

roll I ut',,

'both-

%ottsty Dewirpltosn DtoCo Rtemove Pastk Ship Ba.ri.

Other Cotnettaeey To.!.

LieTerm Restore A1 CF ULCF V'( 1, rTCC CF IIeur PERIOD 1 1ISAFSTOR sute chararctrization survey 279 04 362 362 2 Prepare prelminary decsmnrrssronrog cost

-*104 Is 120 120-3 Notirication of Cessation ot Operations Note 2-4 Remove fuel & source mroerrtaln Note I-5 Notification of Peroranent Defuefing Not :I*

6 Descrare plant systems & prochss waste Note1I 7 Prepare and submit PSDAR ISO-16 24 104 184 0 Rur~er. plant dwngs

& specs

-104 is 120 120 9 Perforor detailed rod survey Nnre I 10 Esrenate by-product Inventory 0

12 02 02 iI End product description, so

• 0 12 92 92 12 Detailed by producl inventory

-120 16 135 130 13 Define motor mork sequence 0

12 02 92 14 PerforrssSER and EA 240 37 285 285 15 Perforrs Site-Speciflc Cost Study

• 400 60 460 4600 Acttntty Specificattons 16 1IPrepare plant and taciltiies for SAFSTOR

-394 453453 453 1602Plant systems 333 303383-38 16 3 Plant structures and buoldings 250 37 207 261 16 4 Waste manogenrent 160 24 184 104--

16 5Facitity, and site dormancy

• 16 24 184 104 1 6Total 20 194 1,491 1.491 Detaited Worti Procedures 17 1Plant systems 370 57 43S 435 17 2 Facitity ctoueout

&dormancy 6

14 110 110 17 Totatl 475 71 046 5465 108 Procure vacuum drying system 01 0

0 1 9Draislde-nergize non-cent systenres Note I 20 Dra n &dryNSSS

• Nott, I--

21 Drarnldne-nrgiza contaminated systems Note I 23 Deconleecure contaminated systems NotI Decontaesnamtlon of Site Buildings 233 Reactor 1.136 sea56 1.704 1 704 20 IIt 332 Aun.itary 757

• 370 1,135 1.135 1 7 710 23 3 Capital Additions 85-2002 240 123 309 309 5 7408 23 4Containment Penetration Area 187 9 3 200 2800 4 381 23 5 Foet Hfandling 492

• 245 737 737 100932 23 Tnlets 2 Sitt 1 400 4 225 4 225

-It91 24 Prepare support equipment tor slorage 305 se 5

442 442

-3 000 25 enrtal containment pressure equal tones 34 39 39

• .7011 30 inlnrrro survey poor to dormancy 320 4O 307 367 27 Secure building accesses I

Note I 20 Prepare & subrod totnlro report 4

-t 7

54 54 PerIod 1 Additionat Costs 29 Hazardous Waste Man~agem-nr*i 507 04 041 041 30 Fibeed Woose Management 557 04 041 641 31 Spent Funt Pod Cask Canrstnr Equrpment 700 lOS 005 005 33 Spent Font toadrng Campaigns 1 30 20 150 ISO 33 Spent Fuel Ops & ttoa,nrenance

.415 62 470 4708 34 Spent Foot Frond Costs 31 125 056 956 35 Transter Spent Font C,n,sters to DOE 9t6 29 225 225 36 Spent Fuel Pont Isolatron O

758 5 009 580009 Tf (;.,,t,,.,., /of.

Diablo ( anvon Potrer P/lmntf DeroonatIsslon Ing Cost Studyr DocumenIl'011121 -Ott, Irt O Appendix D). I'age 10of lb TUILE D-2 DIAdLO CANYON PO1lER PLANT UNIT 2 SAFSTOR DECO'IMUISSIONINC COST ESTILTE (Thoussod ot'2 002 Doll-s)

It NRC S~~lyD.ctl.D..

.c-b.

Ilore,uI sil 10L (.1

AI1,

-ntl l

Nnh,.tltDeeptoDeo.

Rnoe

Paul, sh~p fl-rta other Co.lis,(... y Tot.l LI.Ter-Restore

% 1-F II CF C 1IF LITCC (CF Io Subtotal Period I ACtivity Cost.

Period I Undistibuted Costs I Decon equipment 2 Decon supplies 3 Process "quid waste 4 Insurance SProperty taxes 6 Heaulh physics suppites 7 Smal tool aolloance 8 Disposal ot DAW generated 9 Plant energy budget 10 NRC ISFSI Fees II NRC Fees 12 Emergency Planning Fees 13 Site Security Cost Subtotal Undstnlibuted Costs Period I Stall Costs DOC Stalf Cost utility Stall Cost TOTAL COST TO SAFSTOR PERIOD 2 Safstor Annual Maunt.ace Cost I Ouaertty Inspection 2 Serni-snnual environmental survey 3 Prepare reports 4 Health physics supplies S Insurance 6 Property taxes 7 DIsposal ci contaminated solid wasle 8Bdlummous root replacement 9 Mamlenance supplies 10 Plant energy budget I NRC ISFSI Fees 12 NRC Fees 13 Emergency Pianntg Fees 14 S5l Secunty Cost 15 Sile maintenance staff Pcrtod 2 Additne-t Costs 16 Spent Fuel Pad Cash Canister. Equipment I I Spent Fuel Loading Campargns 18 Spent Fuet Ops & Mamnenance 19 Speon Fuel Froed Cosls 20 Spenl Fiel Secunly 21 Transler Spent Fuel Canisters to DOE PERIOD 2 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE TOTALS 2817 418 12 238 3 349 1t 822 10 822 ilS u6t2 687 1 108 263 485 54.

98 608 259 14 723 1.441 1 704 1 055 434 245 76

.2 15 103 790 277 1.385 361 1.705 170 1.875 121 607 8

62 423 2 484 158 1,214 43 478 25 270 8

83 332 2,547 790 1 365 1.705 1,875 607 62 2,484 1 214 478 270 83 2.547 3 567 1.791 352 9 702 10054 2,0o8 539 704 273 2 164 5.730 2.030 13 499 13,499 3 5f7 1.791 22 890 4 875 957 704 273 2.164 40.158 3.433 28,323 25.323 8 812 58,644 58 6i44 3.567 1 791 78 696 2

0 41 66 112 120 125 55 117 24 785 1 847 1 149 131 53 105 30 66 Notel Nole I Note 1 14 70 11 124 11 54 30 150 19 144 5

60 12 129 2

27 118 903 277 2 124 172 1 322 20 150 8

60 16 121 4

34 10 76 70 124 54 150 144 60 129 27 903 2,124 1 322

150, IllO 60 121 34 76 102 0

4 4 775 729 5 547 5,547 102 I

MAINTENANCE COST FOR 29 31833 YEARS DORMANCY 5162,632.432

=

- I I 1.(; o#el I I, e*t, 1,r.^,

Dlirao Cannon PoAer Plant DecomissioninXr Cost Sturlu' TABLE D-2 DIlLO CANI ON PO%,RTR PLANT UNIT 2 SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIOINING COST ESTIMATE (Thoasand. f o002 Dolla,.)

Document ll0-1121-003, l.t.

o Agppaendis 1D. P'rae II at 16 IJ Iti.

Nlli iILI Rurase ltFbi khIlh lf l

S.jj1

%i, tRv De"eripjins Decon Rensnve Pak 9Ship flsrti Other Contln,,ey Totnl LicTerm Reelore A LtF B rF C CtF CTCC (F hose I

PERIOD 3 I Review plant dwgsl & specs 2 Periprm detailed rad survey 3 End prsduct descriplion 4 Detarled by prsduct lsventory 5 Oelne major work sequence 6 Perform SER and EA 7 Perlsrm Site Specrlic Cost Study 8 Preparelsubmrt Ucense Termination Plan g Receive NRC approval of tnernsatlon plan Actielty Sp~erfeAt1os, IS I Re-actrvalt pfons 6 lemporary tacrltes 102 Plant systems 103 Reactos mtenals 104 Reactor vessel 10 S Biotlogcal shield 106 Steam generators 10 7 Rerntorced concrete 108 Turbino & condenser 10 9 Plant stnuctures & bulndogs 1 010 Waste management 1011 Facrlity & stte closeout 10 Total PIa..Ing b Sit. Pretparattns 11 Prepare dismantting segacuce 12 Plant prep & lemp snces 13 Design water clean-up system t4 RrggmngACCEsloolingiltc 15 Procure caslstimers & conlpiners Detailed Work Procedures 1 I1 Plant systems 16 2 Vessel head 16 3 Reactor Inlemats 16 4 Remaining buildings tS 5 CR0 cooling assembly 16 6 CRD housrags & ICt tubes 16 7 Incore instrumentalron 16 8 Reactor vessel t69 Facility closeout 16 10 Missile shlelds 16 It Biological shield 19 12 Steam generators 16 13 Remnlorced concrete 16 14 Turbine & condensers 16 IS Aunillaryburldrng 16 16 Reactor bulIding tn Total Pornrd 3 r'dd llonal Costs 17 SPtls CharaclerIzalmon Sublotal PerIod 3 Aetivity Costs 368 80 104 600 248 400 328 55 12 16 90 37 60 49 423 Nole I 92 120 690 285 460 377 Note I 423 92 120 690 285 460 377 589 333 568 520 40 250 128 64 250 36a 72 3,181 88 50 as 8

37 19 10 37 55 I

477 678 383 653 998 46 287 147 74 267 423 83 3 659 810 345 653 598 48 287 143 423 41 3 220 68 38 74 74 143 41 438 192 2 304 112 1 950 98 379 200 200 108 60 80 6o 290 96 36 96 368 80 250 218 219 2 779 29 348 17 293 15 57 30 30 16 12 12 12 44 14 s

14 55 12 37 33 33 417 221 221 2,650 2 650 129 129 2 243 2 243 113 113 435 230 230 124 92 92 92 334 110 41 110 423 92 287 251 251 3 IM)t 392 230 230 31 92 92 92 334 55 41 110 423 46 228 226 2561 44 93 55 46 287 25 25 575 I Oil 303 1.314 I 31.

II 5 1

s 13 794 2 71%

1 I, Si I I fi

' 1i 3 I/'.(; *enIt It

. In Itt

Dflnho rtnvon Potter Plant leeomrtn fonisjla Coot StIdy, TABLE D-2 Dl SOLO CAN1ON POWER PLANT UNIT 2 SAFSTOR DECOSMMISSIONING COST ESTIMIATE (Thonsanda of 2002 Dollar.)

Doctmnentl'Ol.1121-0t.T, 11, (J

,Ippentlx 1U. lnegr I of lb Nu. RSt.e CF k It t

I

'i 1.1 (I ( raft itoi-r NI otie htkttp Dearrption Inccxc Remov Pack Ship Burial Other Costlarese, Total Lie'41erm Reotore

%lt it (~t.

C I F (fTCC CF It..

str.

Penod 3 Utdistnbuted Costs I DOC staff relocation espenses 2 Insurance 3 Property laxes 4 Health physics supplies SHeavy equipment rental 6 Disposal ol DAW generated 7 Pant energy budget 8 NRC Fees 9 Ste Security Cost Subtotal Undstitlbuted Costs Period 3 Stall Costs DOC Staff Cost Ulitity Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 3 COST PERIOD 4 Nuctear Steam Supply System Removal 181 Reactor Coolant Piping 18 2 Pressurizer Relief Tanki 18 3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 184 Pressunrer 18 Steam Generators 18 6 CRDMsJiCIs/Servsce Structure Removal 187 Reactor Vessel Intemals 188 Reactor Vessel 16 Totals 19 Remove spent iuel racks Removal of Major Equlpmeet 20 Main Turbine/Generator 21 Main Condensers Dtsposal of Plant Syslems 22I Auoiliary Steam 22 2 Auxiffary Steam (RCA) 223 Building Services (Non Power BSock) 224 Capital Additons 85-2002 (Clean) 22 5 Capital Addilions 85-2002 (contaminated) 228 Chemical & Volume Contnot 22 7 Chemical & Volume Control (Insulated) 228 Component Cooling Waler 22 9 Component Cooling Water (RCA) 22 to Compressed Air 22 I1 Compressed Air (Insulated) 22 12 Compressed Ac (RCA lnsulaled) 22 13 Compressed Air (RCA) 22 14 Condensate System 22 IS Condensate System (insulatedl 22 18 Containment Spray 22 t7 Diesel Engine Generator 22 IS Diesel Engme Generator (insulated) 22 19 Electricat (Clean) 22 20 Electrical (Contaminitedt 2221 Elecitrl IContamnalted)

. FH8 22 22 Electril (lCA) 22 23 ElecIrical (RCA)-FHS 1 306 300 553 806 14 1,441 146 1.166 245 941 1986 1 502 1.502 1s 6t1 181 75 375 27S 83 835 635 423 2 484 2 484 175 1,241 t.341 25 270 270 141 1 082 1,082 1 132 7 849 7 849 3 567 3567 9 702 0 702 2,158 606 14 1,441 2 498 6,112

• - 12.242 2,158 606 14 1,441 34607 21 S

19 38 67 15 47 71 283 179 20 69 34 2,839 50 936 2 809 6942 7

35 262 1,895 91 3,709 423 8531 3

3 12 313 792 378 294 1,802 173 226 905 11,894 1, 061 3,395 5.008 24.313 79 261 2,485 2 762 917 7 029 7,029 1,836 14,078 14 078 8,100 44,92s 43 13 181 492 492 66 336 336 485 2 532 2,533 337 1 998 1988 4,398 24,371 24 371 297 1,528 1,528 3,445 11,906 11,909 4 824 13.427 13 427 13,952 565 95 58.585 1,013 3 S67 429 559 4,091 2.318 22 200 2627 2,407 6,481 41,112 2,558 22 290 378 3.145 3,521 584 584 4 649 602 1,995 1,867 24 566 1,636 7,773 21 809 64 897 8 446 323 36 1s 2

1,034 337 481 2.230 2.230 362 723 199 1,283 1.283 1,067 827 391 2 285 2,285 8 244 24 147 122 117 5

638 395 698 318 124 52s 77 4

22 387 loll 345 187 74 2

2058 333 103 2222 691 16 7

447 6

3 167 198 93 260 430 49 691 9

167 3 525 1,166 541 201 38 1,656 342 60 380 380 43 253 253 96 733 138 793 793 354 1952 1,952 130 872 672 19 143 238 1 455 1,455 11 88 1

5 7

37 37 122 676 676 791 5 317 5 317 261 I 772 I 772 128 056 958 11 85 0

2 309 2 366 113 648 64s 31 172 172 804 4 682 J 682 224 1 257 1 257 S

733 143 88 85 2

2 266 1,107 412 2 751 2,rSt

• 2,707 106 14 662 9 009 16 279 7 IS5 2 984 12 322 1 881 I1099 513 9Ot6 22 010 7 832

-3124 I 1710 to if 019 1 294 2 52

'IS2 1112

-162)0 Ie; Se t r Ift'; lntt

DWhlt Cnnvon Power Plant De anm-1sionfnr Co-st Study.

