DCL-11-039, Submittal of Decommissioning Funding Report

Submittal of Decommissioning Funding Report

ML110950345
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/31/2011
From:	Conway J Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DCL-11-039
Download: ML110950345 (193)

Text

ElectricCompany 0 PacificGas and John T. Conway 77 Beale Street Senior Vice President-Energy Supply & Mail Code B32 Chief Nuclear Officer San Francisco, CA 94105 415.973.3336 Internal: 223.3336 Fax: 415.973.2313 March 31, 2011 10 CFR 50.75 Alternate Address Diablo Canyon Power Plant R O.Box 56 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Avila Beach, CA 93424 805.545.3333 Fax: 805.545.4884 Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Decommissioning Funding Report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2

Dear Commissioners and Staff:

PG&E is submitting the decommissioning fund report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Units 1 and 2, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(f).

Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 At the end of calendar year 2010, the market value of the DCPP Units 1 (3411 MWt) and 2 (3411 MWt) decommissioning trust fund Market value was $807.5 million and

$1,083.1 million respectively. Based on the site-specific decommissioning cost estimate prepared by TLG Services, Inc., and adjusted per the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP) Decision 10-07-047 from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), PG&E is confident that the DCPP Units 1 and 2 decommissioning trust fund balance in 2024 and 2025 will meet the minimum NRC decommissioning amount of $580.3 million (2011 dollars) for each unit that was calculated pursuant to the requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.75(c).

Supporting Cost Estimates Based on site-specific cost estimates prepared by TLG Services, Inc. and the NDCTP Decision 10-07-047, PG&E has estimated that the decommissioning costs are approximately $583.9 million for DCPP Unit 1 and $546 million for Unit 2 in 2011 dollars. These costs do not include site restoration of the facilities ($258.6 million) nor spent fuel management costs after shutdown of the Units ($637.4 million).

To assure that sufficient funds will be available for decommissioning, PG&E has established separate external sinking trust fund accounts for DCPP Units 1 and 2.

A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway

• Comanche Peak

• Diablo Canyon

• Palo Verde- San Onofre

• South Texas Project

• Wolf Creek

Document Control Desk PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 March 31, 2011 Page 2 Supportingq Enclosures Supporting documentation for this report is included as Enclosures 1 through 4. provides decommissioning funding status information in a format suggested by NEI and the NRC. provides information on the escalation of the required decommissioning funding amounts from 1986 dollars to 2011 dollars. As required by 10 CFR 50.75(c)(2), and using NUREG 1577, "Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance,"

Revision 1 and NUREG 1307, "Report on Waste Burial Charges," Revision 14, the information includes escalation factors for energy, labor, and waste burial costs. provides the TLG Services, Inc. decommissioning cost estimate report prepared in March 2009 for PG&E's DCPP Units 1 and 2. The TLG Services, Inc.

cost estimate has then been adjusted to reflect the costs in 2011 dollars per CPUC Decision 10-07-047. The report provides cost estimates for decommissioning of both nuclear and non-nuclear facilities, including the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). contains the TLG Services, Inc. decommissioning cost estimate report prepared in March 2009 for PG&E's DCPP Units 1 & 2. The report provides cost estimates for the decommissioning of the nuclear, non-nuclear facilities, and spent fuel management including operation of the ISFSI.

There are no Regulatory commitments in this letter. Should you have any questions in regard to this document please feel free to call Mr. Bob Kapus at (707) 444-0810.

Sincerely, Jn . onway Senior Vice President- Energ ly and Chief Nuclear Officer Enclosures cc/enc: Elmo E. Collins, NRC Region IV James T. Polickoski, NRC Project Manager Alan B. Wang, NRC Project Manager INPO Diablo Distribution A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway - Comanche Peak

• Diablo Canyon ° Palo Verde- San Onofre

• South Texas Project

• Wolf Creek

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Units 1 (3411 MWt) and 2 (3411 MWt)

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-11-039 Page 1 of 3 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Units 1 (3411 MWt) & 2 (3411 MWt)

As provided in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), each power reactor licensee is required to report to the NRC on a calendar year basis, beginning on March 31, 1999, and every 2 years thereafter, on the status of its decommissioning funding for each reactor or share of reactor it owns.

1. The minimum decommissioning fund estimate, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c)1

$ in Millions Value in January 2011 dollars Unit 1 $580.3 Unit 2 $580.3

2. The amount accumulated at the end of the calendar year preceding the date of the report for items included in 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c).

(Alternatively, the total amount accumulated at the end of the calendar year preceding the date of the report can be reported here if the cover letter transmitting the report provides the total estimate and indicates what portion of that estimate is for items not included in 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c)).

Market Value (December 2010 dollars) Unit 1 $ 807.5 Unit 2 $1,083.1

3. A schedule of the annual amounts remaining to be collected; for items in 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c). (Alternatively, the annual amounts remaining to be collected can include items beyond those required in 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c) if the cover letter transmitting the report provides a total cost estimate and indicates what portion of that estimate is for items that are not included in 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c)). (See item 6 of this enclosure describing the collection of additional funds)

Unit 1 amount remaining $14.2

($4.7 million for 3 years beginning 2010)

Unit 2 amount remaining $13.2

($4.4 million for 3 years beginning 2010)

, The NRC formulas in section 10 CFR 50.75(c) include only those decommissioning costs incurred by licensees to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to levels that permit: (1) release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or (2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. The cost of dismantling or demolishing nonradiological systems and structures is not included in the NRC decommissioning cost estimates. The costs of managing and storing spent fuel on site until transfer to Department of Energy are not included in the cost formulas.

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 2 of 3

4. The assumptions used regarding escalation in decommissioning cost, rates of earnings on decommissioning funds (anticipates that the portfolio of each trust will be gradually converted to a more conservative all income portfolio beginning in 2020 for Unit 1 and Unit 2), and rates of other factors used in funding projections; Escalation in decommissioning costs Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2010 5.01 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2011 4.96 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2012 4.92 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2013 4.88 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2014 4.85 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2015 4.82 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2016 4.80 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2017 4.78 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2018 4.77 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2019 4.75 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2020 4.37 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2021 4.01 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2022 3.67 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2023 3.35 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2024 3.05 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 (Post 2025) 2.95 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2010 5.01 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2011 4.96 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2012 4.91 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2013 4.88 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2014 4.85 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2015 4.82 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2016 4.80 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2017 4.78 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2018 4.77 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2019 4.75 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2020 4.37 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2021 4.01 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2022 3.67 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2023 3.35 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2024 3.05 percent Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 (Post 2025) 2.95 percent

5. Any contracts upon which the licensee is relying pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v).

NONE

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 3 of 3

6. Any modifications to a licensee's current method providing financial assurance occurring since the last submitted report.