Doeurnearl'd~l I121 001. BI., 0 AIppendt r 12, i',gr.13 f ir, TARtLE 0-2 Di 8ItLO CAM ON P'OIERt PLANT UNIT 2 SAtSTOR DECOMM1)ISSIONING2C COST ESTI3LTE (Tb.....ds o(200 Dtie I

I 1, -

NW1.

unwner l It esrol I

.wllB llu11~l lo'.b (r af

.1.I x-I 0

tsposal of Plant Systems (cont) 22 24 Enlractlon Steam & Heater Dnp 22 25 Feedatelr System 22 28 Feed.ater System (tnsutated) 22 27 Feedinater System (RCA Insulated) 22 28 Feedoater System (RCA) 22 29 Fire Plotectron 22 30 Fne Protection (RCA) 22 31 Gaseous Radroaste 22 32 HVAC (Clean tnsulated1 22 33 HVAC (Clean) 22 34 HVAC (Contamenated Insulated) 22 35 HVAC (Conlamoated) 22 36 HVAC (Contaminated)- FH3 22 37 Liquid Radwaste 22 38 Uquod Rad2ast. (Insulated1 22 39 Lub4 0R Dtribution & Punficat8on 22 40 Make up Water 22 41 Make-sp Water (Insulated) 22 42 Make-up Water (RCA Insulated) 22 43 Make-up Water (RCA) 22 44 Mechanical Department Equipment 22 45 Mrscelaneous Reactor Coolant 22 48 NSSS Sampling 22 4? NSSS Sampitng (Insulated) 22 48 Ndtmgen & Hydrogen 22 49 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) 22 50 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA Insulated) 22 51 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA) 22 52 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling 22 53 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling (Insulated 22 54 Oily Water Separator & TO Sump 22 55 Res dual Heat Removal 22 58 Safety tnteiton 22 57 Safety Injection (Insulated) 22 58 Safety Injectton (RCA Insulated) 22 59 Satety tnjection (RCA) 22 60 Saliwater System 22 61 Sevkce Cootng Water 22 62 Senvce Cooling Water (RCA) 22 63 Sewer System Espansbon 22 64 Spent Fuel PR Cooling 22 65 Spent Fuel PR Cooing. FH3 22 66 Turbne Steam Supply 22 67 Torbmne Sleam Supply (RCA) 22 68 Turbine and Generator 22 69 Turbmne and Generator (Insulated 22 Totals 23 EreCt scaltndidg for systems ;emounl Deoeot-iafRon o Sltl Buildings 24 t Reactor 24 2 Au.trary 2.1 3 Catutat Addiltons 85 2002 21 4 Containmtnt Penenratron Area 24 5 Fuel Handing 21 6 Radwaste Storage 24 Totals v

r o r~eos 5559Y UShprial Other Contiserney Toain LtnTerns Retr AO It (\\F Ii(Y tUtF EITtCCF truoxs oIw 402 75 106 107 245 203 98 26 274 197 845 191 285 31 188 161 15 25 125 1

87 85 25 13 1

4 79 17 7

20 229 82 4

36 294 120 gO 30 31 58 SI 1.157 803 102 48 17 544 7.679 9

4 250 1

a 22 I

0 27 2

I 48 0

0 8

Il 5

301 3

I 8

4 2

104 52 24 1 463 887 723 1585 590 175 68 166 839 177 172 269 19 1o0 31 12 27 33 465 783 28 250 28 t90 201 4 810 1,234 250 46 21 222 234 127 is 50 2

ISO 77 34 4

41 74 337 74 161 14 87 24 2

a 48 0

28 38 8

2 0

10 245 2

10 204 322 13 III 18 14 12 S

66 77 981 386 63 18 7 562 t.522 925 122 311 18 988 454 198 30 315 437 2,021 443 881 71 545 185 18 54 282 154 185 41 14 t

7 129 28 12 62 1 215 192 9

77 655 138 104 70 36 407 468 6 748 2 422 416 I4 l 47 567 1 522 925 311 18 986 454 198 437 2021 443 881 71 545 54 282 154 195 4)1 7

129 28 12 82 1.215 192 8

77 655 70 407 468 6748 2 422 416 III 434 75 122 30 315 185 18 I

14 1

38 104 36 I391 83 122 19 2t9 257 1 621 276 i 195 1711 254 7 2,521 1I8 5 500 4 666 2238 662 6 878 4 025 17 417 3 929 6 662 735 4 229 3 704 376 586 2884 19 1.598 2,152 642 309 16 98 1 853 395 169 441 5409 1918 105 831 6 7886 2 779 2t of 698 716 I 363 I 9t 26 620 18 952 2 299 t037 72 5O3 III 292 1992 10081 1008t It04 922 276 227 524 25 i 03'7 997 366 178 9974 91 71 34 1042 12 19 8

531 36 17 8

475 342 22 1

604 5

8 4

213 1 Ill sn.t 241 11731) 449 192 100 274 In2l 3 425 1 010 277 259 543 69

S).1 16 190 4 263 1,124 1.123 2 320 330 25 1) 16,490 4 263 1 124 1123 2 320 330 25 tq1) 24 688 4 807 1.315 1,176 1 4*6 526 3t 1 o 5 717 22 011 S 315 S771 IS 3,2 S'

11 1 7 1(; %eit t, ex tn r-

Din blo Coot von Voier PlVnnt Derommn ctonintg Cort Stiu ly' DoctmsrnlP01-11!1 Ot. ?t,',. O ulppendix D, 1Ig It ilcf 1b TARI E D-t DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT S SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Thoussnds o 2008! Dolbur.)

l NRC RS ri Burial ctI e 10 (JN bii ccIlii lIrte

INuocler,

%etisity Dlesertpltoo Decon Remoe Pack Ship Br-ia Other Coutiujteucy Total LIeTeros Restore 6121 EI F C CF UTCC CF Ili..oes 25 License Trtmenation Survey 26 ORISE confinmatory suNey 27 Tnrtnate icense PerIod 4 Additlonal Cools 28 Vesset & Iniemars GTCC D'sposai 29 ISFSI License Tenmination 30 ISFSI Demolilion Subtotal Period 4 ActIvIty Costs Periud 4 Uodsinbuled Costs I DDon equipment 2 Decon supplies 3 DOC stat? reocalton eipensts 4 Ptocesn lquid moasl 5 Insurance 8 Propedy lu3es 7 Health physics suppfles 8 Heaoy equipment rental 9 Siat lool allowance 10 Pipe culing equipment t1 Disposal ot DAW generated 12 Decommissionig Equipment Disposition 13 Planl energy budget 14 NRC Fees 15 Site SacurIty Cost 1 LLRW Procesting Equipment Sublobl Undtstributed Costs Period 4 Staff Costs DOC Stat?

Cost Utility Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 4 PERIOD S Demolition ot Remalning Situ Pudldings 311 Reactor 31 2 Admioistraoon 31 3 Aunlfiary 314 Breakwaler 31 5 Capital Additions 85-2002 31 8 Chemical Storage 317 Chlorinabon 31 Crculaling Water Tunnels 31 9 Cold Machmne Shop 31 10 Commumcation 31 11 Condensate Polshing[Technical Support 31 12 Containment Penetruton Area 31 13 Discharge Stnuclure 3114 Fabrication Shop 31 15 Flre Pump House 3116 Fuel Handlin 31 17 Hazardous Waste Sltwrqe Focility 31 I8 Intake Structure 31 19 Mamlenance Shop 21 20 Miscotaneous Struccutns 8,074

-105 26 2.179 1.557 3 708 38 84801 13213 54 17 1.083 1,152 34 7.163 2 088 54 938 37 550 687 1,148 294 1.306 3 859 562 911 11o 1 200 8

290 27 4

809 2 851 231 253 480 1 724 685 7 8 2.722 11,796 1,798 217,991 32 137 137 Note 2 1,982 i5 195 15,195 6-04 1,004 5409 5,496 232 40,49a 239 1 830 1 830 9194 32140 180432 174211 8221 84207 3521 584 604 951 0'5 103 790 790 287 1.438 1436 198 1.502 1,502 404 1,808 198 2 003 394 25 278 278 914 4,572 4572 805 8.173 5 556 617 84 648 582 65 137 1,049 1 048 837 4,915 4915 7059 19193 131 855 855 572 778 259 1.983 1.785 1958 88 722 722 942 7,225 7 225 120 918 918 I

2,130 11,804 1 318 321 3,891 10 194 5.310 34,969 18,791 2 819 21,609 38 957 8,044 42.500 8 480 2 409 5t 827 1083492 49 812 279.510 34 088 880 7 628 2 003 20,365 21609 42 500 5 839 s5 652 272,409 7,102 91,830 5.523 584 604 971,390 5,887 793 5 449 35 437 3 410 3

7 1,035 290 3

386 423 756 92

-4

)1278 1 360 4 296 266 51 1 033 7921 119 912 817 8 256 5,316 40 752 512 3 922 1

4 I

8 155 1,190 43 333 0

4 58 444 63 486 113 869 14 109 I

S 191 1 468 204 1564 644 4 940 40 306 8

58 1,188 627 49

147 6 732 912 5 639 40 752 3 922 1190 333 444 438 889 106 1 321 1 564 4 940 309 58 102,078 10 358 92811 118381 51,043 41i 07 20 361 3 779 44 fict59

-6 on(

t 9052 1 223 55 18.157 1147 r7 112 1 II 11 (

i i#c I cf I'. hit

Dfla bl Catonvn Por Pr Plant Derommissuloning Cost Stidy.

TABLE D-2 DIAJLO CAN1ON POWER PLANT UNIT 2 SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Thousands af02S Dollars)

Docunent' 101-11 1-003, fli, 0

AIppendii rt. IPoge IS./ IS II)

L rnI Rt1e Brial Fite ii Li-it lt trait L,.t,-

I an-b.,

A,,tisity Dearriptian Ocea Rnnnn Pais Ship Blarta Other Caasietesry Total LIcTer"s Restor CF

-11LIF C CF

(.TCC CF floar.

I Denmnldon ol Resalni.

Site Buildings leant) 31 21 NPO Per anenl Warehouse 31 22 Ponds 31 23 Portable Fire Pump b Fuel Carl 31 24 Pretrealment 31 25 Radwasle Slorage 31 26 RolorWarhouse 3127 Secudity 31 28 Simulator 31 29 Telephone Temmnal 31 30 Turbnne 31 31 TurbIne Pedeslal 31 32 Vehile Maintenance 31 33 Waste Waler Holding b Trealmenl Faolity 31 Totals Sde Closeout Aclivitles 32 Remove Rubble 33 Grade & landscape site 34 Final report to NRC Subtotal PerIod 5 Activity Costs PeriodS Undlsitnbuted Cosls I Insurance 2 Property loes 3 Heavy equipment rental 4 Smt toolt atiohance S Plant energy budget 6 Site Secturity Cost Subtotal Undistrlbuted Costs Pertod 5 Stalf Coals DOC Stalf Cost Utility Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 5 I 057 1,403 717 256 318 2

3 468 8

938 27 18 70.464 159 1 218 1216 0

I I

0 I

I I

9 9

210 1 813 81 1,533 107 824 824 43 329 329 47 364 384 0

2 2

520 3,988 3,986 141 1,079 1079 4

31 31 3

20 20 t0 570 81,034 2,091 78 943 14 092 18 l4 108 18,20 9 938 3 D42 4 191 28 58 341 11 300 368 238 601 721 108,505 1,395 180 364 15,278 124.781 124,781 184 228 209 1.605 1,605 4 587 125 19 143 143 125 27,073 207.562 2,234 205,328 790 534 3,820 649 4,470 100 136 t 493 10 110 573 4,393 97 746 20 157 224 1.717 110 4,393 746 157 1,717

.I 1,730 925 7,124 110 7,014 9.994 1 499 11493 114 93 68 53 998 7,651 6 888 785 18.501 30,495 233 830 9 230 224.600 184 834 790 534 71.t: Seit iev hics.

D

Di~lobb (annn I'owger Plant De'osmrrsi dn,,ng Cost St udy.

TABLE D-2 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLSNT UNIT I qAFSTOR DECOMMIISSIONING COST ESTIMTTE IThousUnd..t(:gt D.il-rsI Appen dix D, Page 16 of Is' I - 1it I Nu ber Ar~i,.1 n.-.r.r..o

)

.R

.1-is NeL kac Su0p uus.

is LiR hi ots

-il AtlC(T Fou P-c, S3b-,p Buclul Otther CostsssteeCy Tolu

LieTerm, ReSts..

A%

(Y B CFI

(.CF GTCC CF flours I

TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION Total cst to decommission wtth Total NRC license termination cost Is Nonnu.clear demolillon wct is Total bunal si.e radwsloe volume buded Total 10CFR61 greater lsan class C waste boned Total ccrap metal released Ironm sit Tota craft labor seqarremerit 10,714 238 501 9 830 2,707 63 039 337.457 116.560 779,543 546,828 232,715 101,957 7.314 584 604 1 63 721 t 759%

cwtolgency 70 15%

or 29 z5%

or 5779 542 040 5540 828.119 5232 714 727 109 i55 cubol bel 604 cubic lel 22,080 tons 1.883 721 person hout NOTES V Indicates costs less Ihan $500

1) Thbs actvty Is performed by the decommrsslonrng slaft flblowing plant shuldown. the costs hr thts am Included in thfs pedod's slaff cost

2) Thls ctcliuty. while performed alter hnal plant shutdown, Is considered part of operations and Iherefore no decoommrsslontng costs are Included for thIs *civIty 11(;~e

• 1'tt'/I'e, ra,..

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Decommissioning Cost Study for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant - Unit 3

Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0

''



-r'-

''

prepared for PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY prepared by TLG Services, Inc.

Bridgewater, Connecticut February 2002

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR APPROVALS Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Page ii of xi Project Engineer Project Manager Technical Manager Quality Assurance Manager William ietz Geofi M. Grif ts William A. Cloutier Carl Palmrer

-2/ 13 /( z-Date 2'1 f 6-Date Dae z

Date Date TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page iii of xi TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Vii

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Objective of Study 1-1 1.2 Site Description 1-1 1.3 Regulatory Guidance 1-2 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act..............................................

1-4 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act............ 1-6 1.3.3 Other Regulations and Standards Applicable to Decommissioning.1-6 1.3.4 Radioactive Criteria for License Termination.1-7

2.

SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES.

2-1 2.1 Period 2-Safe Storage and Decommissioning Preparations..

2-2 2.2 Period 3-Preparations 2-3 2.2.1 Engineering and Planning.2-3 2.2.2 Site Preparations.2-4 2.3 Period 4 - Decommissioning Operations & License Termination..

2-4 2.3.1 NSSS System/Component Removal...........................................2-5 2.3.2 Post NSSS System/Component Removal.2-7 2.3.3 Building Demolition...................

2-7 2.3.4 Final Site Survey - License Termination.2-7 2.4 Period 5-Site Restoration 2-8

3.

COST ESTIMATE.

3-1 3.1 Basis of Estimate.3-1 3.2 Methodology 3-2 3.3 Financial Components of the Cost Model

.3-3 3.3.1 Contingency.

3-3 3.3.2 Financial Risk.3-8 3.4 Site Specific Considerations 3-9 3.4.1 Spent Fuel Disposition.3-9 3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components.3-9 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page ivof xi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 3.4.3 Main Turbine and Condenser......................................

3-10 3.4.4 Plant Systems......................................

3-11 3.4.5 Humboldt Bay Unit 3 Facilities......................................

3-11 3.4.6 Transportation Methods......................................

3-14 3.4.7 Coordination with Units 1 and 2......................................

3-15 3.4.8 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning............................ 3-15 3.5 Assumptions.......................................

3-15 3.5.1 Estimating Basis......................................

3-16 3.5.2 Labor Costs......................................

3-16 3.5.3 General......................................

3-17 3.6 Cost Estimate Summary......................................

3-19

4.

SCHEDULE ESTIMATE 4-1 4.1 Schedule Estimate Assumptions.............................

4-1 4.2 Project Schedule.............................

4-2

5.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE 5-1 5.1 General.....................

5-1 5.2 Class A Waste and Recycling................................................................5-1 5.3 Class B Waste.....................

5-2 5.4 Class C Waste.....................

5-2 5.5 Greater Than Class C Waste.....................

5-2

6.

RESULTS...........

6-1

7.

REFERENCES...............................................................................................7-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page v of xi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE TABLES 3.1a Schedule of Expenditures.................................................. 3-20 3.1b Schedule of Expenditures, Excluding CPUC Disallowances........................... 3-21 5.1 Decommissioning Waste Disposal Summary.5-3 6.1 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Contributors.6-2 FIGURES 1.1 Layout of the Nuclear Plant Site and Surrounding Area.1-8 1.2 Schematic Diagram of the Vessel and Internals.1-9 1.3 Sectional View Through the Caisson.1-10 4.1 Decommissioning Timeline.4-3 APPENDICES A

- Work Difficulty Factor Adjustments................................

A-1 B

Unit Cost Factor Development.B-i C

Unit Cost Factor Listing (Representative of Power Block Structures Only) C-1 D

Humboldt Bay 2015 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost.D-l E

Humboldt Bay 2015 SAFSTOR CPUC Cost Disallowances.

E-1 F

Humboldt Bay 2015 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Schedule.F-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR REVISION LOG Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Page vi of xi Re. No.

CRANo.

Date ][ Item Revised l

- -Reason for Revision I

2131 Orgin I

I,,ss.

0 02/13/02 Original Issue I l --

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page vii of xi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

TLG Services, Inc (1LG) has prepared a site-specific cost study for the 2015 SAFSTOR decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 (HBPP3) for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

This estimate includes a comprehensive cost and schedule estimate for completing the decommissioning of HBPP3 based on outlined work areas of the plant. This estimate assumes that HBPP3 will continue with current decommissioning plans and project commitments until June 1, 2004, at which time a decision is made to cancel the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) project and continue with wet fuel storage and defer decommissioning work until 2015, after the spent fuel is transferred to the DOE. Manpower levels and activity durations were developed and are reflected within the project schedule along with other associated site programs.

The projected cost to decommission HBPP3, including an 18.5% contingency, is estimated to be approximately $362.1 million (2002 dollars).

The California Public Utility Commission has previously ruled that certain costs that w6re incurred after HBPP3 was permanently shutdown would not be included in rates for recovery of Q

decommissioning costs. The portion of the above costs that have been identified by the (CPUC) as decommissioning disallowances is estimated at $972,354. The major cost contributors to the overall decommissioning cost are labor, and the disposition of waste generated in the decontamination and demolition of the unit. The estimate is based on several key assumptions, including regulatory requirements, estimating methodology, contingency requirements, low-level radioactive waste disposal availability, high-level radioactive waste disposal options, and site restoration requirements. A complete discussion of the assumptions used in this estimate is presented in Section 3.

A detailed breakdown of these major cost contributors to the decommissioning cost estimate is reported in Section 6 of this document. Schedules of annual expenditures are provided in Section 3, and detailed cost, waste volume, and man-hour schedules are provided in Appendix D. Costs are reported in 2002 dollars. Cash flows are based on schedule forecasts as of July 2001.

Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided general decommissioning guidance in the rule adopted on June 27, 1988.1 In this rule the NRC sets forth 1

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 "General Q

Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018+), June 27, 1988.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page viii of xi technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities. The regulation addresses planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements for decommissioning.

The rule also defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC - DECON, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB.

DECON was 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." 2 SAFSTOR was 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." 3 ENTOMB was 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." 4 In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process. The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning. The costs and schedules presented in this estimate follow the general guidance and sequence in the amended regulations.

Methodologv The methodology used to develop the decommissioning cost estimates for HBPP3 follows the basic approach originally presented in the Guidelines.5 This reference describes a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs. The 2

Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2.

5 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIFINESP-036, May 1986.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page ix of xi unit cost factors used in this study reflect site-specific costs, as well as the latest available information about worker productivity in decommissioning.

The data obtained from the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, as well as from TLG's involvement in the decommissioning planning and engineering for the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Trojan, Rancho Seco, Pathfinder, and Cintichem reactor facilities, is reflected within this estimate.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule required for calculating the carrying costs which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, quality assurance, and security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates has ensured a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting costs.

Contingency Consistent with industry practice, contingencies are applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs developed as, "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope, particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur."6 The cost elements in this estimate are based on ideal conditions; therefore, the types of unforeseeable events that are almost certain to occur in decommissioning, based on industry experience, are addressed through a percentage contingency applied on a line-item basis.

This contingency factor is a nearly universal element in all large-scale construction and demolition projects. It should be noted that contingency, as used in this estimate, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning during the decommissioning period.

The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a safety factor issue. Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds, by contrast, are expected to be fully expended throughout the program.

Application of contingency on a line-item basis is necessary to provide assurance that sufficient funding will be available to accomplish the intended tasks.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The contaminated and activated material removed in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level radioactive Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engi-

- neers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page x of xi waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. A majority of the contaminated material generated in dismantling the plant is routed off-site to waste recovery vendors for processing, decontamination and volume reduction.

With the passage of the 'Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act" in 1980, and its Amendments of 1985, the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. However, at this time a regional facility is not available. There are 3 types of low-level radioactive waste acceptable for near surface disposal, Class A, B and C. All require controlled disposal in a licensed, near-surface disposal facility. These classes distinguish the degree of disposal requirements with A having the least and C the greatest requirements.

Consequently, low-level radioactive generated in the decontamination and dismantling of HBPP3, and requiring controlled disposal, is assumed to be shipped to the future Southwest Compact site or other nationally available low-level disposal site. This estimate assumes that one of these alternatives will become available by 2015 to support decommissioning operations.

High-Level Waste Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the Department of Energy (DOE). This legislation also created a Nuclear Waste Fund to cover the cost of the program, which is funded by the sale of electricity from PG&E and an estimated equivalent for assemblies irradiated prior to April 1983. The target date for startup of the federal Waste Management System was originally 1998.

However, after a series of delays, the DOE has no plans to accept any spent fuel from commercial U.S. reactors before the year 2010.

For purposes of this cost study, TLG has assumed that the high-level waste repository or some interim storage facility will be operational by 2010. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(bb), PG&E is responsible for the management of the irradiated nuclear fuel at the reactor until such time that possession of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy.

Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC guidelines will result in substantial damage to many of the site structures.

Blasting, coring, drilling, scarification (surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay PowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Page xi of xi damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports.

Prompt demolition after license termination is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option.

All above-ground demolition debris is assumed to be transported and disposed of at a controlled disposal facility. Site structures not associated with Units 1 and 2 will be removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade level.

Below grade structures will be decontaminated and the site will then be graded and landscaped.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 1 of 10

1. INTRODUCTION TLG prepared this decommissioning cost estimate to provide Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with sufficient information to prepare the financial planning documents for decommissioning, as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It is not a detailed engineering document, but a cost estimate prepared in advance of the detailed engineering planning required to carry out the decommissioning of the HBPP3.

1.1 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY The objective of the study is to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the cost, a schedule of the associated activities, and an estimate of the volume of radioactive waste generated during decommissioning of HBPP3.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION HBPP3 is located approximately four miles southwest of Eureka, California.

The site consists of approximately 143 acres located on the mainland shore of Humboldt Bay. Figure 1.1 shows the layout of the site and the surrounding area. The adjacent generating units are fossil-fueled and are not considered in the scope of this study, except where noted.

The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) for HBPP3 consists of a single cycle, natural circulation, boiling water reactor and the associated control and support systems. Figure 1.2 shows a schematic diagram of the reactor pressure vessel and internal components. The generating unit has a rated core -thermal power of 220 MWth (thermal) with a corresponding net electrical output of 65 MWe (electric).

The NSSS is located within the "primary containment structure." The primary containment is located mostly below grade and consists of a drywell vessel and a suppression chamber. Both the drywell and the suppression chamber area are located within-a reinforced concrete caisson. The drywell vessel is centrally located in the caisson and serves as the primary containment vessel. The suppression chamber is constructed of reinforced concrete and lined with carbon steel plate. Six vent pipes connect the drywell to a common ring header at the top of the suppression chamber. Downcomers drop from the ring header and terminate below the normal water level of the suppression pool. As a system, the drywell, suppression chamber, and interconnecting piping were TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 2 of 10 designed to reduce the pressure increase in the event of a local process system piping failure. Figure 1.3, a sectional view through the caisson, depicts this general arrangement and the associated concrete structure.

The turbine-generator system converts heat produced in the reactor to electrical energy. This system converts the thermal energy of steam produced in the reactor vessel into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The unit's turbine-generator consists of a tandem, compound, double flow, condensing turbine directly connected to a 13,800V, 3-phase, 60 cycle, hydrogen-cooled, synchronous generator. The turbine consists of a single flow high-pressure section and a double flow, low-pressure section with a crossover pipe connecting the two sections. The turbine is operated in a closed feedwater cycle whereby steam is condensed and the condensate/feedwater is returned to the reactor vessel. Heat rejected in the main condenser is removed by the Circulating Water System (CWS). The CWS delivers the water required to remove the heat load from the main condenser and other auxiliary equipment and returns it to the bay through the discharge pipes and a canal.

Commercial operation began in August of 1963 and continued until July of 1976, at which time the unit was shut down after approximately 13 years of operations to conduct seismic modifications. In 1983 PG&E announced the decision to decommission Unit 3. The plant has been maintained in an NRC safe-storage condition since that time.

Active plant systems presently supporting the wet storage of the spent fuel will be retired once the fuel is transferred to the Department of Energy (DOE).

1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or -Commission) provided decommissioning guidance in the rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," (Ref. 1) published and adopted on June 27, 1988. This rule amended NRC regulations and established technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities.

The regulation addresses decommissioning planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements. The intent of the rule is to ensure that decommissioning will be accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be available. Subsequent to the rule, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," (Ref. 2) which provided guidance to the licensees of nuclear facilities on methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the requirements of the rule. The regulatory guide addresses TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 3 of 10 the funding requirements and provides guidance on the content and form of the financial assurance mechanisms indicated in the rule amendments.

The rule defines the following three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB.

DECON is defined by the rule 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."

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."

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."

The rule places limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is restricted in overall duration to 60 years unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar, providing the NRC with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that these deferred options are only used in situations where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decommissioning. Consequently, with these restrictions, the SAFSTOR and ENTOMB options are no longer decommissioning alternatives in themselves, as neither terminates the license for the site. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer for ENTOMB if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the definition of unrestricted release and license termination.

The 60-year restriction has limited the practicality of the ENTOMB alternative at commercial reactors that generate significant amounts of long-lived radioactive material. However, the NRC is currently re-evaluating this option and the TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 4 of 10 technical requirements and regulatory actions that would be necessary for entombment to become a viable option.

When the decommissioning regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority of licensees would decommission at the end of the operating license life.

Since that time, several licensees had permanently and prematurely ceased operations without having submitted a decommissioning plan. In addition, these licensees requested exemptions from certain operating requirements as being unnecessary once the reactor is defueled. Each case has been handled individually without clearly defined generic requirements. The NRC amended the decommissioning regulations in 1996 to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process (Ref. 3).

The new amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

Under the revised regulations, licensees will submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days after the decision is made to cease operations.

Certification will also be required once fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Submittal of these notices will entitle the licensee to a fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to follow certain requirements needed only during operation of the reactor. Within two years of submitting notice of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee is required to submit a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the NRC. This report describes the planned decommissioning activities, the associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee will be required to submit an application to the NRC to terminate the license, along with a license termination plan.

1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 (Ref. 4), assigning the responsibility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel from the commercial generating plants to the Department of Energy (DOE). Two permanent disposal facilities were envisioned, as well as an interim facility.

To recover the cost of permanent spent fuel disposal, this legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money was to be collected from the consumers of the electricity generated by commercial nuclear power plants.

The target startup date of the federal Waste Management System was 1998.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 5 of 10 After pursuing a national site selection process, the Act was amended in 1987 to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the only site to be evaluated for geologic disposal of high-level waste. Also in 1987, DOE announced a five-year delay in the opening date for the repository, from 1998 to 2003. Two years later, in 1989, an additional 7-year delay was announced, primarily due to problems in obtaining the required permits from the state of Nevada to perform the required characterization of the site. DOE has projected additional delays as a result of proposed Congressional reductions in appropriations for the program.

The NRC recently approved the DOE siting guidelines for the Yucca Mountain site. A recommendation by the Energy Secretary to use the Yucca Mountain site as the country's high-level waste burial site has been made. Even at this point in the review process, the ultimate fate of the site is still very questionable.

Utilities have responded to this impasse by initiating legal action and constructing supplemental storage as a means of maintaining necessary operating margins. On November 14, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Northern States Power Company, et al., v. U.S. Department of Energy. In the decision, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Indiana Michigan Power Company, et al v. U.S. Department of Energy that the DOE has an unconditional obligation to begin disposal of the utilities' spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. Since the agency was not in default at the time the Northern States Power decision was issued, the court declined to prescribe "remedies" in the likely event the DOE failed to uphold its obligation.

More recently, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of Yankee Atomic Power Company in its damage claim. However, even with the ruling, the DOE's position has remained unchanged. The agency continues to maintain that its delayed performance is unavoidable because it does not have an operational repository and does not have authority to provide storage in the interim. Consequently, the DOE has no plans to accept any spent fuel from commercial U.S. reactors before the year 2010.

For purposes of this cost study, TLG has assumed that the high-level waste repository or some interim storage facility will be operational by 2010. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(bb), PG&E is responsible for the management of the irradiated nuclear fuel at the reactor until such time that possession of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 6 of 10 For purposes of the decommissioning cost estimate, DOE is assumed to initiate spent fuel acceptance from HBPP3 starting in the year 2011.

The rate of acceptance from HBPP3 is based upon the "Acceptance Priority Ranking & Annual Capacity Report" (Ref. 5) issued by the DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Based upon this publication and a 2011 start date, the transfer can be completed by the year 2015.

1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act Congress passed the "Low-Level Radioactive Disposal Act" in 1980, declaring the states as being ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.

The federal law encouraged the formation of regional groups or compacts to implement this objective safely, efficiently and economically, and set a target date of 1986. With little progress, the "Amendments Act" of 1985 (Ref. 6) extended the target date, with specific milestones and strong sanctions for non-compliance.

However, more than 20 years later, no new regional sites have been developed, only one new commercial site has been placed in service, and even the most advanced program is far behind schedule.

This study assumes that Class A, B, and C low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of HBPP3 is shipped to the future Southwest Compact facility and that the facility will be operational and able to support decommissioning operations by the year 2015.

1.3.3 Other Regulations and Standards Applicable to Decommissioning Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20 (10 CFR 20) titled, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," regulates the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual does not exceed the radiation protection standards.

(According to 10 CFR 20.1001, the total dose to an individual includes doses from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background radiation). In addition, the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301 apply to NRC-licensed facilities during decommissioning and when the facility is operational.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 7 of 10 10 CFR 50 Appendix I provides numerical guidance for keeping radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents released to unrestricted areas ALARA, "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" during normal operations of a nuclear power reactor.

1.3.4 Radioactive Criteria for License Termination In 1997, 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination" (Ref.

7) was published.

This subpart provides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use. The regulation provides that the site can be released for unrestricted use if radioactivity levels are such that the average member of a critical group would not receive a Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in excess of 25 millirem per year, and provided residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are ALARA.

In December 1997 the NRC, in cooperation with the EPA, DOE, and DOD issued the "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual" (MIARSSIM as NUREG -1575. This document provides information on planning, conducting, evaluating and documenting radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose or risk-based regulations and standards. The NRC is using this manual as its primary standard for reviewing License Termination Plans.

It should be noted that the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) differ on the amount of residual radioactivity considered acceptable after site remediation. The EPA has two limits that apply to radioactive materials. An EPA limit of 15 millirem per year is derived from criteria established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).

An additional limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR Part 141.16, is applied to drinking water.

The Congress has prohibited the EPA from spending funds to enforce cleanup requirements at sites under the jurisdiction of the NRC.

However, the mandate is not legally binding and the possibility exists that a site, once released from its NRC license, could be subject to EPA regulation. Furthermore one state has established decommissioning site release limits that are below both the EPA and NRC limits.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Document POI-1421-O00i Rev 0 Section 1, Page 8 of 10 FIGURE 1.1 LAYOUT OF THE NUCLEAR PLANT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA TLG Services;, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 9 of 10 FIGURE 1.2 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE VESSEL AND INTERNALS to". U.C.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 1, Page 10 of 10 FIGURE 1.3 SECTIONAL VIEW THROUGH THE CAISSON HEAT EXCHANGERS RESIN STORAGE TA4K -

8SHUTDOWN*Hi EXCHANGERS CCRA$C DUMP TARK-

-CORE SPRAY PUMPS NO. I

& 2

'6UCT. REACTOR CLEAN-UP PUMP DISCH.

REDT, TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page I of 8

2. SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES This section describes the activities associated with the decontamination and disassembly of the plant. Although detailed procedures for each activity identified are not provided, and the actual sequence of work may vary, the activity descriptions provide a basis not only for estimating, but also for understanding the expected scope of work, i.e., engineering and planning at the time of decommissioning.

The operation, shut down, and safe storage of the nuclear unit were described in detail in the decommissioning plan, "SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3" (Ref. 8). The activities and associated costs expended to date are therefore not repeated here.

This study specifically addresses those activities and costs associated with the conclusion of the safe storage period and the subsequent decommissioning process.

This study assumes that current decommissioning planning and preparation activities including the preliminary engineering and licensing of an ISFSI will continue until C

June, 2004. Subsequently, PG&E decides to keep the fuel in wet storage, and defer the start of the decommissioning project until the spent fuel has been shipped to the DOE.

Decommissioning would then continue without any spent fuel related restrictions or limitations.

The NRC defines SAFSTOR 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 a level that permits release for unrestricted use." The decommissioning scenario evaluated in this study presumes that decommissioning activities will officially start in 2015, after the transfer of spent fuel to the DOE.

The SAFSTOR decommissioning plan prepared by PG&E primarily addressed the activities and tasks related to preparing and maintaining the facility in safe storage.

The document was originally intended to be revised (updated) prior to initiating decommissioning activities. Under the current NRC decommissioning requirements, the SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan was considered to be both a PSDAR, and a Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR). As a result, PG&E submitted a PSDAR in February 1998 that describes planned decommissioning activities and associated schedule and cost (Ref 9). The SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan was renamed the DSAR, and it contains system descriptions, administrative controls, and accident analysis. At least two years prior to license termination, PG&E will submit a License Termination Plan.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page 2 of 8 The current NRC guidance (Reg. Guide 1.184 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors) defines decommissioning in three phases. The current plant status (safe storage) is addressed in Phase II. This phase is applicable to the dormancy phase of the deferred decommissioning alternatives.

Phase III pertains to the activities involved in license termination.