NONE

7. Any material changes to trust agreements.

NONE

8. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

Submittal in 2011 dollars in millions:

Total Unit 1 (Decommission 2024) $ 857.5 Scope Excluded from NRC calculations $ 97.9 Spent Fuel Management $ 175.7 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs $ 583.9 Total Unit 2 (Decommission 2025) $1,168.9 Scope Excluded from NRC calculations $ 160.7 Spent Fuel Management $ 461.7 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs $ 546.5

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039

• 2011 Decommissioning Estimate U1 (1 page)

• 2011 Decommissioning Estimate U2 (1 page)

• Composite Escalation (1 page)

• Development of B Component (1 page)

• Development of E Component (7 pages)

• Development of L Component (7 pages)

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 2011 Decommissioning Estimate U1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Estimate of Decommission Costs for PWR DCPP Unit 1 in 2011 DCPP PWR (millions)

Jan 1986 Estimate $105 Escalated to 1999 $118.2 (Table 2.1 in NUREG 1307, Revision 10, has no value for 1999 Burial)

Escalated to 2000 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2001 $333.8 ($396.7 in 2001 Submittal)

Escalated to 2002 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2003 $347.5 ($404.8 in 2003 Submittal)

Escalated to 2004 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2005 $404.2 ($427.2 in 2005 Submittal)

Escalated to 2006 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2007 $495.8 ($494.8 in 2007 Submittal)

Escalated to 2008 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2009 $541.4 Escalated to 2010 $560.7 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2011 $580.3 Jan 1986 based on 10 CFR 50.75 (c) Table of minimum amounts BWR based on minimum 1, 200 MWt = ($104 + (.009xMWt)) million per unit Jan 1986 based on 10 CFR 50.75 (c) Table of minimum amounts PWR Greater than or equal to 3400 MWt = $105 million per unit between 1200 MWt and 3400 MWt (for PWR less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200MWt $75+0.0088P)

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 2011 Decommissioning Estimate U2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Estimate of Decommission Costs for PWR DCPP Unit 2 in 2011 DCPP PWR (millions)

Jan 1986 Estimate $105 Escalated to 1999 $118.2 (Table 2.1 in NUREG 1307, Revision 10, has no value for 1999 Burial)

Escalated to 2000 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2001 $333.8 ($396.7 in 2001 Submittal)

Escalated to 2002 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2003 $347.5 ($404.8 in 2003 Submittal)

Escalated to 2004 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2005 $404.2 ($427.2 in 2005 Submittal)

Escalated to 2006 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2007 $495.8 ($494.8 in 2007 Submittal)

Escalated to 2008 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2009 $541.4 Escalated to 2010 $560.7 (No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2011 $580.3 Jan 1986 based on 10 CFR 50.75 (c) Table of minimum amounts BWR based on minimum 1, 200 MWt - ($104 + (.009xMWt)) million per unit Jan 1986 based on 10 CFR 50.75 (c) Table of minimum amounts PWR Greater than or equal to 3400 MWt = $105 million per unit between 1200 MWt and 3400 MWt (for PWR less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200MWt $75+0.0088P)

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Development of B Component Development of Burial Escalation Developed from NUREG-1307 Revision 14 Table 2.1 "VALUES OF B SUB-X AS A FUNCTION OF LLW BURIAL SITE, WASTE VENDOR, AND YEAR" (Summary for non-Atlantic Compact)

Revised to Bx Values for Generic LLW Disposal Site (Assumed to be same as that provided for the Atlantic Compact) for lack of a better alternative at this time.

PWR PWR Burial Costs Restated to (South Carolina) 1986 = 100 1986 1.678 1.0000 1987 1988 2.007 1.1961 1989 1990 1991 2.494 1.4863 1992 1993 11.408 6.7986 1994 11.873 7.0757 1995 12.824 7.6424 1996 12.771 7.6108 1997 15.852 9.4470 1998 15.886 9.4672 1999 0.0000 2000 18.129 10.8039 2001 0.0000 2002 18.732 11.1633 2003 19.034 11.3430 2004 21.937 13.0733 2005 22.477 13.3951 2006 23.030 13.7247 2007 23.597 14.0626 2008 25.231 15.0364 2009 26.332 15.6922 2010 27.292 16.2646 2011 28.358 16.8999 Table 2.1 Note ('c) From 7/1/95 through 6/30/2000 access was allowed for all states except North Carolina.

Effective 7/1/2000 rates are based on whether a waste generator is or is not a member of the Atlantic Compact.

2001 has no information in NUREG-1 307 Revision 12. 2001 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the average percent change between 2000 and 2002 and adding to the 2000 base.

2003 has no information in NUREG-1307 Revision 12. 2003 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the average percent change between 2002 and 2004 and adding to the 2002 base.

2005 has no information in NUREG-1 307 Revision 12. 2005 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the average percent change between 2004 and 2006 and adding to the 2004 base.

2007 has no information in NUREG-1 307 Revision 12. 2007 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the average percent change between 2004 and 2006 and adding to the 2006 base.

2009 has no information in NUREG-1307 Revision 13. 2009 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the average percent change between 2006 and 2008 and adding to the 2008 base.

2011 has no information in NUREG-1 307 Revision 14. 2011 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the average percent change between 2008 and 2010 and adding to the 2008 base.

Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 1 of 7 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Sectopm 3.2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/02/11) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03/02/11)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Energy Escalation Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils Factor (E)

(1982 c 100) (1982=100) (1986 = 100) (1986=100) for PWR (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (Diablo Canyon)

PWR wt = 0.58 PWR wt = 0.42.

Jan-86 114.2 82.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Feb-86 115.0 62.4 1.0070 0.7610 0.9037 Mar-86 114.4 51.3 1.0018 0.6256 0.8438 Apr-86 113.7 49.8 0.9956 0.6073 0.8325 May-86 114.1 47.0 0.9991 0.5732 0.8202 Jun-86 115.3 44.7 1.0096 0.5451 0.8145 Jul-86 116.2 36.4 1.0175 0.4439 0.7766 Aug-86 116.3 40.1 1.0184 0.4890 0.7961 Sep-86 116.3 46.3 1.0184 0.5646 0.8278 Oct-86 113.0 43.1 0.9895 0.5256 0.7947 Nov-86 112.7 43.5 0.9869 0.5305 0.7952 Dec-86 112.3 45.6 0.9834 0.5561 0.8039 Jan-87 110.3 51.4 0.9658 0.6268 0.8235 Feb-87 109.8 53.1 0.9615 0.6476 0.8296 Mar-87 110.2 49.7 0.9650 0.6061 0.8142 Apr-87 109.9 52.0 0.9623 0.6341 0.8245 May-87 111.8 53.3 0.9790 0.6500 0.8408 Jun-87 113.9 55.1 0.9974 0.6720 0.8607 Jul-87 116.2 56.3 1.0175 0.6866 0.8785 Aug-87 115.7 59.4 1.0131 0.7244 0.8919 Sep-87 115.5 56.8 1.0114 0.6927 0.8775 Oct-87 111.0 59.3 0.9720 0.7232 0.8675 Nov-87 109.2 61.2 0.9562 0.7463 0.8681 Dec-87 109.6 58.1 0.9597 0.7085 0.8542 Jan-88 108.8 54.8 0.9527 0.6683 0.8333 Feb-88 109.0 51.5 0.9545 0.6280 0.8174 Mar-88 109.0 49.7 0.9545 0.6061 0.8082 Apr-88 109.1 53.3 0.9553 0.6500 0.8271 May-88 108.9 54.3 0.9536 0.6622 0.8312 Jun-88 117.2 50.6 1.0263 0.6171 0.8544 Jul-88 118.2 46.9 1.0350 0.5720. 0.8405 Aug-88 118.3 46.8 1.0359 0.5707 0.8405 Sep-88 118.5 45.9 1.0377 0.5598 0.8369 Oct-88 114.2 42.3 1.0000 0.5159 0.7967 Nov-88 109.2 47.2 0.9562 0.5756 0.7964 Dec-88 110.5 50.6 0.9676 0.6171 0.8204 Jan-89 112.0 54.9 0.9807 0.6695 0.8500 Feb-89 112.0 54.0 0.9807 0.6585 0.8454 Mar-89 112.3 57.3 0.9834 0.6988 0.8638 Apr-89 112.4 61.5 0.9842 0.7500 0.8859 May-89 113.6 57.5 0.9947 0.7012 0.8715 Jun-89 119.8 53.3 1.0490 0.6500 0.8814 Jul-89 122.2 52.7 1.0701 0.6427 0.8906 Aug-89 122.4 53.5 1.0718 0.6524 0.8957 Sep-89 122.5 59.3 1.0727 0.7232 0.9259

Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 2 of 7 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Sectopm 3.2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/02/11) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03/02/11)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Energy Escalation Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils Factor (E)