The TLG cost estimating methodology subdivides the decommissioning project into periods, based upon major milestones in the project. Continuing Phase II expenses, denoted as Period 2 in this study, are not addressed in detail. Phase Im, addressing the activities associated with license termination, is subdivided into Periods 3 and 4 in the cost estimate. Period 5 addresses those activities required for site restoration.

2.1 PERIOD 2

SAFE STORAGE AND DECOMMISSIONING PREPARATIONS Current site activities include: preventive and corrective maintenance on essential systems, general building maintenance, operation and maintenance of heating and ventilation equipment, routine radiological inspections of contaminated structures, maintenance of structural integrity, and monitoring of environmental and radiation conditions.

Since the two adjoining fossil units are operational and site resources can be shared, the staff dedicated to Unit 3 is minimal. Consequently, to support decommissioning operations, PG&E will have to secure additional resources, both internally from the corporate organization and through external contractors.

Pre-decommissioning Period 2 activities are included in this study, one of which is preliminary engineering and licensing activities for an ISFSI.

ISFSI construction costs are not included since the decision to postpone the decommissioning and, continue with wet storage is made before the start of construction expenditures.

The following additional preparatory activities are scheduled during Period 2 prior to start of the formal decommissioning abatement of asbestos, performance of a vessel and internals activation analysis, performance of a radiological characterization survey of work areas, major components, and structures (including the drywell, sampling of internal piping and primary shield cores, development of cost and work control programs, development of detailed work plans and schedules, development of a radioactive waste TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page 3 of 8 processing and disposal plan, and the development of the engineering decommissioning licensing basis.

2.2 PERIOD 3 - PREPARATIONS In anticipation of decommissioning, preparations are undertaken to provide a smooth transition from safe storage. The organization required to plan and manage the intended decommissioning activities is assumed to be assembled from available utility staff and outside resources, as required. For purposes of this study a decommissioning operations contractor (DOC) is utilized to manage the decommissioning and to manage and perform the physical decommissioning activities and associated management functions. A radwaste contractor will be employed to manage the processing and disposal of decommissioning waste, including the recycling of equipment, components, and material and the disposal of all decommissioning waste, including concrete and steel structural debris, contaminated soil, and associated hazardous and mixed waste.

2.2.1 Engineering and Planning Significant technical and engineering planning and evaluating must be performed in preparation for physical decommissioning activities.

Technical requirements documents are prepared for

systems, components, and structures during each phase of the decommissioning.

These engineering requirements are then transferred into specific documents for the preparation of material and services contracts and for the preparation of detailed work plans and work authorization documents.

Also, regulations require the preparation of a license termination plan. The plan is required at least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination.

The plan includes a site characterization, description of the remaining dismantling activities, plans for site remediation, procedures for the final radiation survey, designation of any reuse of the site, an updated cost estimate to complete the decommissioning, and resolution of environmental concerns.

The NRC will make the plan available for public comment. Plan approval will be subject to conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by the NRC. Much of the information needed in preparing this submittal will have been used to develop the detailed engineering plans and procedures needed to support Period 4 activities.

Other engineering and planning work activities performed during Period 3 include: evaluating alternatives for the removal of highly radioactive TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1i421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page 4 of 8 reactor vessel components, identifying specialty contractors, selecting the methodology and requirements for systems and structures decontamination, preparing procedures for radioactive material disposal, and designing and procuring specialty tooling.

2.2.2 Site Preparations In preparation for the actual decommissioning, the following physical tasks are performed and included in the cost estimate:

Constructing and modifying site support and storage facilities, as required.

• Processing and disposal of residual liquid, solid, and mixed waste inventories.

Procuring waste containers, including specialty containers for the disposition of highly activated and hazardous materials. The types of containers needed to support decommissioning operations include strong-tight steel boxes and drums, shielded transport casks, high integrity containers, intermodal containers, and shipping transportation trailers.

• Developing procedures for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous effluent, processing of radwaste including dry active waste (DAW), resins, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning, site security and emergency programs, hazardous waste identification and processing, and industrial safety.

2.3-PERIOD 4-DECOMMISSIONING OPERATIONS & LICENSE TERMINATION The decommissioning cost estimate has divided this period into sub-periods to assist in the development of cost elements and to better understand the work sequence and the overall duration of the work phase. Significant flexibility exists in system and component removal since the spent fuel has been removed from the fuel pool and the fuel pool has been cleaned prior to Period 3. These sub-periods include; NSSS Removal, Post NSSS Removal, Building Demolition and Final Site Survey-License Termination.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page 5 of 8 2.3.1 NSSS System/Component Removal This phase includes: construction of temporary facilities and shielding, modification of existing storage facilities to support the dismantling activities, decontamination of selected systems and components, procurement of specialty tooling, and modifications to systems and structures to support handling of the waste from reactor vessel and spent fuel pool removal.

The following is a general chronological list of the system and component removal activities performed during this period.

Removal of major turbine components, e.g. generator, turbine and condenser.

Removal of components and systems in the Turbine Building, including piping, pumps, heat exchangers and associated mechanical and electrical components.

• Removal of electrical control boards, distribution buses, and transformers.

• Removal of Hot Machine Shop equipment and piping.

• Removal of the reactor vessel closure head. The head may be a candidate for decontamination; however, for estimating purposes it is assumed to be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste.

Segmentation of the head may be desirable to increase packaging efficiency and minimize its disposal volume.

Removal and segmenting of the steam dryer, core spray piping, feedwater sparger and chimney, as required, for transport.

Component segmentation may be performed in the reactor vessel; however, relocation to the spent fuel pool would allow greater control with respect to water clarity and provide greater flexibility in packaging, Le., homogenization of the waste forms. Material meeting 10 CFR 61 Class C criteria or less may be routed for off-site disposal at a commercial shallow-land waste disposal facility.

• Disassembly/segmentation of remaining reactor internals, including the core shroud, core support assembly, control rod guide tube and other miscellaneous components. These operations will probably be TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page 6 of 8 confined to the reactor vessel due to the higher activation levels of the components. Packaging and transfer of GTCC material to a DOE storage facility.

Segmentation/sectioning of the reactor vessel, placing segments into shielded containers.

The operation is performed remotely, in-air, using a shielded work platform and a contamination control envelope.

Sections are placed in liners and stored in the spent fuel pool. The liners are loaded into shielded transport casks for disposal at a commercial shallow-land waste disposal facility.

• Removal of control rod drive housings from reactor vessel bottom head and packaging for controlled disposal. The bottom head may be highly contaminated from the swarf generated from in-vessel segmentation activities. It may be advantageous to relocate the head to the spent fuel pool for additional processing and preparation for disposal.

This will also significantly lower the working radiation levels within the drywell and allow disassembly work to proceed.

• Removal of systems and associated components as they become non-essential to the vessel removal operation, related decommissioning activities, or worker health and safety (e.g., waste collection and processing systems, electrical and ventilation systems, etc.).

• Removal of steel drywell liner and the steel vent pipes connecting the drywell to the suppression chamber. Contaminated surfaces can be designated for decontamination while activated portions are packaged for direct disposal. This activity would also include the removal of activated concrete from behind the drywell steel and the concrete floor slab at the bottom of the caisson, and packaging the material for direct disposal.

• Decontamination and removal of the suppression chamber steel, Disposition as appropriate.

Components removed in the decontamination and dismantling of HBPP3 will be routed to an on-site central processing area. Material that has been preliminarily screened to be free of contamination will be shipped to an off-site processing facility where final release surveys will be conducted. Contaminated material will be characterized and segregated for off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction, TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page 7 of 8 waste treatment, etc.) and/or packaged for controlled disposal at the designated low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

2.3.2 Post NSSS Svstem/Component Removal The following is a general chronological list of the system and component removal activities performed during this period.

Removal of contaminated equipment and material from the Radwaste Treatment Building. Decontaminate the structures, e.g.,

scarifying concrete surfaces until residual levels of contamination are acceptable for unrestricted release.

Decontamination of remaining contaminated site buildings and facilities. Package and dispose of all remaining low-level radioactive waste, and any remaining hazardous and toxic materials.

• Removal of remaining components, equipment, and plant services in support of the area release survey(s).

• Removal of contaminated soil and contaminated drain and catch basins. Remediation of the intake and discharge canals.

2.3.3 Building Demolition Buildings in the Restricted Area (RCA) will be decontaminated as necessary to allow conventional demolition. Structures will be removed down to three feet below grade.

Demolition debris will be packaged, shipped, and disposed of at the future Southwest Compact facility.

The waste will be packaged in intermodal containers and shipped by barge to a railhead in San Francisco or Portland for final rail shipment to the future Southwest Compact facility, assumed to be a located within approximately 1,000 miles of HBPP3.

2.3.4 Final Site Survey - License Termination

'Incorporated into the License Termination Plan, the Final Survey Plan details the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed. The Final Site Survey will be performed in accordance with MARSSIM. This document delineates the TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 2, Page 8 of 8 statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation acceptable to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NRC.

It also identifies state-of-the-art, commercially available, instrumentation and procedures for conducting radiological surveys.

Use of this guideline ensures that survey design and implementation are conducted in a manner that provides a high degree of confidence that NRC criteria are satisfied. Once the survey is complete, the results are provided to the NRC in a format that can be verified. The NRC then reviews and evaluates the information, mobilizes a team to perform an independent confirmation sample survey of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license.

The NRC will terminate the license if it determines that the site remediation has been performed in accordance with the License Termination Plan and the Final Survey Plan, and that appropriate documentation has been presented to demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. Once all applicable requirements are satisfied, the NRC can terminate the Part 50 license.

2.4 PERIOD 5 - SITE RESTORATION Excavated areas will be backfilled to grade using clean fill. A small volume of clean asphalt paving will be available and used as fill. Site areas affected by the dismantling activities are cleaned and the plant area graded as required to prevent ponding and inhibit the refloating of subsurface materials.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 1 of 21

3. COST ESTIMATE A site-specific cost estimate was prepared for decommissioning HBPP3.

The estimate accounts for the unique features of the site, including the nuclear boiler, electric power generating systems, structures, and supporting facilities. The basis of the estimate and the sources of information, methodology, site-specific considerations, assumptions, and total costs are described in this section.

3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The estimate was developed using work areas as the incremental unit. As part of the 1997 cost estimate, each accessible area was visually inspected and a physical inventory of each area was documented.

Specific consideration included material accessibility and egress, radiological conditions, and physical limitations for staging work crews.

Drawings and other documentation were used to plan and schedule activities in high radiation areas and areas currently inaccessible due to the plant's configuration. The unit factors used in developing equipment and component removal costs were adjusted for the working conditions determined for each area. Adaptation of the unit factors was accomplished by the manipulation of the duration adjustment variables or "Work Difficulty Factors" (WDFs).

The waste stream is assumed to be transferred to an on-site radioactive waste processor for recycling and disposal. Low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of HBPP3 is assumed to be buried at the future Southwest Compact facility within 1,000 miles of HBPP3.

Spent fuel is assumed to be stored in the spent fuel pool until 2011 at which time the fuel is transferred to the DOE for long term storage. Removal of the spent fuel and cleanup of the fuel pool allows PG&E to perform decontamination and dismantling activities in the Refueling Building without the current constraint to maintain active spent fuel storage pool systems and services. The estimate only includes ISFSI planning costs that are incurred prior to June 1, 2004, the assumed date that the decision is made to continue wet storage of the fuel until DOE transfer.

HBPP3 above grade structures and facilities will be decontaminated as necessary to allow conventional demolition and all demolition debris will be shipped off-site.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 2 of 21 As the licensee, PG&E will oversee the decommissioning operations. The plant staff will be augmented with the resources necessary to ensure a safe and efficient operation. This organization will supervise the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit. Oversight will continue in a reduced capacity during site restoration.

3.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop this cost estimate follows the basic approach originally presented in the AIFINESP-036 study report, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"

(Ref. 10) and the US DOE "Decommissioning Handbook" (Ref 11). These references utilize a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations. Unit cost factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch) were developed from the labor cost information provided by PG&E.

The activity-dependent costs are estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards, tons, inches, etc.) developed from plant drawings and inventory documents.

The unit cost factors used in this study reflect site-specific costs as well as the latest available information about worker productivity in decommissioning.

Lessons learned from the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells and associated facilities, completed in 1997, and from TLG's involvement in the decommissioning planning and engineering for the Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Trojan, Rancho Seco, and Pathfinder nuclear units are reflected within this estimate.

The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates. The detail available in the unit cost factors for activity time, labor (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs provide assurance that cost elements has not been omitted. These detailed unit cost factors, coupled with the plant-specific inventory of piping, components, and structures provide a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the cost estimates.

Work Difficulty Factors WDF were assigned to each area, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined hazardous environments. The ranges used for the WDFs are as follows:

Access Factor 0% - 40%

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 3 of 21 Respirator Protection Factor 0% - 50%

Radiation/ALARA Factor 0% - 100%

Protective Clothing Factor 0% - 30%

Work Break Factor 8.33%

Alpha Adjustment Factor 0% - 50%

These factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum's guideline. The factors (and their suggested application) are discussed in more detail in that publication.

The WDF assigned to each work area is delineated in Appendix A.

An activity duration critical path was used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule.

The program schedule is used to determine the period-dependent costs for program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, quality assurance, and security. The study used actual PG&E craft labor rates and adjusted them for the -local region.

Some of the costs for removal of radioactive components/

structures were based on information obtained from the "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R. S. Means (Ref. 12).. Examples of unit cost factor development are presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study. Appendix B presents the detailed development of a typical site-specific unit cost factor. Appendix C provides the values contained within one set of factors developed for the HBPP3 analyses.

3.3 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's cost model is comprised of a multitude of distinct cost line items, calculated using the unit cost factor methodology described in Section 3.2.

Period-dependent and collateral costs are added to produce a comprehensive accounting of the identified expenditures. A contingency cost is also included in the total estimated decommissioning cost for HBPP3.

3.3.1 Contingencv Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is the inability to specify the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as tool breakage, accidents, illness, weather delays,-labor stoppages, etc.

Contingency fulfills this role in TLG's cost model. Contingency is added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to develop analytically.

Such costs are historically inevitable over the TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 4 of 21 duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes monies to cover these types of expenses.

The activity-and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning costs. A contingency is then applied on a line-item basis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in Chapter 13 of the AIF[NESP-036 Guidelines Study. This reference document also identifies the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning and provides guidelines for the application of contingency.

"Contingencies" are defined in the "Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook," (Ref. 13) as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur." The cost elements in this estimate are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, a contingency factor has been applied.

It should be noted that contingency, as used in this estimate, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the program duration.

The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a "safety factor issue." Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur.

Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program.

They also provide assurance that sufficient funding is available to accomplish the intended tasks.

An estimate without contingency, or from which contingency has been removed, can disrupt the orderly progression of events and jeopardize a successful conclusion to the decommissioning process.

The most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a nuclear generating unit will be the disposition of the reactor vessel and internal components, which have become highly radioactive after a lifetime of exposure to radiation produced in the core. The disposition of these highly radioactive components forms the basis for the critical path (schedule) for decommissioning operations.

Cost and schedule are interdependent and any deviation in schedule may have an impact on cost for performing a specific activity.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 5 of 21 Disposition of the reactor vessel internal components involves the underwater cutting of complex components that are highly radioactive.

Costs are based upon optimum segmentation, handling, and packaging scenarios. The schedule is primarily dependent upon the turnaround time for the heavily shielded shipping casks, including preparation, loading, and decontamination of the containers for transport.

The number of casks required is a function of the pieces generated in the segmentation activity, a value calculated on optimum performance of the tooling employed in cutting the various subassemblies.

The risk and uncertainties associated with this task are that the expected optimization may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional program costs. For this reason, contingency must be included to mitigate the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with specialty tooling modifications and repairs, field changes, discontinuities in the coordination of plant services, system failure, water clarity, lighting, computer-controlled cutting software corrections, etc.

Experience in decommissioning other plants in the past has shown that many of these problem areas have occurred during and in support of the segmentation process. Contingency dollars are an integral part of the total cost to complete this task. Exclusion of this component puts at risk a successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, follow-on related activities.

The following list is a composite of some of the activities assembled from past decommissioning programs in which contingency dollars were needed to respond to, compensate for, and/or provide adequate funding of decontamination and dismantling tasks:

Incomplete or Changed Conditions:

• Unavailable/incomplete operational history that led to a recontamination of a work area because a sealed cubicle (incorrectly identified as being non-contaminated) was breached without controls.

• Surface coatings covering contamination that, due to an incomplete characterization, required additional cost and time to remediate.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 6 of 21

• Additional decontamination, controlled removal, and disposition of previously undetected (although at some sites, suspected) contamination due to access gained to formerly inaccessible areas and components.

• Unrecorded construction modifications, facility

upgrades, maintenance, enhancements, etc., that precipitated scheduling delays, more costly removal scenarios, additional costs (e.g., for re-engineering,

shoring, structural modifications),

and compromised worker safety.

Adverse Working Conditions:

Lower than expected productivity due to high temperature environments that resulted in a change in the working hours (shifting to cooler periods of the day) and additional manpower.

• Confined space, low-oxygen environments where supplied air was necessary and additional safety precautions that prolonged the time required to perform required tasks.

Maintenance, Repairs and Modifications

• Facility refurbishment required to support site operations, including those needed to provide new site services, as well as to maintain the integrity of existing structures.

Damage control, repair, and maintenance from birds' nesting and fouling of equipment and controls.

Building modification, i.e., re-supporting of floors to enhance loading capacity for heavily shielded casks.

• Roadway upgrades on site to handle heavier and wider loads; roadway rerouting, excavation, and reconstruction.

• Requests for additional safety margins by a vendor.

• Requests to analyze accident scenarios beyond those defined by the removal scenarios (requested by the NRC to comply with "total scope of regulation").

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 7 of 21

• Additional collection of site runoff and processing of such due to disturbance of natural site contours and drainage.

Concrete coring for removal of embedments and internal conduit, piping, and other potentially contaminated.material not originally identified as being contaminated.

• Modifications required to respond to higher than expected worker exposure, water clarity, water disassociation, and hydrogen generation from high temperature cutting operations.

Additional waste containers needed to accommodate cutting particulates (fines), inefficient waste geometries, and excess material.

Labor

• Turnover of personnel, e.g.,

craft and health physics.

Replacement of labor is costly, involving additional training, badging, medical exams, and associated processing procedures.

Recruitment costs are incurred for more experienced personnel and can include relocation and living expense compensation.

Additional personnel required to comply with NRC mandates and requests.

Replacement of personnel due to non-qualification andlor incomplete certification (e.g., welders).

Schedule

• Schedule slippage due to a conflict in required resources, i.e., the licensee was forced into a delay until prior (non-licensee) commitments of outside resources were resolved.

• Rejection of material by NRC inspectors, requiring refabrication and causing program delays in activities required to be completed prior to decommissioning operations.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 8 of 21 Weather

• Weather-related delays in the construction of facilities required to support site operations (with compensation for delayed mobilization made to vendor).

• Frozen crane hydraulics prior to a major lift.

The cost model incorporates considerations for items such as those described above, generating contingency dollars (at varying percentages of total line-item cost) with every activity.

3.3.2 Financial Risk TLG believes that this estimate is the best available, under the constraints and conditions outlined in the assumptions (Section 3.5).

However, in determining the extent of the financial liability faced by the owners of HBPP3, there are uncertainties other than the routine ones that contingency addresses.

These additional uncertainties consist of such items as changes in work scope, pricing (e.g. burial costs), job performance, schedule increases caused by changes in plant conditions, variations in the cost of labor (both craft and staff), severance, and other variations that could conceivably, but not necessarily, occur.

Consideration of such items may be necessary to address the question concerning how costly the decommissioning project could become, within a range of probabilities. TLG considers these types of costs under the broad term "financial risk." Financial risk is typically addressed through a probability analysis using a Monte Carlo-type simulation program.

The output of such a simulation typically includes a curve and range of probabilities for various cost estimates.

Included within the category of financial risk are:

• Delays in approval of the decommissioning (or license termination) plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, state and local hearings, etc.

• Changes in the project work scope from the baseline estimate, involving the discovery of unexpected levels of contaminants, contamination in places not previously expected, contaminated soil previously undiscovered (either radioactive or hazardous material TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 9 of 21 contamination), variations in plant inventory or configuration not indicated by the as-built drawings.

• Regulatory changes, e.g., affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal.

• Policy decisions altering federal and state commitments, e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or in the timetable for such.

• Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial. Some of these inputs may vary slightly, e.g., -10% to

+20%; burial could vary from -50% to +200% or more.

TLG did not perform a risk analysis for this estimate and therefore this report does not include any additional costs to address the risks associated with changes in the base assumptions of the study.

3.4 SITE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS 3.4.1 Spent Fuel Disposition The estimate assumes that limited ISFSI planning and licensing costs will be incurred prior to the date that PG&E decides to postpone the decommissioning and store the fuel in the spent fuel pool until DOE transfer. The proposed fuel transfer date to the DOE will allow the facility decommissioning to proceed without constraints for spent fuel caretaking activities.

3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The reactor vessel and internal components will be segmented in place and transported for disposal in shielded transportation casks.

Segmentation of the less activated components is performed in the spent fuel storage pool to the maximum extent practicable. The highly activated components can be disassembled in the vessel as long as water clarity is maintained. The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mounted cutter.

The dismantling of reactor internal components at HBPP3 will generate radioactive waste generally unsuitable for shallow land TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 10 of 21 disposal (GTCC). Although the material is not classified as high-level waste, DOE has indicated it will accept title to this waste for disposal at the future high-level waste repository. However, the DOE has not yet established acceptance criteria or a disposition schedule for this material, and numerous questions remain as to the ultimate disposal cost and waste form requirements. As such, for purposes of this study, the GTCC waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.

Main steam and feedwater piping is cut from the reactor vessel once the water level in the vessel (used for personnel shielding during dismantling and cutting operations in and around the vessel) is dropped below the nozzles.

The estimate further assumes that the fuel failures that occurred released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those which permit the major NSSS components to be shipped under current DOT regulations and to be buried within the requirements of 10 CFR 61.

The cost to remove and dispose of 48 control rod blades is included in the estimate.

3.4.3 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. The generator, turbine rotors, and shafts are removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casing is removed from its anchors by controlled demolition. The main condensers are also disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Each component is surveyed and designated for either decontamination, volume reduction, and conventional or controlled disposal.

The removal cost of the condenser and the turbine have been adjusted by revising the WDF's to account for the presence of alpha contamination.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 11 of 21 3.4.4 Plant Systems Due to the high levels of alpha contamination, mechanical cutting is the primar~y method of removing mechanical and electrical components. This method will minimize the potential of alpha particle contamination and the remediation requirements associated with lead-based paint on the exterior piping surfaces.

The WDFs and the unit cost factors associated with system removal activities in areas with known alpha contamination have been adjusted and increased by a factor of 1.5 to provide an additional allowance for the increased difficulty of performing work activities in areas containing alpha contamination.

3.4.5 Humboldt Bay Unit 3 Facilities Typically surface contamination can be removed by scarification where the contamination is removed with the spalled or abraded concrete surface.

This technique is most effective on smooth, unbroken surfaces. Over time, the concrete at Humboldt Bay has experienced cracking from the high seismic activity in the area providing pathways for contamination transport. In addition, the concrete surfaces were originally uncoated and were subject to additional contamination deposits due to failed fuel in early cycles. As such, the contamination has likely migrated to depths greater than effectively removed by surface scarification techniques. This condition was observed during the plant stack removal project where the vendor had difficulty in meeting the free-release criteria for the stack material, even after extensive surface decontamination. As a result of this expected plant condition and for the purposes of this estimate, structural material removed as part of the decommissioning project was assumed to be disposed of at a LLRW disposal facility. Although this same condition is expected to exist in below grade structures, due to the high water table and resulting cost to remove below grade structures, these structures will be decontaminated and surveyed in place.

Decontaminating below-grade structures to free-release is expected to be more cost-effective than complete removal.

Significant alpha contamination exists within primary systems and as fixed contamination in the Refueling, Radwaste, and Turbine buildings. The extent of the alpha contamination will require TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 12 of 21 additional radiological controls and will reduce the efficiency of component removal activities. These controls will include: additional resources to perform surveys and establish contamination controls, additional respiratory protection requirements and controls, additional time to obtain, dry and prepare for counting alpha samples, additional time for the set up of localized control of the contamination and additional nonproductive time for personnel involved in removal activities due to the alpha contamination.

Therefore, the worker inefficiency factors for building decontamination activities in specified work areas has been increased (compared to the 1997 study) by a factor of 1.05 to account for these limitations.

The caisson surrounding the reactor vessel and constituting the containment structure will remain in place. The caisson will not be able to be removed while the adjacent fossil-fueled units are still operational. The estimate assumes that portions of the bottom floor of the caisson will be remediated and buried as mixed waste.

The additional manpower and work activities during the decommissioning will necessitate additional facilities. This estimate provides for the following new facilities: radiation protection counting facility, craft entry facility, locker and sanitary facilities for project personnel, a radwaste packaging and container loading facility, temporary office facilities, and a temporary control room facility. An allowance has also been provided in the Period 3 costs for modification and upgrade of the Refuel Building crane.

These upgrades are required prior to the start of decommissioning work in the building.

The HBPP site is physically small and members of the public can be within 100 feet of the current restricted area. As such, the radwaste process facility will be moved into the center of the plant to reduce potential dose to members of the public.

The existing Solid Radwaste Storage Building located on the north side of Unit 3 will be converted into a combination radiation protection counting facility, radiation protection office area, and a new craft entry point. Modifications to this facility include counting room shielding, interior office space and furniture, radiation laboratory monitoring and measuring equipment, and installation of exit portal radiation monitors. The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers will be TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 13 of 21 moved as appropriate to conform to the Site Security Plan in force at the various stages of the project.

Before demolition of the Turbine Building can begin, the existing control room must be de-energized and an alternative control room will be erected to monitor radiation effluent and other permitted discharges. In addition, the current count room facility must be moved prior to movement of the turbine generator.

A radwaste shipping and handling facility will be provided to support the radwaste removal and recycling contractor. A radioactive waste packaging area will be created in the lower level of the Turbine Building. This facility will rely on the existing mechanical, electrical, and other equipment that is currently available in the area. Also, a waste shipment loading area will be constructed. This facility will be a metal-sided building, (approximately 50 foot by 60 foot) with access for large moving and lifting equipment to support waste shipping operations.

Craft and technical office trailers and support facilities are provided for in the estimate, as is the installation of a sanitary pump lift station to support the additional project staff.

All buildings scheduled for demolition will be removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade, with the decontaminated and non-contaminated subgrade foundations remaining in place. Holes will be drilled in each of the foundation basemats to allow for natural drainage. Building foundations will be backfilled with clean backfill (and a nominal volume of clean asphalt), and the site will be graded and landscaped. All areas affected by dismantling activities will be cleaned up, covered with loam, and seeded.

A cost has been included for the survey of structures after decontamination and prior to the demolition and disposal of the debris.

Decontamination as necessary to allow conventional demolition, and survey of the structure will allow demolition of the structure without the additional requirements imposed due to radioactive material monitoring and control.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 14 of 21 Yard drainage piping, including contaminated soils surrounding the drain system, will be excavated and removed. The existing circulating water discharge piping will be abandoned in place.

The discharge canal and portions of the intake canal will be remediated. Contaminated material will be excavated and disposed of as Class A waste.

3.4.6 Transportation Methods LLW waste (including waste from the reactor vessel segmentation) destined for controlled disposal will be shipped by truck or shielded van to the future Southwest Compact facility assumed to be no more than 1,000 miles away. Building demolition debris and waste soil will be shipped using intermodal containers via barge and then by rail to the future Southwest Compact facility.

-Material suitable for recovery or volume reduction will be transported by the waste contractor to its processing center.

The cost of transportation is included in the bulk recycling rate of $2 per pound.

Portions of the reactor vessel and internal components will be transported in accordance with 10 CFR 71, as Type B and C waste. It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as Low Specific Activity (LSA) II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated with the packaging to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport under 49 CFR 173 (Ref 14).

Contaminated piping, components, and structural steel other than the reactor vessel and internals, will qualify as LSA - I, II, or III or SCO-I, or II, as described in 49 CFR Part 173. The contaminated material will be packaged in Industrial Packages (IP I, II, or III) for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shipping containers.

Shielded truck casks will be used to transport highly activated metal produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessel and internal components.

Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds due to the weight of the vessel segments(s), supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs and the tractor-trailer.

The maximum curies per shipment assumed permissible is based upon the license limits of available shielded shipping casks.

The number and curie content of vessel TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 15 of 21 segments are selected to meet these limits.

The number of cask shipments out of the Refueling Building is expected to average one every two weeks. Non-cask shipments will be limited to two per week.

An allowance has been provided in the estimate for the purchase of eight special trailer beds. State law restricts the size of the trucks on local roads. Since shortened truck beds are not readily available for rental, PG&E has decided to purchase the equipment.

3.4.7 Coordination with Units 1 and 2 This estimate includes the removal of the entire site drainage network.

A portion of the excavated soil will require remediation and will be disposed of as radioactive waste. The essential portions of the yard drainage system that supports Units 1 or 2 will be replaced.

In accordance with NRC requirements, and based upon known radioactive contamination, radiological surveys of Units 1 and 2 will be conducted as part of the Final Site Survey.

The surveys will be coordinated with any planned outages or maintenance for either unit.

3.4.8 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning It is assumed that the Unit 3 structures and site facilities will be dismantled following their decontamination.

Structures would be removed to a nominal depth of 3 feet below grade. The voids would be backfilled with clean debris and capped with soil. The site would then be graded to conform to the adjacent landscape. Vegetation would be established to inhibit erosion.

The canals would remain for use by the operating units; however, non-essential structures could be removed. The switchyard will remain in place, as well as the site access road.

3.5 ASSUMPTIONS The following additional factors and conditions were used in developing the decommissioning cost estimate for HBPP3.

Radwaste estimating assumptions are contained in Section 5.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 16 of 21 3.5.1 Estimating Basis The estimate is performed in accordance with the methodology described in the AIF/NESP-036 study.

Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditures; however, the values are reported in 2002 dollars for the current estimate.

Costs are not inflated or escalated over the period of performance.

Plant drawings, equipment, and structural specifications, including construction details, were provided by PG&E. TLG personnel prepared the inventory of plant equipment.

3.5.2 Labor Costs Although PG&E will oversee the decommissioning operations, this study assumes that PG&E may hire a decommissioning operations contractor (DOC) to handle planning, engineering, procurement, field supervision, and labor. A separate waste disposal contractor will also be contracted to provide bulk one-stop recycling and disposal of decommissioning waste.

Utility staffing requirements will vary with the level of effort associated with the various phases of the project.

Once the decommissioning program starts, only those staff positions necessary to support the decommissioning program are included. There are no costs reflected within the estimate for the transition of the maintenance organization to decommissioning, e.g., separation packages, re-training, severance, incentives, etc.

The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear unit will be acquired through standard contracting practices.

The current cost of labor from Diablo Canyon was adjusted for regional differences, escalated to 2002 dollars and used in the estimate. Costs for site administration, operations, construction and maintenance personnel are based upon current PG&E salary information.

Engineering services for such items as writing activity specifications, detailed procedures, and work procedures are assumed to be provided by the DOC.

The WDF and unit cost factors for component removal and for selective building structural decontamination have been adjusted to TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document PO1-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 17 of 21 account for the affects of alpha contamination.

Mechanical cutting using saws and portable pipe cutters is the primary method of component removal used in the estimate.

3.5.3 General The existing plant equipment inventory is obsolete and only suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities.

No equipment is salvageable.

Scrap generated during decommissioning is not recognized as having any value because (1) scrap value generally offsets scrap removal and processing costs and (2) scrap materials have a relatively low market value. Scrap processing and site removal costs are not included in the estimate.

Clean asbestos will be disposed in an approved landfill. Contaminated asbestos will be buried as radioactive waste.

PG&E will provide the electrical power for decommissioning. Current Humboldt Bay electricity rates are used.

PG&E will remove all items of furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, other similar mobile equipment, and other such items of personal property owned by PG&E that will be easily removed without the use of special equipment at no cost or credit to the project.

Existing warehouses will remain for use by PG&E and its subcontractors.

The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors. These factors adjust the time and cost for performing tasks after consideration of factors such as use of protective clothing and respirators and the effect of indoctrination and mock-up training. These items lengthen a task's duration, which increase the costs and lengthen the overall schedule.

ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering and planning, and in the development of activity specifications and detailed procedures.

Nuclear liability insurance provides coverage for off-site damage or injuries due to radiation exposure from equipment and material.

Nuclear property insurance provides protection against direct physical TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 18 of 21 damage to onsite property by a broad range of causes including, radioactive contamination, fires, floods, etc. This estimate includes the premium cost for both liability and property insurance. The premiums are adjusted to reflect the relative changes in risk during the various phases of decommissioning. Insurance is required until both the Part 50 and Part 72 licenses are terminated.

The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers will be moved as appropriate to conform with the Security Plan in force at the various stages in the project. No additional security or regulatory revisions have been included as a result of the events of 09/11/2001. A new craft entry point will be installed to support Unit 3 decommissioning without interfering with the remaining operating generating units. A new radiological protection counting room and storage facility will also be constructed to support the decommissioning.