(1982 = 100) (1982=100) (1986 = 100) (1986=100) for PWR (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (Diablo Canyon)

Oct-89 117.2 64.0 1.0263 0.7805 0.9230 Nov-89 113.5 64.4 0.9939 0.7854 0.9063 Dec-89 114.2 68.1 1.0000 0.8305 0.9288 Jan-90 114.9 85.3 1.0061 1.0402 1.0205 Feb-90 115.0 59.4 1.0070 0.7244 0.8883 Mar-90 115.4 60.4 1.0105 0.7366 0.8955 Apr-90 115.1 61.0 1.0079 0.7439 0.8970 May-90 117.0 58.4 1.0245 0.7122 0.8933 Jun-90 123.9 53.0 1.0849 0.6463 0.9007 Jul-90 124.4 51.6 1.0893 0.6293 0.8961 Aug-90 124.6 72.3 1.0911 0.8817 1.0031 Sep-90 125.0 87.3 1.0946 1.0646 1.0820 Oct-90 121.2 104.8 1.0613 1.2780 1.1523 Nov-90 120.2 98.9 1.0525 1.2061 1.1170 Dec-90 118.9 89.3 1.0412 1.0890 1.0613 Jan-91 124.2 82.9 1.0876 1.0110 1.0554 Feb-91 124.3 74.3 1.0884 0.9061 1.0119 Mar-91 124.3 61.6 1.0884 0.7512 0.9468 Apr-91 124.7 60.0 1.0919 0.7317 0.9406 May-91 128.2 59.6 1.1226 0.7268 0.9564 Jun-91 132.6 57.6 1.1611 0.7024 0.9685 Jul-91 134.5 58.1 1.1778 0.7085 0.9807 Aug-91 133.8 62.1 1.1716 0.7573 0.9976 Sep-91 133.8 65.4 1.1716 0.7976 1.0145 Oct-91 128.3 67.6 1.1235 0.8244 0.9979 Nov-91 123.1 71.0 1.0779 0.8659 0.9889 Dec-91 125.1 62.2 1.0954 0.7585 0.9539 Jan-92 125.9 54.4 1.1025 0.6634 0.9181 Feb-92 125.3 57.3 1.0972 0.6988 0.9299 Mar-92 125.8 56.0 1.1016 0.6829 0.9257 Apr-92 124.8 59.0 1.0928 0.7195 0.9360 May-92 128.5 62.1 1.1252 0.7573 0:9707 Jun-92 134.8 65.4 1.1804 0.7976 1.0196 Jul-92 135.6 64.6 1.1874 0.7878 1.0196 Aug-92 135.1 63.3 1.1830 0.7720 1.0104 Sep-92 135.9 65.6 1.1900 0.8000 1.0262 Oct-92 131.2 68.2 1.1489 0.8317 1.0157 Nov-92 125.5 64,2 1.0989 0.7829 0.9662 Dec-92 126.7 59.4 1.1095 0.7244 0.9477 Jan-93 127.1 59.0 1.1130 0.7195 0.9477 Feb-93 126.4 60.4 1.1068 0.7366 0.9513 Mar-93 126.7 63.2 1.1095 0.7707 0.9672 Apr-93 126.8 62.4 1.1103 0.7610 0.9636 May-93 127.5 62,6 1.1165 0.7634 0.9682 Jun-93 136.9 60,8 1.1988 0.7415 1.0067 Jul-93 137.1 57.0 1.2005 0.6951 0.9883 Aug-93 137.2 54.4 1.2014 0.6634 0.9754

Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 3 of 7 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 14, Sectopm 3.2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/02/11) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03/02/11)

REBASED TO 1986 =100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Energy Escalation Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils Factor (E)

(1982 = 100) (1982=1 00) (1986 = 100) (1986=100) for PWR (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (Diablo Canyon)

Sep-93 137.6 59.3 1.2049 0.7232 1.0026 Oct-93 131.9 65.4 1.1550 0.7976 1.0049 Nov-93 126.3 61.6 1.1060 0.7512 0.9570 Dec-93 126.0 51.4 1.1033 0.6268 0.9032 Jan-94 126.2 51.5 1.1051 0.6280 0.9047 Feb-94 125.9 57.5 1.1025 0.7012 0.9339 Mar-94 125.8 56.2 1.1016 0.6854 0.9268 Apr-94 125.4 54.7 1.0981 0.6671 0.9171 May-94 126.0 54.7 1.1033 0.6671 0.9201 Jun-94 133.5 54.1 1.1690 0.6598 0.9551 Jul-94 134.5 56.3 1.1778 0.6866 0.9715 Aug-94 134.5 57.5 1.1778 0.7012 0.9776 Sep-94 134.9 57.7 1.1813 0.7037 0.9807 Oct-94 129.1 57.7 1.1305 0.7037 0.9512 Nov-94 127.0 58.8 1.1121 0.7171 0.9462 Dec-94 127.4 54.7 1.1156 0.6671 0.9272 Jan-95 127.6 54.7 1.1173 0.6671 0.9282 Feb-95 128.0 53.3 1.1208 0.6500 0.9231 Mar-95 128.3 54.3 1.1235 0.6622 0.9297 Apr-95 126.4 57.1 1.1068 0.6963 0.9344 May-95 130.2 59.1 1.1401 0.7207 0.9640 Jun-95 135.3 55.8 1.1848 0.6805 0.9730 Jul-95 136.6 53.5 1.1961 0.6524 0.9678 Aug-95 136.5 55.6 1.1953 0.6780 0.9780 Sep-95 133.7 58.2 1.1708 0.7098 0.9771 Oct-95 131.4 57.8 1.1506 0.7049 0.9634 Nov-95 127.6 59.5 1.1173 0.7256 0.9528 Dec-95 127.7 60.6 1.1182 0.7390 0.9590 Jan-96 127.9 62.6 1.1200 0.7634 0.9702 Feb-96 127.1 59.7 1.1130 0.7280 0.9513 Mar-96 127.8 63.5 1.1191 0.7744 0.9743 Apr-96 129.1 74.7 1.1305 0.9110 1.0383 May-96 135.0 72.0 1.1821 0.8780 1.0544 Jun-96 137.5 62.8 1.2040 0.7659 1.0200 Jul-96 136.0 64.3 1.1909 0.7841 1.0201 Aug-96 136.2 66.5 1.1926 0.8110 1.0323 Sep-96 136.2 73.4 1.1926 0.8951 1.0677 Oct-96 131.2 79.7 1.1489 0.9720 1.0746 Nov-96 127.1 76.5 1.1130 0.9329 1.0373 Dec-96 127.7 76.1 1.1182 0.9280 1.0383 Jan-97 128.3 73.7 1.1235 0.8988 1.0291 Feb-97 128.1 72.3 1.1217 0.8817 1.0209 Mar-97 128.2 65.2 1.1226 0.7951 0.9851 Apr-97 127.3 65.3 1.1147 0.7963 0.9810 May-97 129.7 64.2 1.1357 0.7829 0.9876 Jun-97 135.1 60.8 1.1830 0.7415 0.9976 Jul-97 135.9 57.8 1.1900 0.7049 0.9863

Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 4 of 7 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor - Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 14, Sectopm 3.2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/02/11) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03/02/11)

REBASED TO 1986= 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Energy Escalation Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils Factor (E)

(1982 = 100) (1982=100) (1986 = 100) (1986=100) for PWR (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (Diablo Canyon)