Additional survey equipment will be purchased to support the large radiological protection program and the Final Status Survey (FSS) effort.

The existing electrical switchyard will remain after decommissioning in support of the remaining site generating units and the utility's electrical transmission and distribution system.

Underground concrete pipe will be decontaminated and abandoned.

Underground steel pipe will be removed, surveyed for contamination, removed from the site, and disposed of as clean scrap.

Electrical manholes will be backfilled with suitable earthen material and abandoned.

It is assumed that all site vestiges are to be removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade, with the decontaminated and non-contaminated subgrade foundations remaining in place. Holes will be drilled in each of the foundation basemats to allow for natural drainage. Building foundations will be backfilled with clean fill, and the site will be cleaned up, covered with loam, and seeded. The caisson encapsulating the reactor vessel compartment will be decontaminated and abandoned in place. Excavation and removal of the caisson is not practical without affecting the operation of the adjacent generating units.

Wherever shared process systems exist between the fossil operations and Unit 3, the Unit 3 systems will be isolated from the remaining TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 19 of 21 operational portions.

Non-nuclear portions of these systems that contain residual contamination will be remediated and decontaminated as part of the dismantling of the operating unit unless the respective system is removed or replaced sooner.

No groundwater remediation is expected to be required. A nominal amount of mixed waste will be disposed of and 22,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil will require removal and disposal.

The remediation of the discharge canal requires the installation of a cofferdam.

This will allow remediation of the canal without interruption of the operating units. Trap rock and sediment will be mechanically removed, trap rock will be washed to remove loose radioactive material and contaminated rock and sediment will be packaged and buried. Recycled rock and new material will be replaced to return the canal to its initial condition.

3.6 COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

A summary of the decommissioning costs and annual expenditures is provided in the cash flow summary in Table 3.1a. Table 3.1b is a similar table of annual expenditures but omits those costs disallowed by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC).

Table 6.1 provides a breakdown of those same decommissioning costs into the components of decontamination, removal, packaging, etc. The costs were extracted from the detailed reports in Appendices D & E, which provide a detailed listing of activities and associated costs for the decommissioning scenario.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 20 of 21 TABLE 3.1a SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES (2002 Dollars)'

Equipment &

MRGftrala Contractor I hnr f

D&

= I ohn-Burial Other I Yearly Totals Tear rba1Lz L-abjL ztauI%.a.....

21,325,68 1996-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 13,266,367 13,536,299 13,697,673 12,637,008 7,421,294 1,210,715 397,168 828,085 4,614,924 8,410,993 8,410,993 7,873,754 655,391 86,476 12,113,538 12,346,472 9,470,291 9,236,972 7,302,030 441,234 848,03 97,79 26,438,36 52,884,61 52,884,61 48,251,63 21,325,681 286,626 7,300,527 1,189,667 900,000 2

8 1,066,362 8

1,116,720 2

1,158,465 2

1,100,867 35 1,045,214 235,256 I

21,325,681 286,626 7,300,527 1,189,667 900,000 1,331,676 27,372,150 58,052,783 85,622,034 84,270,452 71,893,927 2,542,596 61,769,356 31,191,309

-n nns ne fl'4 AnCrnr7 2c 79t.

'R' I

arR FRR 119 5V,YYv {,U1 v a

1 o 0,&VU'Va I lufov, I~

Ivo vvv

1. Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Planlt Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 3, Page 21 of 21 TABLE 3.1b SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES, EXCLUDING CPUC DISALLOWANCES (2002 Dollars)'

Equipment & Contractor Year PG&E Labor Materials Labor Bui 1996-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-2013 2014 397,168 86,476 84 2015 13,266.367 828,085 12,113,538 2016 13,536,299 4,614,924 12,346,472 26,45 2017 13,697,673 8,410,993 9,470,291 52,8f 2018 12,637,008 8,369,258 8,861,356 52,6' 2019 7,421,294 7,855,991 7,142,160 48,V 2020 1,210,715 655,391 441,234 rial Other Yearly Totals 21,2568

[8,032

)7,798 38,368 34,612 19,906 38,970 28,,626 286,626 7,300,527 1,189,667 900,000 1,066,362 1,116,720

'1,158,465 1,100,867 1,045,214 235,256 21,325,681 286,626 7,300,527 1,189,667 900,000 1,331,676 27,372,150 58,052,783 85,622,034 83,588,395 71,603,629 2,542,596 36,15,6 61,769,356 31,131,811 50,461,528 1b1,UZ1,ooo 36,725,383 361,115,764

1. Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 4, Page 1 of 3

4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE The schedule for the decommissioning scenario considered in this study follows the sequence presented in the AIFINESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints. In addition, the scheduling has been revised to reflect the spent fuel management plan outlined for HBPP3.

Appendix F presents a schedule for the 2015 SAFSTOR decommissioning alternative and the supporting assumptions. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the Appendix D cost table, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience.

The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project for Windows" computer software (Ref. 15).

4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule estimate reflects the results of a precedence network developed for the site decommissioning activities, i.e., a PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) software package. The schedule forecast is current as of July 2001. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedule:

• Spent fuel will be transferred to the DOE starting in 2011 and will be completed by 2014. Significant decommissioning activities will not begin until all spent fuel has been transferred off-site.

• All work (except vessel and internals removal) is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime.

Vessel and internals removal activities are performed by using separate crews for different activities working on different shifts, with a correspond-ing backshift charge for the second shift.

• Multiple crews work parallel activities to the maximum extent possible, consistent with: optimum efficiency; adequate access for cutting, removal and laydown space; and the stringent safety measures necessary during demolition of heavy components and structures.

• For removal of plant systems by area, the areas with the longest removal durations on the critical path are considered to determine the duration.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 4, Page 2 of 3 4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the cost table in Appendix D are based upon the durations developed in the decommissioning project schedule.

Durations are established between several milestones in each project period; these durations are used to establish a critical path for the entire project. In turn, the critical path duration for each period is used as the basis for determining the total costs for these period-dependent items.

A project timeline for the decommissioning alternative is included in this section as Figure 4.1.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 4, Page 3 of 3 FIGURE 4.1 DECO IMMISSIONING TIMELINE (not to scale)

Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Decomrm. i Fuel Transfer nfias Tno OE Planning Activities Plant Prenarations NSSS System &

Componenti.

Removal Post NSSS System S Removal Building Demolition !

Final Site

Survey, License Termination Site Restoration I

7/2/04 111/11 1/2/15 7/2/16 5/3/18 4/14/19 7/29/19 11/30/19 -

4/14/20 Key Assumptions:

1.

July 2004 decision made to postpone decommissioning and maintain fuel in wet storage.

2.

Use of a Decommissioning Operations Contractor (DOC) in Period 3 planning activities.

3.

USDOE acceptance of spent fuel shipments is initiated in year 2011 and continues through 2014.

4.

GTCC waste is removed from the plant site and shipped to DOE after removal of NSSS systems.

Critical Path Discussion:

Following transfer of all spent fuel to the DOE, the spent fuel pool racks are removed and the spent fuel pool is cleaned.

Phase 3 starts with initiation of planning activities and preparation for hiring a DOC. Decommissioning critical path is sequentially composed of removing the turbine systems, reactor vessel and spent fuel pool, decontamination of buildings, performing final site termination surveys, and site restoration.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 5, Page 1 of 3

5. RADIOACTIVE WASTE 5.1 GENERAL A waste contractor will be employed to manage the handling, shipping, recycling and processing of radwaste.

Due to the physical site layout limitations, and consistent with current decommissioning trends, a "rip and ship" philosophy will be utilized.

A facility will be constructed to support the efficient handling of radwaste.

Structural demolition debris will be loaded onto intermodal containers and shipped by barge to a railhead in San Francisco or Portiand for final shipment to the future Southwest Compact facility.

The estimate also assumes that PG&E will purchase eight shipping trailers that are sized to meet the overland road shipping limitations of local highways. The cost of the facility and the trailers are included in the estimate.

A summary of the HBPP3 waste volumes is provided in Table 5.1.

5.2 CLASS A WASTE AND RECYCLING All metallic radioactive waste will be shipped by the waste contractor to its recycling center. The estimate assumes that the total PG&E all-inclusive cost for recycling metallic waste is $2.00 per pound.

This cost includes processing, shipping, and burial of contaminated waste. An additional $1.00 per pound recycling surcharge has been applied to specific components that have elevated alpha contamination.

These components include radwaste tanks, main condenser, primary system components, and Class A portions of the reactor pressure vessel.

For purposes of constructing the decommissioning cost estimates, an assumed unit burial rate of $5.05 per pound was used to calculate the cost for disposal of waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of HBPP3. This rate is derived from the disposal rates charged at the Barnwell low-level waste disposal facility for non-Atlantic Compact generators.

All structural debris, including concrete, metal siding, and structural steel will be buried at a controlled disposal site at a cost consistent with low-level waste. This waste will be loaded onto barges, shipped to San Francisco or Portland, and rail-shipped to the future Southwest Compact facility.

The TLG Services, Inc.

HumboldtBayPowerPlanlt Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 5, Page 2 of 3 material will be loaded on intermodal containers prior to barge shipment.

Intermodals utilized for barge and subsequent rail shipment can be loaded to a 67,200 pound capacity. This is the preferred shipping alternative due to the local road limitations and the lack of accessible rail access. Contaminated soil will be disposed of similar to structural debris.

5.3 CLASS B WASTE Class B waste includes spent resin waste from system decontamination and portions of the vessel shell and cladding in the beltline region. Class B waste will be transferred to the on-site waste contractor and shipped using a shielded truck to the future Southwest Compact facility. The cost for Class B waste disposal is in accordance with the Barnwell fee schedule for Non-Atlantic Compact generators.

5.4 CLASS C WASTE Class C waste includes control rod blades and portions of the reactor vessel internals. Class C waste will be transferred to the on-site waste contractor and shipped using a shielded truck to the future Southwest Burial Compact site. The cost for Class C waste disposal is in accordance with the Barnwell fee schedule for Non-Atlantic Compact generators.

5.5 GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE GTCC waste includes those portions of the reactor vessel internals containing radioactivity levels in excess of Class C limits. One additional canister and overpack will be purchased for the packaging and transport of the GTCC waste.

The waste will be packaged and transferred to the DOE during reactor internals segmentation. For purposes pf this study, the GTCC waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost of equivalent to that envisioned for spent fueL DOE will assume ownership and disposal responsibility at a cost similar to the cost for disposal of spent fuel.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Section 5, Page 3 of 3 TABLE 5.1 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE DISPOSAL

SUMMARY

Waste Volumes (cubic feet)

Low Level Radioactive Waste 1 Class A2 Class B Class C GTCC 81,822 1,321

- '423 14 Subtotal 83,580 Miscellaneous Wastes Demolition Debris 240,775 Notes:

1 Radioactive waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61.55.

2 Class A waste includes soil, discharge canal sediment and reactor caisson mixed waste

3. Column may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 6, Page 1 of 2

6. RESULTS The projected cost to decommission the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 (2015 SAFSTOR), including costs spent to-date and the planning costs for the ISFSI is

$362,088,119 (including an 18.5% contingency) in 2002 dollars, which includes

$972,354 (19.3% contingency) for the CPUC's disallowances. The costs reflect the site-specific features of the HBPP3, the local cost of labor, and a projected cost for low-level radioactive waste disposal at the regional compact site. An analysis of the major activities contributing to the total cost for the decommissioning is provided in Table 6.1.

Demolition debris disposal and low-level waste burial costs are the largest cost contributor to the decommissioning. It is indicative of the expense incurred in siting, developing, and licensing new disposal facilities, as well as the costs associated to meet the tighter standards being developed at the federal and local levels. Staffing, including management, security, and health physics combine with the removal labor cost to represent the next largest cost to decommission HBPP3. This is a direct result of the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Section 6, Page 2 of 2 TABLE 6.1

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST CONTRIBUTORS' Work Category Decontamination Removal Packaging Shipping Waste Processing & Recycling LLW Burial Demolition Waste Disposal Staffing Security License Termination Survey Costs '02 (thousands $)

2,354 23,608 3,462 2,074 9,096 48,944 124,601 78,368 1,206 3,224 Percent of Total 0.7 6.5 1.0 0.6 2.5 13.5 34.4 21.6 0.3 0.9 Insurance Energy NRC Fees ISFSI Expenditures Non-ISFSI Expenditures Equipment & Supplies Engineering Total CPUC Disallowances Removal Packaging Shipping Waste Processing LLW Burial Equipment & Supplies Total

1. Columns may not add due to rounding.

738 571 1,671 10,500 20,902 20,929 9,838 362,088 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.9 5.8 5.8 2.7 100 311 112 3

69 377 100 972

-31.9 11.5 0.3 7.1 38.8 10.3 100 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 7, Page 1 of 2

7. REFERENCES

1.

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+),

June 27, 1988.

2.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," February 1995.

3.

U.S.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50 and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,"

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61 (p39278+), July 29, 1996.

4.

"Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982.

5.

DOE/RW-0457, Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity Report, U.S.

Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, March 1995.

6.

"Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15, 1986.

7.

"U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination", Federal Register Volume 62, Number 139, July 21, 1997.

8.

SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No.

3, July 1984.

9.

Preliminary Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, PG&E letter HBL-98-002, dated February 27, 1998.

10.

T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

11.

Department of Energy, "Decommissioning Handbook," DOE/EM-0142P, March 1994.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Section 7, Page 2 of 2

7. REFERENCES (continued)

12.

R.S. Means, Building Construction Cost Data, 2002.

13.

Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York.

14.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Section 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178, 1996.

15.

"Microsoft Project for 98," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay PowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix A, Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX A WORK DIFFICULTY FACTOR ADJUSTMENTS TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay PowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-4421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix A Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX A WORK DIFFICULTY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT Respiratory Protective Alpha AREA AREA DESCRIPTION Access Protection ALARA Clothing Adjust.

(%)

(%)

(I)

(%)

(%)

RBI1-1 Emergency Condenser 20 25 10 30 50 RB1-2 Spent Fuel Pool 10 25 20 30 50 RB1-3 Cask Shipping Area 10 25 10 30 50.

RB1-4 SFP Pumps/Filters 0

25 10 30 50 RB1-5 Laydown/CaskWashdown General Area 10 25 10 30 50 RB1-6 Reactor Vessel Cavity 50 50 100 100 50 RB2-1 El -2 Suppression Pool Cooler 10 25 10 30 0

RB2-2 Elev. -14, Manlift 10 25 10 30 0

RB2-3 Elev. -24, CRD Hydraulic Filters 20 25 10 30 50 RB2-4 Elev. -34, Suppression Pool Access Hatch 20 25 10 30 50 RB2-5 Elev. -44, CRD Piping 20 25 10 30 50 C

RB2-6 Elev. -54, CRD Trip Accumulators 20 25 10 30 50 RB2-7 Elev. -66, Caisson Sump, REDT 20 25 10 30 50 RB2-8 Suppression Pool - North 30 50 20

30 50 RB2-9 Suppression Pool - South 30 50 20 30 50 RB3-1 Cleanup Heat Exchangers 10 50 20 30 50 RB3-2 New Fuel Storage/Fuel Pool Coolers 20 25 20 30 50 RB4-1 Shutdown Heat Exchangers/Pumps 10 25 10 30 50 RB4-2 TBDT/Floor Drain Pumps 20 50 20 50 50 RB35-1 RFB Roof (HVAC only) 0 25 10 30 50 RB5-1 RFB Roof 0

25 10 30 0

TB1-1 Main Turbine 20 25 20 30 50 TBI1-2 Main Generator/Exciter House 0

0 0

0 0

TB1-3 Hydrogen Yard 0

0 10 30 0

TB2-1 Main Condenser 20 25 20 30 50 TB2-2 Seal Oil UnitlExciter Swgr 0

0 10 30 0

TB3-1 Reactor Feed/Lube Oil/Air Sytems 0

25 20 30 50 TB3-2 Propane Engine Generator 0

0 0

0 0

TB3-3 2400/480V Transformers 0

0 10 0

0 TB4-1 Laundry Drain Tank/Pipe Tunnel 10 25

-20 30 50 TB4-2 Pipe Gallery 30 50 40 50 50 TB5-1 Anion/Cation/Resin Tanks 10 25 20 30 0

TB5-2 Condensate Demineralizers 10 25 20 30 50 TB6-1 Air Ejector/Gland Seal Condenser 0

25 20 30 50 TB6-2 Vacuum Pump/Condensate Pumps 0

25 10 30 50 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix A, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A WORK DIFFICULTY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT (continued)

Respiratory Access Protection A AREA AREA DESCRIPTION Protective Alpha LARA Clothing Adjust (0/6)

(%)

(%)

10/-%

10M 1°/,\\

(%)

,0, t svs TB7-1 Main Control Room TB7-2 Instr Repair/Counting RoomNent Equip TB7-3 Locker Room/Personnel Decon TB7-4 Hot Lab TB7-5 Demin Control Panel/RFB Access TB7-6 Hot Lab Attic TB7-7 RP Office/Count Room RWI-1 RWB - Concentrator/Pumps/Filters RWI-2 RWB -Waste Receiver/Hold Tanks RWI-3 Radwaste Demineralizer C RWI-4 Concentrated Waste Tanks RWI-5 Resin Disposal Tank RWI-6 Upper Elevation - RWB RWI-7 Packaged Radwaste Storage Bldg RWI-8 Low Level Waste Storage Bldg RWI-9 Solid Waste Vault YDI-1 Main Transformers YDI-2 CCW Heat Exchangers/Pumps YDI-3 nla YD1-4 n/a YD1-5 Intake Structure YD2-1 Stack - Elev 0'0" YD2-2 Stack - Elev. 12'0" YD2-3 Stack - Elev. 26'0" YD2-4 Condensate/Demin Water Storage Tank YD2-5 Plant Exhaust Fans YD2-6 Gaseous Radwaste Holdup Tunnel HMS1-1 HMS Decon Area HMSI-2 Calibration Lab 0

0 0

0 10 0

10 10 20 20 20 0

0 0

10 0

0 0

10 10 10 0

0 20 0

0 25 0

0 25 0

25 0

25 25 50 25 50 25 0

0 25 0

25 10 10 10 20 10 10 0

20 20 40 20 40 10 10 10 20 0

10 n1a n1a 0

10 10 10 10 20 20 10 40 30 0

0 30 0

30 0

30 30 50 30 50 30 0

0 30 0

30 0

0 0

50 00 0

50 50 50 50 50 0

0 0

50 0

50 0

50 0

0 50 50 50 50 0

0 25 25 25 25 25 50 25 25 0

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX A WORK DIFFICULTY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT (continued)

AREA AREA DESCRIPTION Respiratory Access Protection

(%)

(%)

Protective ALARA Clothing

(%)

(%)

Alpha Adjust.