Aug-97 134.7 61.5 1.1795 0.7500 0.9991 Sep-97 136.0 60.4 1.1909 0.7366 1.0001 Oct-97 130.1 64.8 1.1392 0.7902 0.9927 Nov-97 127.9 65.8 1.1200 0.8024 0.9866 Dec-97 128.3 59.4 1.1235 0.7244 0.9559 Jan-98 127.4 54.1 1.1156 0.6598 0.9241 Feb-98 127.2 52.0 1.1138 0.6341 0.9124 Mar-98 126.7 48.3. 1.1095 0.5890 0.8909 Apr-98 126.4 50.2 1.1068 0.6122 0.8991 May-98 129.2 50.0 1.1313 0.6098 0.9123 Jun-98 133.8 46.3 1.1716 0.5646 0.9167 Jul-98 134.8 45.0 1.1804 0.5488 0.9151 Aug-98 135.2 44.0 1.1839 0.5366 0.9120 Sep-98 135.2 48.3 1.1839 0.5890 0.9340 Oct-98 130.4 47.4 1.1419 0.5780 0.9051 Nov-98 127.6 46.2 1.1173 0.5634 0.8847 Dec-98 126.6 38.8 1.1086 0.4732 0.8417 Jan-99 126.1 40.9 1.1042 0.4988 0.8499 Feb-99 125.5 38.2 1.0989 0.4659 0.8330 Mar-99 125.5 42.8 1.0989 0.5220 0.8566 Apr-99 125.2 52.5 1.0963 0.6402 0.9048 May-99 127.4 52.6 1.1156 0.6415 0.9165 Jun-99 131.0 52.4 1.1471 0.6390 0.9337 Jul-99 133.9 58.7 1.1725 0.7159 0.9807 Aug-99 133.9 63 1.1725 0.7683 1.0027 Sep-99 134.1 67.6 1.1743 0.8244 1.0273 Oct-99 129.5 65.5 1.1340 0.7988 0.9932 Nov-99 127.5 71.3 1.1165 0.8695 1.0127 Dec-99 126.5 72.9 1.1077 0.8890 1.0159 Jan-00 126.8 75.3 1.1103 0.9183 1.0297 Feb-00 126.7 87.9 1.1095 1.0720 1.0937 Mar-00 126.7 89.7 1.1095 1.0939 1.1029 Apr-00 126.8 83.1 1.1103 1.0134 1.0696 May-00 128.6 82.9 1.1261 1.0110 1.0777 Jun-00 133.6 86.2 1.1699 1.0512 1.1200 Jul-00 136.2 88.7 1.1926 1.0817 1.1461 Aug-00 137.4 91.6 1.2032 1.1171 1.1670 Sep-00 137.8 110.1 1.2067 1.3427 1.2638 Oct-00 134.1 108.6 1.1743 1.3244 1.2373 Nov-00 130.9 108.4 1.1462 1.3220 1.2200 Dec-00 132.7 100.6 1.1620 1.2268 1.1892 Jan-01 136.4 96.1 1.1944 1.1720 1.1850 Feb-01 136.4 91.6 1.1944 1.1171 1.1619 Mar-01 136.5 83.1 1.1953 1.0134 1.1189 Apr-01 135.1 86.2 1.1830 1.0512 1.1277 May-01 136.2 94.2 1.1926 1.1488 1.1742 Jun-01 148.4 90.2 1.2995 1.1000 1.2157

Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 5 of 7 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 14, Sectopm 3.2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/02/11) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03/02/11)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Energy Escalation Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils Factor (E)

(1982 = 100) (1982=1 00) (1986 = 100) (1986=100) for PWR (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (Diablo Canyon)

Jul-01 149.5 81.3 1.3091 0.9915 1.1757 Aug-01 148.9 83.2 1.3039 1.0146 1.1824 Sep-01 148.2 93 1.2977 1.1341 1.2290 Oct-01 143.8 76.8 1.2592 0.9366 1.1237 Nov-01 137.3 70.5 1.2023 0.8598 1.0584 Dec-01 136.9 56.6 1.1988 0.6902 0.9852 Jan-02 136.3 58.3 1.1935 0.7110 0.9909 Feb-02 135.4 59.6 1.1856 0.7268 0.9929 Mar-02 135.7 69.1 1.1883 0.8427 1.0431 Apr-02 135.4 76.4 1.1856 0.9317 1.0790 May-02 137.9 75 1.2075 0.9146 1.0845 Jun-02 143.6 71.4 1.2574 0.8707 1.0950 Jul-02 144.9 75.5 1.2688 0.9207 1.1226 Aug-02 145.0 77.9 1.2697 0.9500 1.1354 Sep-02 145.8 89.5 1.2767 1.0915 1.1989 Oct-02 140.0 95.1 1.2259 1.1598 1.1981 Nov-02 139.5 82.8 1.2215 1.0098 1.1326 Dec-02 139.6 84.6 1.2224 1.0317 1.1423 Jan-03 140.3 95.7 1.2285 1.1671 1.2027 Feb-03 140.6 120.4 1.2312 1.4683 1.3308 Mar-03 143.3 128.9 1.2548 1.5720 1.3880 Apr-03 144.3 98.3 1.2636 1.1988 1.2364 May-03 145.1 85.5 1.2706 1.0427 1.1749 Jun-03 148.3 87.2 1.2986 1.0634 1.1998 Jul-03 151.6 90.1 1.3275 1.0988 1.2314 Aug-03 151.3 94.1 1.3249 1.1476 1.2504 Sep-03 152.0 88.2 1.3310 1.0756 1.2237 Oct-03 147.4 97.8 1.2907 1.1927 1.2495 Nov-03 142.7 93.0 1.2496 1.1341 1.2011 Dec-03 142.9 95.8 1.2513 1.1683 1.2164 Jan-04 143.1 106.8 1.2531 1.3024 1.2738 Feb-04 143.1 100.8 1.2531 1.2293 1.2431 Mar-04 143.1 107.8 1.2531 1.3146 1.2789 Apr-04 143.1 115.2 1.2531 1.4049 1.3168 May-04 144.2 116 1.2627 1.4146 1.3265 Jun-04 152.4 111.5 1.3345 1.3598 1.3451 Jul-04 152.2 119.3 1.3327 1.4549 1.3840 Aug-04 154.0 131.1 1.3485 1.5988 1.4536 Sep-04 154.0 136.8 1.3485 1.6683 1.4828 Oct-04 145.8 161.7 1.2767 1.9720 1.5687 Nov-04 144.9 153.6 1.2688 1.8732 1.5227 Dec-04 146.2 133.8 1.2802 1.6317 1.4278 Jan-05 148.9 138.5 1.3039 1.6890 1.4656 Feb-05 148.0 146 1.2960 1.7805 1.4995 Mar-05 148.1 169.4 1.2968 2.0659 1.6198 Apr-05 148.7 170.9 1.3021 2.0841 1.6306 May-05 151.1 165.3 1.3231 2.0159 1.6141

Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 6 of 7 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor - Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Sectopm 3.2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/02/11) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03/02/11)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Energy Escalation Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils Factor (E)

(1982 = 100) (1982=100) (1986 = 100) (1986=100) for PWR (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (Diablo Canyon)