(%)

OTSI OTS2 OTS3 OTS4 OTS5 OTS6 YARD RBP TBP YDP RWP HMSP Hydrogen Analyzer/MCC #14 Moisture Skid/Sump Pump Jet Compressor/Recombiner/CG Bed Carbon Adsorbers Pipe Tunnel HEPA Filter (outside access only)

General Yard Refueling Building - Embedded Piping Turbine Building - Embedded Piping Buried Yard Piping/Catch Basins, Etc.

Radwaste Building - Embedded Piping Hot Machine Shop - Embedded Piping 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

10 10 0

10 10 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

50 50 0

50 50 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

20 20 10 20 20 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

30 30 0

30 30 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

50 50 50 50 50 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix B, Page I of 4 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services;, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix B, Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT Example:

Unit Factor for Removal of Contaminated Heat Exchanger < 3,000 lbs.

1.

SCOPE Heat exchangers weighing < 3,000 lbs. will be removed in one piece using a crane or small hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heat exchanger will be sent to the waste processing area.

2.

CALCULATIONS Activity Description Critical Duration (minutes)

Install contamination controls, remove insulation, and mount pipe cutters 60 Disconnect inlet and outlet lines, cap openings 60 Rig for removal 30 Unbolt from mounts 30 Remove contamination controls 15 Remove heat exchanger, wrap in plastic, and send to packing area 60 Critical Duration 255 Work Adiustments (Work Difficulty Factors)

+Duration adjustment(s)

Site-specific labor adjustment (50% of Critical Duration) 128 383

+ Respiratory Protection (25% of Critical Duration) 96

+ Radiation/ALARA (10% of Critical Duration) 38 Adjusted Work Duration 517

+ Protective Clothing (30% of Adjusted Work Duration)

- 155 Productive Work Duration 672

+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of Productive Work Duration) 56 Total Work Duration 728

• ** Total Work Duration = 728 minutes or 12.133 hours0.00154 days <br />0.0369 hours <br />2.199074e-4 weeks <br />5.06065e-5 months <br /> ***

TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX B (continued)

3.

LABOR REQUIRED Crew Number Duration (hours)

Rate

($/hr)

Cost Laborers 3.00 12.133

$37.22

$1,354.77 Craftsmen 2.00 12.133

$45.37

$1,100.95 Foreman 1.00 12.133

$47.90

$581.17 General Foreman 0.25 12.133

$50.10

$151.97 Fire Watch 0.05 12.133

$37.22

$22.58 Health Physics Technician 1.00 12.133

$34.14

$414.22 Total Labor Cost

$3,625.66

4.

EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs

-Portable Pipe Cut/Milling Machine 1 @ $10.86/hr x 12.133 hrs {1}

Consumables/Materials Costs

-Blotting paper 50 @ $0.48 sq ft {2}

-Plastic sheets/bags 50 @ $0.12/sq ft {3}

-Slitting Saw 1 @ $34.69/hr x 1 hr {1}

Subtotal Cost Of Equipment And Materials Overhead & Sales Tax On Equipment And Materials @ 17.00%

$131.76

$24.00

$6.00

$34.69

$196.45

$33.40 Total Costs, Equipment & Material

$229.85 TOTAL COST: Removal of Contaminated Heat Exchanger <3000 Pounds:

$3,855.51 Total Labor Cost:

Total Equipment/Material Costs:

Total Adjusted Exposure Man-Hours Incurred:

Total Craft Labor Man-Hours Required Per Unit:

$3,625.66

$229.85 50.02 88.57 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix B, Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX B (continued)

5.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

• Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the AIF (now NEI) program to standardize nuclear decommissioning cost estimates and are delineated in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"

AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

• References for equipment & consumables costs:

1. The Wachs Companies, Quote dated 10/2001

2. McMaster-Carr website on-line catalog

3. R.S. Means (2002) Division 015 Section 602-0200 pg 17

• Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for Eureka, California.

TLG Services~, Inc.

HumboldtBayPowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix C, Page 1 of 8 APPENDIX C UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Representative of Power Block Structures Only) c-TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix C, Page 2 of 8 APPENDIX C UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Representative of Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor CostlUnit($)

Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 0.37 Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 3.98 Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 5.53 Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $Linear foot 10.67 Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 15.17 Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 21.56 Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 33.90 Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 41.46 C

Removal of clean valves >2 to 4 inches 70.96 Removal of clean valves >4 to 8 inches 106.68 Removal of clean valves >8 to 14 inches 151.73 Removal of clean valves >14 to 20 inches 215.61 Removal of clean valves >20 to 36 inches 338.97 Removal of clean valves >36 inches 414.60 Removal of clean pipe hangers for small bore piping 23.02 Removal of clean pipe hangers for large bore piping 84.97 Removal of clean pumps, <300 pound 194.69 Removal of clean pumps, 300-1000 pound 539.54 Removal of clean pumps, 1000-10,000 pound 1,973.43 Removal of clean pumps, >10,000 pound 3,807.43 Removal of clean pump motors, 300-1000 pound 228.02 Removal-of clean pump motors, 1000-10,000 pound 823.13 Removal of clean pump motors, >10,000 pound 1,853.84 Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound 1,152.29 Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound 2,888.96 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Ap,6endix C, Page 3 of 8 APPENDIX C (continued)

Unit Cost Factor CostlUnit($)

Removal of clean tanks, <300 gallons 250.73 Removal of clean tanks, 300-3000 gallons 729.44 Removal of clean tanks, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area 6.08 Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound 107.56 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 371.26 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 742.49 Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 1,613.08 Removal of clean electrical transformers < 30 tons 1,222.10 Removal of clean electrical transformers > 30 tons 3,226.15 Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, <100 kW 1,143.14 Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, 100 kW to 1 MW 2,553.17 Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, >1 MW 5,286.60 Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 9.15 Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot 3.84 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound 107.56 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 371.26 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 742.49 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 1,613.08 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound 107.56 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 371.26 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 742.49 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 1,613.08 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound 0.42 Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 1.24 Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 31.13 TLG Services, InLc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Document P01-1421004, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 4 of 8 APPENDIX C (continued)

CostllUnit($)

TTYIW+ fncftThPnenr Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 44.47 102.99 164.10 232.87 338.04 397.84 269.02 503.29 820.52 1,223.34 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated valves >2 to 4 inches Removal of contaminated valves >4 to 8 inches Removal of contaminated valves >8 to 14 inches Removal of contaminated valves >14 to 20 inches C

Removal of contaminated valves >20 to 36 inches Removal of contaminated valves >36 inches Removal of contaminated pipe hangers for small bore piping Removal of contaminated pipe hangers for large bore piping Removal of contaminated pumps, <300 pound 1,690.22 1,989.18 97.19 317.03 792.91 Removal of contaminated pumps, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pumps, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pumps, >10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motors, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motors, 1000-10,000 pound 1,836.16 6,147.56 14,980.47 774.18 2,391.93 Removal of contaminated pump motors, >10,000 pound Removal of contaminated turbine-driven pumps < 10,000 pounds Removal of contaminated turbine-driven pumps > 10,000 pounds Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound I

5,395.80 7,513.22 17,129.92 3,855.51 10,699.94 TLG Services, Inc.

HumboldtBayPowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix C, Page 5 of 8 APPENDIX C (continued)

Unit Cost Factor CostlUnit($)

Removal of contaminated feedwater heater/deaerator 24,780.54 Removal of contaminated moisture separator/reheater 62,545.00 Removal of contaminated tanks, <300 gallons 1,313.08 Removal of contaminated tanks, >300 gallons, $/square foot 36.94 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound 617.33 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,490.62 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,866.71 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 5,438.34 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 28.77 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot 25.05 C

Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound 666.48 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,597.83 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,076.96 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 5,438.34 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound 666.48 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,597.83 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,076.96 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 5,438.34 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound 2.75 Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in.

3.23 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot 6.67 Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot 28.29 Decontamination rig hook-up and flush 5,641.45 Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon 11.65 Removal of standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard 63.68 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay PowerPlant Unit 3 Document POI-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix C, Page 6 of 8 APPENDIX C (continued)

Unit Cost Factor CostUnit($)

Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard 185.69 Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 261.45 Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 832.30 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 177.20 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete wf#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 465.09 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 233.74 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete wI#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 1,713.05 Removal heavily rein concrete wh418 rebar & steel embedments, $/cu yd 334.25 Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/square foot 225.18 Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 641.19 Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cu yd 1,713.29 Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 546.25 Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 1,593.72 Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard 24.63 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 71.56 Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 243.94 Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 71.56 Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 243.94 Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 17.08 Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot 125.67 Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 99.68 Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard 2.91 Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard 36.03 Excavation of submerged concrete rubble, $/cubic yard 11.55 Removal of clean concrete rubble, $/cubic yard 80.20 MLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR APPENDIX C (continued)

Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 7 of 8 Unit Cost Factor CostlUnit($)

Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot Removal of transite panels, $/square foot Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall)

Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot Removal of clean overhead cranes/monorails < 10 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead cranes/monorails < 10 ton capacity Removal of clean overhead cranes/monorails >10-50 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead cranes/monorails >10-50 ton capacity 28.99 0.24 1.19 4.04 1.88 1.98 12.09 7.16 7.64 68.72 5.72 471.83 1,474.45 1,130.93 3,535.28 Removal of polar cranes > 50 ton capacity, each Removal of gantry cranes > 50 ton capacity, each Removal of structural steel, $/pound Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot 4,716.04 20,161.42 0.32 2.74 8.77 Removal of clean free-standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated free-standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated concrete-ancbored steel liner, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot 9.12 29.21 4.56 33.94 13.54 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR APPENDIX C (continued)

Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 8 of 8 Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot Landscaping w/ topsoil, $/acre Cost of LSA box & preparation for use Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use Cost of cask liner for CNSI 14-195 cask 21.41 15,848.42 1,445.57 188.29 9,739.76 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8-120A cask (resins)

Cost of cask liner f6r CNSI 8-120A cask (filters)

Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot 8,409.88 8,409.88 1.55 TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix D, Page 1 of 7 APPENDIX D HUMBOLDT BAY 2015 SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay PowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix E, Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX E HUMBOLDT BAY 2015 SAFSTOR CPUC COST DISALLOWANCES TLG Services, Inc.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1421-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study 2015 SAFSTOR Appendix F, Page 1 of 9 APPENDIX F HUMBOLDT BAY 2015 SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING SCHEDULE TLG Services, Inc.

(N

()

teOC Name Task Name HBPP Unit No. 3 Decommissloning Timeline Cormpleted Pro.ects 199B2002 ISFSI Licensing 6 Engineerlng 9B-2004 Final tDecision on Wet Storage DOE Fuel Shipping Campaign pta on of Spent Fuel Transfer to DOE Complt6~lon0Spenl Fuel Transfer to DOE Obtaln Additonai DECOM Funding.

Prepare Advice Letter

.Advice Letter Internal Review

~~~~~~~....................................

Submit Advice Letter

.Advice Letter CPUC Review Fundingi Approved Period 2 Rad ologIcal CharacterIzatlon Reactor Vessel Activation Analysis Develop Cost, Schedule L Work Controls Develop "Level 2" Decom. Schedule Develop ilte Facitites L Staffing Plan Asbestos Removal P-1-a

.LLW Management Plan DECOM Demonstratlon Project 9t T 99 T 00 I Oi I 02 1 03 1 04 1 OS_ 0e 1 07 1 0 1 09 1 10 I it I 12 1 13 1 14 1 1 11 1B 1t1 I 1_ I19 2I 1 21 I 1/1i00 If

,I Completed Proects 1996-2002 Final Decision on Wet Storige t61104 Submit ;dvieLete Funding Approved, 2/2102 3 21310 1124102 9/525I02 1112/0 112502~

1012602 4r27103

• 2/14/03,

2113/04 2/14/04 t~ff0/104)04 Stert ot Sr;ent Fuel Trans!er b DOE

""1' t omplellon ot Spent Fuet Transter b DOE t

01121t4 f

1n]15 s

i i

l l

-q

~

414120 t
4 n;:

0 o.

42,

-P.

-. w a

Z3.

A c0) F; M

0, I

-Ico 1

".P

r.

13 "e'. "'

t1o 51 CZ

F',

e*

trt CA

U0 Di 4

2 D

b0n;Z M

f M

Ite*

3 CZ)

(:L. V-4 P,

k bo 6A Q

01Q
*-

M t1o
jM

-
, S CZ (Z Page I

K>

0 q

co tlb) lb T^tE N^mf 9e 8 99 1 °° 1 0 1 02 1 03 1 04 1 05 1 06 1 07 1 08 1 09 1 10 111 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15_1 15 I It I 18 -

19-A 20 1 21 I NSs l8alne I

Determine Project Scope Prepare Work Packages Perform Dismantle Activity iii...............

Evaluate Processes & Adjust General Planning DecommissIoning Design Basis Revise Licensing Basis DecommissIoning Hiatus Period Remove Spent Fuel Racks Fuel Pool Cleanup Release Decommissioning Trust Fund Submit request to CPUC CPUC Reviewf Decommissloning Trust Fund Release

......... v Transition. SAFSTOR to DECON Period 3 Preparations Construct DECOM Office Facity Raze Effluent Ponds & EquIpment Fill to Grade & Pave Install Office & Assembly Area Bldg

~~~~~~...........................

Plant Temporary Services Relocate MEPP Equipment 2)14(04

1 l I,

l l,

8

'V14/04 I

• muMINrNu 3:

O.omsinn T. s un eIe.

3.

3 1//I

./

i

.m lbto p Mo 0a o.

(n tu o

N.

an M Ie t

I

>

00
t". 6M 0

r.:

M

11

i.4, o

h-u'M m o H. 16-s,4 M Io T11 S Pace 2

(,-N 0

co C,

ni

'SI P

Task Name 98 99(00(I01(02] 03 04 05106107 1 02I.01.2.

1 1

2

.I2.L 1 3 1 4 15 18 9 -0 2

Radiological Laboratory CntrucionPoer..........

Access Control Facility Rei;~ew Plant Drawvings &Specifications Pefr E

nd EA Prep---~;are/Submi

~Licens-e-Ter-mina2.tion.

Pl an..

Activity Specifications Plann~ing andSite Preartions;

.esign Water Clean-up System RigingToolng, etc.

Poure Casks & Containers m12is is11 Pe Bd4 aility Dlismantle...

Is1 11/20/18 Turbne-Generator & Auxiliaries TB-ain Generator & Exciter I.

TI. lvain Turbine Page 3 t

M na cr atz.

I'll

_. W 0

Z3.

A CZ)
;M I

t co P C.*

l
- ;3 kz 110P C:)

)., t-%

rIA CA:

. 0C rij 4

-C

"-StI 0

IZZ huit owk A '4.