Jun-05 159.7 180.6 1.3984 2.2024 1.7361 Jul-05 162.1 186.2 1.4194 2.2707 1.7770 Aug-05 162.5 194.5 1.4229 2.3720 1.8215 Sep-05 162.8 209.9 1.4256 2.5598 1.9019 Oct-05 159.5 252.0 1.3967 3.0732 2.1008 Nov-05 161.1 199.1 1.4107 2.4280 1.8380 Dec-05 161.4 193.6 1.4133 2.3610 1,8113 Jan-06 167.0 191.8 1.4623 2.3390 1.8306 Feb-06 168.6 190.0 1.4764 2.3171 1.8295 Mar-06 167.4 199.2 1.4658 2.4293 1.8705 Apr-06 169.6 221.9 1.4851 2.7061 1.9979 May-06 170.8 231.4 1.4956 2.8220 2.0527 Jun-06 181.2 238.1 1.5867 2.9037 2.1398 Jul-06 181.9 231.6 1.5928 2.8244 2.1101 Aug-06 180.2 241.4 1.5779 2.9439 2.1516 Sep-06 181.0 203.1 1.5849 2.4768 1.9595 Oct-06 171.2 198.1 1.4991 2.4159 1.8842 Nov-06 167.2 198.2 1.4641 2.4171 1.8643 Dec-06 167.8 200.4 1.4694 2.4439 1.8787 Jan-07 171.9 180.0 1.5053 2.1951 1.7950 Feb-07 175.7 191.5 1.5385 2.3354 1.8732 Mar-07 172.1 215.1 1.5070 2.6232 1.9758 Apr-07 173.1 231.8 1.5158 2.8268 2.0664 May-07 179.2 225.3 1.5692 2.7476 2.0641 Jun-07 186.7 222.4 1.6349 2.7122 2.0873 Jul-07 187.0 237.8 1.6375 2.9000 2.1677 Aug-07 187.6 225.5 1.6427 2.7500 2.1078 Sep-07 188.4 238.9 1.6497 2.9134 2.1805 Oct-07 182.7 243.3 1.5998 2.9671 2.1741 Nov-07 180.3 288.2 1.5788 3.5146 2.3919 Dec-07 180.0 266.7 1.5762 3.2524 2.2802 Jan-08 181.9 273.8 1.5928 3.3390 2.3262 Feb-08 180.0 280.2 1.5762 3.4171 2.3494 Mar-08 183.1 339.6 1.6033 4.1415 2.6693 Apr-08 185.2 352.5 1.6217 4.2988 2.7461 May-08 189.5 384.9 1.6594 4.6939 2.9339 Jun-08 191.9 410.5 1.6804 5.0061 3.0772 Jul-08 196.1 423.8 1.7172 5.1683 3.1666 Aug-08 197.1 343.9 . 1.7259 4.1939 2.7625 Sep-08 195.9 335.1 1.7154 4.0866 2.7113 Oct-08 193.0 279.0 1.6900 3.4024 2.4092 Nov-08 187.7 218.2 1.6436 2.6610 2.0709 Dec-08 188.3 163.0 1.6489 1.9878 1.7912 Jan-09 190.3 159.8 1.6664 1.9488 1.7850 Feb-09 190.3 145.6 1.6664 1.7756 1.7123 Mar-09 187.6 136.8 1.6427 1.6683 1.6535 Apr-09 186.9 159.9 1.6366 1.9500 1.7682

Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-11-039 Page 7 of 7 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 14, Sectopm 3.2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/02/11) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03/02/11)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Energy Escalation Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils Factor (E)

(1982 = 100) (1982=100) (1986 = 100) (1986=100) for PWR (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (Diablo Canyon)

May-09 190.5 158.6 1.6681 1.9341 1.7799 Jun-09 193.3 183.7 1.6926 2.2402 1.9226 Jul-09 196.2 165.2 1.7180 2.0146 1.8426 Aug-09 194.7 196.1 1.7049 2.3915 1.9933 Sep-09 194.9 186.6 1.7067 2.2756 1.9456 Oct-09 189.9 193.3 1.6629 2.3573 1.9545 Nov-09 186.0 207.8 1.6287 2.5341 2.0090 Dec-09 186.0 197.5 1.6287 2.4085 1.9562 Jan-10 186.3 220.7 1.6313 2.6915 2.0766 Feb-10 186.1 200.2 1.6296 2.4415 1.9706 Mar-10 189.0 217.0 1.6550 2.6463 2.0714 Apr-10 188.8 231.5 1.6532 2.8232 2.1446 May-10 192.0 226.0 1.6813 2.7561 2.1327 Jun-10 197.8 212.4 1.7320 2.5902 2.0925 Jul-10 199.8 209.3 1.7496 2.5524 2.0868 Aug-10 200.8 221.4 1.7583 2.7000 2.1538 Sep-10 200.0 220.0 1.7513 2.6829 2.1426 Oct-10 194.7 236.0 1.7049 2.8780 2.1976 Nov-10 192.9 245.5 1.6891 2.9939 2.2371

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 1 of 7 Development of L Component Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor - Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Section 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 03/02/11)

January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Revision 14 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 7).

Note 1: The Base Labor factor was reindexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100.

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989 = 100) Factor Jan-86 89.8 1.00000 Feb-86 Mar-86 Apr-86 90.8 1.01114 May-86 Jun-86 Jul-86 91.2 1.01559 Aug-86 Sep-86 Oct-86 91.6 1.02004 Nov-86 Dec-86 Jan-87 92.5 1.03007 Feb-87 Mar-87 Apr-87 92.6 1.03118 May-87 Jun-87 Jul-87 93.7 1.04343 Aug-87 Sep-87 Oct-87 94.1 1.04788 Nov-87 Dec-87 Jan-88 95.4 1.06236 Feb-88 Mar-88 Apr-88 96.3 1.07238 May-88 Jun-88 Jul-88 97 1.08018 Aug-88 Sep-88 Oct-88 97.7 1.08797 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 98.8 1.10022 Feb-89 Mar-89 Apr-89 100 1.11359 May-89 Jun-89 Jul-89 101 1.12472 Aug-89 Sep-89

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 2 of 7 Development of L Component Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Section 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 03/02/11)

January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Revision 14 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 7).

Note 1: The Base Labor factor was reindexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100.

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989 = 100) Factor Oct-89 101.8 1.13363 Nov-89 Dec-89 Jan-90 103.3 1.15033 Feb-90 Mar-90 Apr-90 104.5 1.16370 May-90 Jun-90 Jul-90 105.6 1.17595 Aug-90 Sep-90 Oct-90 106.3 1.18374 Nov-90 Dec-90 Jan-91 107.5 1.19710 Feb-91 Mar-91 Apr-91 108.9 1.21269 May-91 Jun-91 Jul-91 110 1.22494 Aug-91 Sep-91 Oct-91 110.9 1.23497 Nov-91 Dec-91 Jan-92 111.9 1.24610 Feb-92 Mar-92 Apr-92 112.9 1.25724 May-92 Jun-92 Jul-92 114.1 1.27060 Aug-92 Sep-92 Oct-92 114.9 1.27951 Nov-92 Dec-92 Jan-93 116.2 1.29399 Feb-93 Mar-93 Apr-93 116.4 1.29621 May-93 Jun-93

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 3 of 7 Development of L Component Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor - Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Section 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 03/02/11)

January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Revision 14 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 7).

Note 1: The Base Labor factor was reindexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100.

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989 = 100) Factor Jul-93 117.8 1.31180 Aug-93 Sep-93 Oct-93 118.1 1.31514 Nov-93 Dec-93 Jan-94 119.4 1.32962 Feb-94 Mar-94 Apr-94 120.5 1.34187 May-94 Jun-94 Jul-94 121.3 1.35078 Aug-94 Sep-94 Oct-94 121.7 1.35523 Nov-94 Dec-94 Jan-95 122.6 1.36526 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 123.4 1.37416 May-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 123.9 1.37973 Aug-95 Sep-95 Oct-95 125 1.39198 Nov-95 Dec-95 Jan-96 125.9 1.40200 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 127.3 1.41759 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 128.3 1.42873 Aug-96 Sep-96 Oct-96 128.9 1.43541 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 130.3 1.45100 Feb-97 Mar-97

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 4 of 7 Development of L Component Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Section 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 03/02/11)

January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Revision 14 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 7).

Note 1: The Base Labor factor was reindexed in December 2005, at which time'the index was reset to 100.

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989 = 100) Factor Apr-97 131.4 1.46325 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 132.5 1.47550 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 133.4 1.48552 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 135.2 1.50557 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 136.6 1.52116 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 138.5 1.54232 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 140 1.55902 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 140.3 1.56236 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 142.1 1.58241 May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 143.3 1.59577 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 144.7 1.61136 Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 147 1.63697 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 148.8 1.65702 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 150.8 1.67929 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 151.8 1.69042 Nov-00 Dec-00

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 5 of 7 Development of L Component Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Section 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 03/02/11)

January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Revision 14 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 7).

Note 1: The Base Labor factor was reindexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100.

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989 = 100) Factor Jan-01 84.1 0.93653 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 85 0.94655 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 85.9 0.95657 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 86.9 0.96771 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 87.4 0.97327 Feb-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 88.5 0.98552 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 89.1 0.99220 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 89.8 1.00000 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 90.9 1.01225 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 92 1.02450 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 93.2 1.03786 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 93.8 1.04454 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 95.3 1.06125 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 96.2 1.07127 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 96.9 1.07906 Aug-04

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 6 of 7 Development of L Component Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor- Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Section 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 03/02/11)

January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Revision 14 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 7).

Note 1: The Base Labor factor was reindexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100.

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989 = 100) Factor Sep-04 Oct-04 97.4 1.08463 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 98.4 1.09577 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 99.3 1.10579 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 99.7 1.11024 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 (Note 1) 100 2.06000 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 100.6 2.07236 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 101.8 2.09708 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 102.5 2.11150 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 103 2.12180 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 104.2 2.14652 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 104.9 2.16094 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 105.7 2.17742 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 106.5 2.19390 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 107.8 2.22068 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 108.4 2.23304 May-08

Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Page 7 of 7 Development of L Component Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor - Reference NUREG-1 307, Revision 14, Section 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 03/02/11)

January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Revision 14 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 7).

Note 1: The Base Labor factor was reindexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100.

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989 = 100) Factor Jun-08 Jul-08 109.3 2.25158 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 109.4 2.25364 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 109.9 2.26394 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 110.0 2.26600 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 110.3 2.27218 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 110.6 2.27836 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 111.4 2.29484 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 111.7 2.30102 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-1 0 112.3 2.31338 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 112.5 2.31750 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-i 1 112.7 2.32162 Jan-11 is an estimate based on difference between July 2010 and October 2010 and adding to the October 2010 base.

Enclosure 3 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Table C-1 and Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 1 Decon Decommissioning Cost Estimate Table C-1 and Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 Decon Decommissioning Cost Estimate

Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-039 Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (TLG Services, Inc.)

Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for the DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT preparedfor Pacific Gas and Electric Company preparedby TLG Services, Inc.

Bridgewater, Connecticut March 2009

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page ii of xvii APPROVALS Project Manager Geoffr G riffith Date Project Engineer J n A. Carlson Date Technical Manager , s/,w. 9 rancis W. Sey e ate Quality Assurance Manager sepý J.,Idler Date TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page iii of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECU TIVE SUM M ARY .................................................................................. vii-xvii

1. INTRODU CTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Objectives 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 Acts ...................................................... 1-5 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Term ination .................................... 1-7

2. DECOM MISSION IN G ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 2-1 2.1 DECON .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1 Period 1 - Preparations ......................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Period 2 - Decom m issioning Operations .............................................. 2-4 2.1.3 Period 3 --Site Restoration .................................................................... 2-7 2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decom missioning ............................................ 2-8 2.2 SAFSTOR .......................................................................................................... 2-9 2.2.1 Period 1 - Preparations ....................................................................... 2-10 2.2.2 Period 2 - Dorm ancy ............................................................................ 2-11 2.2.3 Periods 3 and 4 - Delayed Decom m issioning ..................................... 2-12 2.2.4 Period 5 - Site Restoration .................................................................. 2-13

3. COST ESTIMATE ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Basis of Estim ate .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Impact of Decommissioning Multiple Reactor Units ..................................... 3-3 3.4 Financial Com ponents of the Cost M odel ....................................................... 3-4 3.4.1 Contingency ........................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.2 Financial Risk ........................................................................................ 3-6 3.5 Site-Specific Considerations ............................................................................. 3-7 3.5.1 Spent Fuel M anagem ent ....................................................................... 3-8 3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Com ponents ......................................... 3-10 3.5.3 Prim ary System Com ponents ............................................................. 3-11 3.5.4 Retired Com ponents ............................................................................ 3-13 3.5.5 M ain Turbine and Condenser ............................................................. 3-13 3.5.6 Transportation M ethods ..................................................................... 3-13 3.5.7 Low -Level Radioactive Waste Disposal ............................................. 3-14 3.5.8 Site Conditions Following Decom m issioning .................................... 3-15 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page iv of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 3.6 A ssum ptions .................................................................................................... 3-16 3.6.1 E stim ating B asis ................................................................................. 3-16 3.6.2 L abor C osts .......................................................................................... 3-16 3.6.3 D esign Conditions ................................................................................ 3-17 3.6.4 General ................................................................................................. 3-17 3.7 Cost Estim ate Summ ary ............................................................................... 3-20

4. SCH ED ULE ESTIM ATE ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Schedule Estim ate Assumptions ..................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Project Schedule ................................................................................................ 4-2

5. RAD IOA CTIVE WA STES ........................................................................................ 5-1

6. RE S UL T S ................................................................................................................. 6-1

7. RE F E RE N CE S .......................................................................................................... 7-1 TABLES DECON Cost Summary, Decommissioning Cost Elements ........................... xvi SAFSTOR Cost Summary, Decommissioning Cost Elements ...................... xvii 3.1a Unit 1, DECON Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures ....... 3-22 3.lb Unit 2, DECON Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures ....... 3-23 3.2a Unit 1, SAFSTOR Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures .... 3-24 3.2b Unit 2, SAFSTOR Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures .... 3-26 5.1 Unit 1 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary .................. 5-3 5.2 Unit 2 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary .................. 5-4 5.3 Unit 1 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary .............. 5-5 5.4 Unit 2 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary .............. 5-6 6.1 Unit 1 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning Cost Elements ..................... 6-4 6.2 Unit 2 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning Cost Elements ..................... 6-5 6.3 Unit 1 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Cost Elements .................. 6-6 6.4 Unit 2 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Cost Elements .................. 6-7 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page v of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE FIGURES 4.1 Activity Schedule .............................................................................................. 4-3 4.2 Decom m issioning Tim eline, DECON .............................................................. 4-7 4.3 Decom m issioning Tim eline, SAFSTOR .......................................................... 4-8 APPENDICES A. Unit Cost Factor Development ......................................................................... A-1 B. Unit Cost Factor Listing ................................................................................. B-1 C. Detailed Cost Analysis, DECON ..................................................................... C-1 D. Detailed Cost Analysis, SAFSTOR .................................................................. D-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page vi of xvii REVISION LOG No. CR No. Date .Item Revised Reason for Revision, 0 03-27-09 Original Issue TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page vii of xvii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) for the selected decommissioning scenarios following the scheduled cessation of plant operations. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an evaluation prepared in 2005,[1] updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear plant and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. The current estimates are designed to provide Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), with sufficient information to assess the plant owners' financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear plant.

The primary goal of the decommissioning is the removal and disposal of the contaminated systems and structures so that the plant's operating licenses can be terminated. The analysis recognizes that spent fuel will be stored at the site in the plant's storage pools and in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) until such time that it can be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) federal repository. Consequently, the estimates also include those costs to manage and subsequently decommission these interim storage facilities.

The currently projected cost to decommission the station, assuming the DECON alternative, is estimated at $1,828.3 million, as reported in 2008 dollars. An estimate for the SAFSTOR alternative is also provided.