TB2-1 Main Condenser O

6-Saoi~ilfcl rwther0 TBI.3 Hydrogen Yard TB4-1 Laundry Drain Tank/Pipe Tunnel:

.:c TB4-2 Pipe Gallery TS I MainrT.G/1-2 Yard DecontarnInation T82 Condenser/SO Room Decon.

TB3 RFP Room/PEG Room Decon T84 Pipe Tunnel Decontamination 0

T85-1 Anlon/Cation/Reslrn Tanks T13B.2 Condensate Demnineralizers C

TSSB11 Air Elector/Gland Seal Condenser TBP Turbine Bldg. Embedded Piping TB5 Cond. DemIn. Room Decon Tee Cond. Pumnp/AG Room Decon TB3-2 Propane Engine Generator TE7-1 Main Control Room

C5.

TI37-Demineralizer Control Panel

.........................TB7.2 Instrument Repalr/Counting Room Pogo 4

(N a

rbNO.m 05A G

I A I A.

-i-~

I -

I -

I -r.

'-r-n--r-n-Tcc--r-TrY I-JL--'-'

1 I U~

I I

ID I 10 jI]

t1Ila I5 19 j20j121 t-;i0 4' 4 P

T8743 Locker Room/Personnel Decon T87 RP ffi'6CWc/ontin~g Room HMS...

U Decontamination.........

Refulin Buidin R01 Eey.-2,Supresio Pool.Cooier R83. Clanu Hea Exhaners R~torigEmergencyoCondenser Rat-...A SFP..

Pumps/fl ers ~

I:

12117115 fl 3/Ill?

I

1 Receive NRC Approve!

or Ternilnallon an

• flIoIIK Ty fix/Is

1:

I, I,

a a

'I

'I

1 ttM

Z4 na4 cr.

4 S?.

-. P.

r*

-. w atIs 5' t crQ cD)
;M I

c-
J.

0 0 t-*

I. ;I "I,-. I'll I",

tIOW CZ "s.

trt 0,

t.0 t6 4

0

O I'd et til 9

ta0 1
-

M Z3 t

+

M t

l CZ P.

P, 4

t It I-"I Ir t c
q

A 'I'.

m

'Z',
dM

111 S r1c cb I

I I

I I

I I

I

~Page

rK>

a(I-Task Name 98] 8 9 ] 00 I01102(03(04(105 106 ( 07 I 0( 1E0 10 I1I(12 13rv14 Is 18 i7 18 rF 20r2r Reactor Vessel Removal Co Transfer C~~~~~~TnserTCC waste toDE..

.TrnfrOCwaetoDOE RBI-6 Reactor Vessel Cavity I

Y:1 R824 2ev.-34 Supresio Pol ccess

.R825 21v. -4, CD Pping R82-21e.

-5, CD Trp Acumuators

.iiw.

.RD272iv.-6,Casson Sump, REDT R82...li~

-8 Su-p pres slion Pool-North~

-RD2-9 Sppression Pool - South RDP RFD.Emedded.Pipin

.RD2 Acess Shat/SCDecntaination....

RBI RFB

+12.Dcontaminatio Yard YD2-Stak-Elvation 12'- C" YD2-3Stalck-lvto2' Peg. 8 ttM ;Z4 0

04 a-4 2,

. IPI.

-. W1

0 t5 11

' t OrQ 0 C0) F; M

" It e
co 0 Z
:!

I"It.

I'*

51 C.) -.

N
' e-%

Cil ck

0C U)1-3

Z)

Tj o

IrE h

0 1-M4

~

It017

1
.'

M t

3 M t

3 CZ)

Q.

111

It, 1
1 Q

(Z)

M Itk

-.4
dM S

0 CZ)

1',sk Name I__I___0 I

1 10 2 InA I

M I M

I I

I -

I -

I -

I I- "

I

)I I

1, 1 13 i 14,

15 1 15 1 17 1 Is I 19-F-In 0

c,P YD2-4 Condensate/Demin. Water Tank YD2-3 Gaseous Radwvaste Holdup Tunnel Y~-

W Dbsciarge Piping

.a YDt-5 Intake Structure YD1-4 Discharge Canal Contaminated Sol Removal' Replacement of Drains & Catch Basins YD2-5 Plant Exhaust Fan

6;;;...........

YDP Yard Embedded Piping YDI South Yard Area Decon YD2 North Yard Area Decon Radwaste Treatment Buldidng RW1-1 RWB.* Concentrator/Pumps etc.

RW1-2 RWB Waste Rece~ver/Hold Tanks JRW1-3 Radwaste Dernineraiizer RW1-4 Concentrated Waste Tanki RW1-5 Resin Disposal Tank RW1-B Upper Elevation.* RWB RW1i7 Ridwaste Handling Bultding RW1-8 Low Level Waste Storage Buflding RW1 9 Solid Waste Vault RWi Radwasle Embedded Plping I

I I

I jIV I

Ii I

1

I U

I 14 I 1

I IS I 57 I

IA I 4

4

• i 4

4fl.

.4 4.,.,,-

4 4

4 4

U.

10111117 !

1715115 I

I S

4

• 1 4

4 4

I.

.4, I

4 4

I 4

I I

Ii I

I I

I 4

I I

I l.,,,*,

b
ri M,

00 a-5 9.

. P.

s. W

35' 't IQ 0 an
;M W 'I

, t co P

I. ;3

F q k1a ;3 CZ

%
, e*

t" to

. 0c C6

-4 0

Ij

,I

-4.

0a 0

Oot Mc Poge 7?

el-,

I -

-

I -

I.1

-

I

.s -

am

.1 I -

I..

I..

.1 I -

11

1.

11

1.

11 I

1.

1.

1.

1.

I RWI Radwaste Bldg. Decon j.....

^ -.....

Bu ding Demolition License Termination Utflty License Termination Survey Submit Teremination Survey Report NRC Confirmatory Survey

.NRC Temination oiicense

. ndist.ibuied Costs

.h.Wb6 t f........

Period 4 DECOM Staf Perlod 5. Site Restoration Site Closeout Activities Backfill Sfte Grade and Landscape Sde

.inal Report to NRC Undistribued Costs Period 5 DECOM Staif Sutmit Terminatlon Survey Repo 7 ~

~

1/219112/19 7/2/15 191 1113M1

'Y 3li31f0

• -30**-

4/14 titM

Z4 00 0.

-. Q.

e

w a

2.

9

0) F; M

" I I'* I co r* 0

I Z

3

'Pe-I'll ItIOP (Z.)- e*

Ut w

.0C w4 R

I Ot II 0

l. So I

t t0n tb, (%

Ii::I

6 e-%

M P. 11-1

. I..,

1 64

z C.115 14 M I -

jM

11 S to tz Page a PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002

-Non NRC Scope in TLG Estimates Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Units I and 2 (Pages 1 through 3)

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035/HBL-03-002 Non NRC Scope in TLG Estimates Diablo Canyon Unit 1 & 2 2021/2025 Decommissioning Unit I Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Dollars in Dollars in Dollars in Dollars in Page Page ID#

ID#

Descnption 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 6

12 Total Cost to Decommission

$575,844

$801,322 Period 1 Activity Specifications 2

7 171 17.1 Plant & Temporary Facilities 45 45 2

7 17.2 17.2 Plant Systems 38 38 2

7 178 17 8 Reinforced Concrete 74 74 2

7 17 9 17.9 Turbine & Condenser 74 74 2

7 17.10 17.10 Plant Structures & Buildings 143 143 2

7 17.12 17.12 Facility & Site Closeout 41 41 Subtotal Period 1 Activity Specifications 415 415 Period I Detail Work Procedures 2

7 231 231 Plant Systems 44 44 2

7 23 5 23 5 Remaining Buildings 93 93 2

7 2310 2310 Facility Closeout 55 55 2

7 2314 2314 Reinforced Concrete 46 46 2

7 2315 2315 Turbine & Condenser 287 287 2

8 23 16 23 16 Auxiliary Building 25 25 2

8 2317 2317 Reactor Building 25 25 Subtotal Period I Detail Work Procedures 575 575 Period 1 Additional Costs 3

8 27 27 Spent Fuel Pad, Cask, Canister, Equipment 182 805 3

8 28 28 Spent Fuel Loading Campaign 34 150 3

8 29 29 Spent Fuel Ops & Maintenance 28 478 3

8 30 30 Spent Fuel Fixed Costs 56 956 3

8 31 31 Transfer of Spent Fuel to Canisters to DOE 225 225 525 2,614 Period 1 Undistributed Costs 3

8 12 12 NRC ISFSI Fees 28 478 Subtotal Period 1 Undistnbuted Costs 28 478 Disposal of Plant Systems 9

38 3 Building Services (Non-Power Block) 5 4

9 383 38 4 Capital Additions 85-2002 (Clean) 137 733 4

9 387 38 8 Component Cooling Water 147 143 4

9 389 38 10 Compressed Air 131 88 4

9 3810 3811 Compressed Air (Insulated) 5 5

4 9 38 16 38 17 Diesel Engine - Generator 136 85 4

9 38 17 38 18 Diesel Engine - Generator (Clean) 8 2

4 9 3818 3819 Electrical (Clean) 1,618 2,366 9

38 26 Feedwater System (Insulated) 122 4

9 3831 3832 HVAC (Clean Insulated) 21 30 4

9 3832 3833 HVAC (Clean) 270 315 4

9 3839 3840 Make-up Water 271 185 4

9 38 40 38 41 Make-up Water (Insulated) 24 18 9

38 44 Mechanical Department Equipment 1

4 9 3844 3848 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 15 14 4

9 38 45 38 49 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) 1 1

4 10 38 56 3860 Saltwater System 146 138 4

10 38.57 3861 Service Cooling Water 88 104 10 3863 Sewer System Expansion 36 Subtotal Disposal of Plant Systems 3,018 4,391 Period 2 Additional Costs 1

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035/HBL-03-002 Non NRC Scope in TLG Estimates Diablo Canyon Unit 1 & 2 2021/2025 Decommissioning Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Page Page ID#

ID#

Descnption 5

10 44 44 Spent Fuel Pad, Casks, Canisters, Equip 5

10 45 45 Spent Fuel Loading Campaigns 5

10 46 46 Spent Fuel Ops & Maintenance 5

10 47 47 Spent Fuel Fixed Costs 5

10 48 48 Spent Fuel Secunty 5

10 49 49 Transfer of Spent Fuel Canisters to DOE 5

10 8

8 Heavy Equipment Rental 5

10 9

9 Small Tool Allowance 5

11 14 14 Plant Energy Budget 5

11 15 15 NRC ISFSI Fees Subtotal Period 2 Additional Costs Dollars in Dollars in 1

0oo's lOOw's 39,373 4,516 1,881 3,762 319 1,637 1,020 69 632 1,881 55,090 Dollars in Dollars in 1 0o's 1 000's 38,750 4,400 1,533 3,066 522 1,819 923 68 571 1,533 53,185 Period 3 Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings 6

11 501 501 Reactor 11 50 2 Administration Building 6

11 50 2 50 5 Capital Additions 85-2002 11 50 3 Auxiliary 6

11 503 50 12 Containment Penetration Area 11 50 4 Breakwater 6

11 504 5016 Fuel Handling 6

11 505 50 20 Miscellanous 11 50 6 Chemical Storage 6

11 506 5030 Turbine 11 50 7 Chlorination 6

11 507 5031 Turbine Pedestal 11 50 8 Circulating Water Tunnels 11 50 9 Cold Machine Shop 11 50 10 Communication 11 50 11 Condensate Polishing/Technical Support 11 50 13 Discharge Structure 11 50 14 Fabrication Shop 11 5015 Fire Pump House 11 50 17 Hazardous Waste Stroage Facility 1 1 5018 Intake Structure 11 50 19 Maintenance Shop 11 50 21 NPO Permanent Warehouse 11 50 22 Ponds 11 50 23 Portable Fire Pump & Fuel Cart 11 50 24 Pretreatment 11 50 25 Radwaste Storage 11 50 26 RotorWarehouse 11 50 27 Security 11 50 28 Simulator 11 50 29 Telephone Terminal 11 50 32 Vehicle Maintenance 11 50 33 Waste Water Holding & Treatment Facility Subtotal Penod 3 Demolition of Remaining Site Bldgs 6,717 121 436 1,359 23 2,887 1,075 6,732 912 3,922 5,639 438 40,752 1,321 58 4

3,986 8

1,079 1,190 333 4

444 869 106 5

1,564 4,940 306 1,216 1

1 9

1,533 824 329 364 2

31 20 12,618 78,942 Site Closeout Activities 12 51 Remove Rubble 6

12 51 52 Grade & Landscape Site Subtotal Site Closeout Activities 124,781 1,605 1,594 1,594 126,386 Period 3 Additional Costs 12 55 ISFSI License Termination 12 56 ISFSI Demolition 5,496 1,830 2

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035/HBL-03-002 Non NRC Scope in TLG Estimates Diablo Canyon Unit 1 & 2 2021/2025 Decommissioning Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit I Unit 2 Page Page 12 12 12 12 Unit I Unit 2 ID #

ID #

Description 54 57 Spent Fuel Ops & Maintenance 55 58 Spent Fuel Fixed Costs 56 59 Spent Fuel Security 57 60 Transfer Spent Fuel Canisters to DOE Subtotal Period 3 Additional Costs Dollars in Dollars in 10ow's 1 0oo's 341 681 681 588 2,291 Dollars in Dollars in 1 000's 1 00's 239 478 478 406 8,927 Period 3 Undistributed Costs 6

12 3

3 Heavy Equipment Rental 6

12 4

4 Small Tool Allowance 6

12 5

5 Plant Energy Budget 6

12 6

6 NRC ISFSI Fees 6

12 7

8 Site Security Cost Subtotal Period 3 Undistributed Costs Period 3 Staff Costs 12 DOC Staff Costs 12 Utility Staff Costs Subtotal Period 3 Staff Costs 4,346 177 119 341 716 4,346 795 119 239 2,958 5,699 5,384 253 11,493 1,165 8,457 12,658 5,637 Total NOT NRC Scope

$87,490

$87,490

$0 $297,028 $297,028 NRC Scope

$488,354

$504,294 Total DCPP NRC Scope

$992,648 3

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002

-Non NRC"Scope'in TLG Estimates Humboldt Bay Power Plant - Unit 3 (Pages 1 - 2)

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035/HBL-03-002 Non NRC Scope in TLG Estimates Humboldt Bay Unit 3 2015 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Dollars in Dollars in Page ID #

Description 1000's 1000's 7

Total Cost to Decommission

$362,088 Completed Projects 1

HBPP Unit 3 1996 Completed Projects

$1,678 No Cntgy 1

HBPP Unit 3 1997 Completed Projects

$8,663 No Cntgy 1

HBPP Unit 3 1998 Completed Projects

$5,574 No Cntgy 1

HBPP Unit 3 1999 Completed Projects

$724 No Cntgy 1

HBPP Unit 3 2000 Completed Projects

$84 No Cntgy HBPP Unit 3 2001 Completed Projects

$91 HBPP Unit 3 2002 Completed Projects

$994 Subtotal Todate Decommissioning

$17,808 ISFSI 1

ISFSI Design & Licensing 1998

$344 No Cntgy I

ISFSI Design & Licensing 1999

$1,994 No Cntgy 1

ISFSI Design & Licensing 2000

$2,264 No Cntgy 1

ISFSI Design & Licensing 2001

$268 No Cntgy I

ISFSI Design & Licensing 2002

$4,340 1

ISFSI Design & Licensing 2003

$388 1

ISFSI Design & Licensing 2004

$900 Subtotal ISFSI

$10,498 Activity Specifications 1

10.1 Re-Activiate Plant& Temporary Facilities

$75 1

10.2 Plant Systems

$34 1

10.7 Reinforced Concrete

$18 2

10.13 Facility & Site Closeout

$52 Detailed Work Procedures 2

16.1 Plant Systems

$54 2

16.4 Remaining Buildings

$116 2

16.9 Facility Closeout

$69 2

16.11 Reinforced Concrete

$58 2

16.14 Radwaste Building

$15 2

16.15 Reactor Building

$15 Period 4 Undistributed Costs 6

8 Heavy Equipment Rental

$711 6

9 Small Tool Allowance

$23 6'

13 Plant Energy Budget

$36 Site Closeout Activities 7

35 Grade & Landscape Site

$27 1

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035/HBL-03-002 Period 5 Additional Costs 7

37 Backfill Site Period 5 Undistributed Costs 7

3 Heavy Equipment Rental 7

4 Small Tool Allowance 7

5 Plant Energy Budget 7

6 Site Security

$256

$806

$16

$10

$24 Staff Costs 7

7 DOC Staff Cost Utility Staff Cost

$571

$140

$3,126 NRC Costs

$330,656 2