The estimates are based on numerous fundamental assumptions, including regulatory requirements, project contingencies, low-level radioactive waste disposal practices, high-level radioactive waste management options, and site restoration requirements. The estimates incorporate a minimum cooling period of approximately 12 years for the spent fuel that resides in the storage pools when operations cease.[ 21 In both scenarios that were analyzed, any residual fuel remaining in the pools after the 12-year period is relocated to the ISFSI to await transfer to a DOE facility. The estimates also include the dismantling of site structures and non-essential facilities and the limited restoration of the site.

1 "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant," Document No. P01-1513-004, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., June 2005 2 The current Part 72 ISFSI license does not allow dry cask storage of spent fuel with burnups above 45,000 MWD/metric ton. It is assumed that PG&E can amend the Part 72 license to store the higher burnup fuel, but that as a condition of the amendment it will require longer decay times (12 years) before storing the spent fuel in the casks.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page viii of xvii Alternatives and Regulations The ultimate objective of the decommissioning process is to reduce the inventory of contaminated and activated material so that the license can be terminated. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on June 27, 1988J 3] In this rule, the NRC set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

The regulations addressed 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 is defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[4]

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."[51 Decommissioning is to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety.

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."[6] As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years.

The 60-year restriction has limited the practicality for the ENTOMB alternative at commercial reactors that generate significant amounts of long-lived radioactive material. In 1997, the Commission directed its staff 3 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988 4 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3 5 Ibid.

6 Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page ix of xvii to re-evaluate this alternative and identify the technical requirements and regulatory actions that would be necessary for entombment to become a viable option. The resulting evaluation provided several recommendations, however, rulemaking has been deferred pending the completion of additional research studies, for example, on engineered barriers.

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

Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further described the methods and procedures acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the 1996 revised rule relating to the initial activities and major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and processes described in the amended regulations. The format and content of the estimates is also consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.202, issued in February 2005.[81 Decommissioning Scenarios Two decommissioning scenarios are evaluated for the two nuclear units. The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defgred as follows:

DECON: The operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 currently expire in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively. The first scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. Any residual spent fuel is transferred to the ISFSI to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel handling building. Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2051.

SAFSTOR: The units are placed into safe-storage in the second scenario. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minimum cooling period of 12 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim storage. The length of 7 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, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996 8 "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors,"

Regulatory Guide 1.202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page x of xvii SAFSTOR dormancy is established to schedule the beginning of Unit 1 decommissioning activities with the final spent fuel shipment from the ISFSI.

As with the DECON scenario, decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes.

Methodology The methodology used to develop the estimates described within this document follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines[9I developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute). This reference describes a unit factor method for determining decommissioning activity costs. The unit factors used in this analysis incorporates site-specific costs and the latest available information on worker productivity in decommissioning.

The estimates also reflect lessons learned from TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station decommissioning, completed in 1989, and the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and engineering for the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Connecticut Yankee and San Onofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services, such as quality control and security.

Contingency Consistent with cost estimating 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."[1 0] The cost elements in the estimates 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 9 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF[NESP-036, May 1986 10 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Pagexi of xvii 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 analysis, is based on a preliminary technical position [I'] to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements.

Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. As such, inclusion of contingency 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 generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive) waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. [12] With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980, [131 and its Amendments of 1985, [14] the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) generated within their own borders.

Until recently, there were two facilities available to PG&E for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by Diablo Canyon. As of July 1, 2008, however, the facility in Barnwell, South Carolina was closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprised of the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina). This leaves the facility in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions, as the only available destination for low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal.

For the purpose of this analysis, the EnergySolutions' facility is used as the disposal site for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A). There are no currently operating disposal facilities available to PG&E that have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. As such, waste disposal costs and waste transportation distances must be estimated. The disposal cost and transportation distance for low-level radioactive waste is based on a study sponsored by PG&E and Southern California Edison Company, "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for 11 "Technical Position Paper for Establishing an Appropriate Contingency Factor for Inclusion in the Decommissioning Revenue Requirements", Study Number: DECON-POS-H002, Revision A, Status:

Preliminary (provided by PG&E).

12 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" 13 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573, 1980.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page xii of xvii Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning."[15I The study was done to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for these owners to conservatively estimate their nuclear decommissioning LLRW disposal rates.

The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance. As such, the GTCC radioactive waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.

For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in the same type of canister used for spent fuel. The GTCC material is either stored with the spent fuel at the ISFSI or shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (depending upon the timing of the decommissioning and whether the spent fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning).

A significant portion of the waste material generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials. This waste can be analyzed on site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, for processing and/or for conditioning/recovery. Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimates for Diablo Canyon reflect the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[16 ] (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. The NWPA provided that DOE would enter into contracts with utilities in which DOE would promise to take the utilities' spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste and utilities would pay 15 "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning", Robert A Snyder NEWEX, Revision 0, July 2008 (provided by PG&E).

16 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page xiii of xvii the cost of the disposition services for that material. The NWPA, along with the individual contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule. By January 1998, the DOE had failed to accept any spent fuel or high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts. Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation for DOE's breach of contract.

Operation of DOE's yet-to-be constructed repository is contingent upon the review and approval of the facility's license application by the NRC and the successful resolution of pending litigation. The DOE submitted its license application to the NRC on June 3, 2008, seeking authorization to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Assuming a timely review and adequate funding, the DOE expects that receipt of fuel could begin as early as 2020. [171 It is generally necessary that spent fuel be cooled and stored for a minimum period at the generating site prior to transfer. As such, the NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.54(bb).[18] This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimates, for example, associated with the isolation and continued operation of the spent fuel pools and the ISFSI.

The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE is expected to begin in 2020. The first assemblies removed from the Diablo Canyon site are assumed to be in 2028. With an estimated, maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year, completion of the removal of fuel from the site is projected to be in the year 2051.

Consequently, costs are included within the estimates for the long-term caretaking of the spent fuel at the Diablo Canyon site until the year 2051.

An ISFSI, which is independently licensed and operated, will remain operational after the cessation of plant operations. For the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, the facility is expanded to accommodate the inventory of spent fuel residing in the plant's storage pools at the conclusion of the required cooling period. Once emptied, 17 DOE-RW-0604, "Project Decision Schedule", U.s. DOE Offfice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, January 2009".

18 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses."

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page xiv of xvii the spent fuel pool facilities can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage.

Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the site may result in damage to many of the site structures. Blasting, coring, drilling, and the other decontamination activities will substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports. Prompt dismantling of site structures (once the facilities are decontaminated) is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site is more efficient than if the process is deferred. Site facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public and the demolition work force. Consequently, this study assumes that site structures are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level wherever possible. The site is then to be graded and stabilized.

Summary The costs to decommission Diablo Canyon assumes the removal of all contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials such that the owner may then have unrestricted use of the site with no further requirements for an operating license. Low-level radioactive waste, other than GTCC waste, is sent to a commercial processor for treatment/conditioning or to a controlled disposal facility.

Decommissioning is accomplished within the 60-year period required by current NRC regulations. In the interim, the spent fuel remains in storage at the site until such time that the transfer to a DOE facility is complete. Once emptied, the storage facilities are also decommissioned.

Both the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios are described in Section 2. The assumptions are presented in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures.

The major cost contributors are identified in Section 6, with detailed activity costs, waste volumes, and associated manpower requirements delineated in Appendices C and D. The major cost components are also identified in the cost summary provided at the end of this section.

The cost elements in the estimates are assigned to one of three subcategories: NRC License Termination, Spent Fuel Management, and Site Restoration. The subcategory "NRC License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e.,

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Pagexv of xvii 10 CFR Part 50.75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the unit's operating license, recognizing that there may be some additional cost impact from spent fuel management.

The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the wet storage pools to a DOE transport cask, as well as the transfer of the fuel in storage at the ISFSI to the DOE.

Costs are included for the operation of the storage pools and the management of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer is complete.

"Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination. This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to local grade.

It should be noted that the costs assigned to these subcategories are allocations.

Delegation of cost elements is for the purposes of comparison (e.g., with NRC financial guidelines) or to permit specific financial treatment (e.g., ARO determinations). In reality, there can be considerable interaction between the activities in the three subcategories. For example, an owner may decide to remove non-contaminated structures early in the project to improve access to highly contaminated facilities or plant components. In these instances, the non-contaminated removal costs could be reassigned from Site Restoration to an NRC License Termination support activity.

However, in general, the allocations represent a reasonable accounting of those costs that can be expected to be incurred for the specific subcomponents of the total estimated program cost, if executed as described.

As noted within this document, the estimates were developed and costs are presented in 2008 dollars. As such, the estimates do not reflect the escalation of costs (due to inflationary and market forces) over the remaining operating life of the plant or during the decommissioning period.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page xvi of xvii DECON COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Unit 1 Unit 2 Total Decontamination 18,180 21,089 39,269 Removal 116,996 213,110 330,106 Packaging 18,508 18,570 37,078 Transportation 15,738 15,183 30,920 Waste Disposal 81,180 84,060 165,240 Off-site Waste Processing 48,280 43,016 91,296 Program Management [1' 255,057 450,584 705,641 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 11,358 7,593 18,951 Spent Fuel Management 145,290 144,151 289,441 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 20,535 18,420 '38,955 Energy 11,230 11,137 22,366 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 19,165 20,718 39,883 Property Taxes 3,177 3,090 6,266 Mfiscellaneous Equipment 6,454 6,478 12,932 Total [21 771,148 1,057,198 1,828,346 Cost Element License Termination 538,104 709,740 1,247,844 Spent Fuel Management 189,088 192,789 381,877 Site Restoration 43,956 154,668 198,624 Total [3] 771,148 1,057,198 1,828,346

[1] Includes engineering and security costs

[21 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Pagexvii of xvii SAFSTOR COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Unit 1 Unit 2 Total Decontamination 15,031 21,150 36,180 Removal 116,384 213,969 330,353 Packaging 14,704 15,027 29,731 Transportation 14,078 13,709 27,787 Waste Disposal 62,782 65,153 127,935 Off-site Waste Processing 50,229 44,863 95,091 Program Management [1] 250,533 550,768 801,301 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 11,398 7,627 19,026 Spent Fuel Management - 145,031 144,707 289,738 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 27,205 25,122 52,327 Energy 15,758 16,017 31,776 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 20,915 22,518 43,433 Property Taxes 4,126 4,043 8,169 lViscellaneous Equipment 11,738 11,980 23,719 Total [2] 759,912 1,156,654 1,916,567 Cost Element License Termination 510,831 555,813 1,066,644 Spent Fuel Management 203,537 448,831 652,368 Site Restoration 45,545 152,010 197,555 Total [2] 759,912 1,156,654 1,916,567

[1] Includes engineering and security costs

[21 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 1 of 8

1. INTRODUCTION This report presents estimates of the costs to decommission the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, (Diablo Canyon) following a scheduled cessation of plant operations. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an earlier evaluation prepared in 2005,[11* updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear plant and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. The current estimates are designed to provide Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with sufficient information to assess the plant owners' financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station. It is not a detailed engineering document, but a financial analysis prepared in advance of the detailed engineering that will be required to carry out the decommissioning.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The objectives of this study are to prepare comprehensive estimates of the costs to decommission Diablo Canyon, to provide a sequence or schedule for the associated activities, and to develop waste stream projections from the decontamination and dismantling activities. For the purposes of this study, the shutdown dates were taken as 40 years after receiving full power-operating licenses, or 2 November 2024 for Unit 1, and 26 August 2025 for Unit 2.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Diablo Canyon is located on the central California coast in San Luis Obispo County, approximately 12 miles west southwest of the City of San Luis Obispo.

The plant, comprised of two nuclear units, is located on a 750-acre site adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, roughly equidistant from San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) consists of a pressurized water reactor and a four-loop Reactor Coolant System. The systems were supplied by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Units 1 and 2 each have a current license rating of 3411 MWt, with corresponding estimated ultimate net electrical outputs 1131 and 1156 megawatts (electric), respectively, with the reactors at rated power.

The Reactor Coolant System is comprised of the reactor vessel and four heat transfer loops, each containing a vertical U-tube type steam generator, and a single-stage centrifugal reactor coolant pump. In addition, the system includes References provided in Section 7 of the document TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page2 of 8 an electrically heated pressurizer, a pressurizer relief tank, and interconnected piping. The system is housed within a "containment structure," a seismic Category I reinforced-concrete dry structure. It consists of an upright cylinder topped with a hemispherical dome, supported on a reinforced concrete foundation mat, which is keyed into the bedrock. A welded steel liner plate anchored to the inside face of the containment serves as a leak-tight membrane. The liner on top of the foundation mat is protected by a two-foot thick concrete fill mat, which supports the containment internals and forms the floor of the containment. The lower portion of the containment cylindrical wall has additional embedded wide flange steel beams between elevations 88 ft. 2 in. and 108 ft. 2 in. (mean sea level).

Heat produced in the reactor is converted to electrical energy by the Steam and Power Conversion Systems. A turbine-generator system converts the thermal energy of steam produced in the steam generators into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The plant's turbine-generators are each tandem compound, four element units. They consist of one high-pressure double-flow and three low-pressure double-flow elements driving a direct-coupled generator at 1800 rpm. The turbines are operated in a closed feedwater cycle that condenses the steam; the heated feedwater is returned to the steam generators. Heat rejected in the main condensers is removed by the Circulating Water System (CWS).

The circulating water system provides the heat sink required for removal of waste heat in the power plant's thermal cycle. The system has the principal function of removing heat by absorbing this energy in the main condenser.

Condenser circulating water is water from the Pacific Ocean. Each unit is served by two circulating water pumps at the intake structure. From this structure seawater is pumped through two circulating water conduits to the condenser inlet water boxes. The water is returned to the ocean at Diablo Cove through an outfall at the water's edge.

1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988.[21 This rule set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

The regulation addressed decommissioning planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements. The intent of the rule was to ensure that decommissioning would be accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate funds would be available for this purpose.

Subsequent to the rule, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 3 of 8 Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors,"[ 3] which provided additional guidance to the licensees of nuclear facilities on the financial methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the requirements of the rule. The regulatory guide addressed the funding requirements and provided guidance on the content and form of the financial assurance mechanisms indicated in the rule.

The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. The DECON alternative assumes that any contaminated or activated portion of the plant's systems, structures and facilities are removed or decontaminated to levels that permit the site to be released for unrestricted use shortly after the cessation of plant operations.

The rule also placed 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. 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 unrestricted release limits for license termination.

The ENTOMB alternative has not been viewed as a viable option for power reactors due to the significant time required to isolate the long-lived radionuclides for decay to permissible levels. However, with rulemaking permitting the controlled release of a site,[41 the NRC has re-evaluated this alternative. The resulting feasibility study, based upon an' assessment by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, concluded that the method did have conditional merit for some, if not most reactors. However, the staff also found that additional rulemaking would be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative. The NRC had considered rulemaking to alter the 60-year time for completing decommissioning and to clarify the use of engineered barriers for reactor entombments.[5 1 However, the NRC's staff has recommended that rulemaking be deferred, based upon several factors, e.g., no licensee has committed to pursuing the entombment option, the unresolved issues associated with the disposition of greater-than-Class C material (GTCC), and the NRC's current priorities, at least until after the additional research studies are complete. The Commission concurred with the staffs recommendation.

In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants.[6] When the decommissioning TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 4 of 8 regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority of licensees would decommission at the end of the facility's operating licensed life.

Since that time, several licensees permanently and prematurely ceased operations. Exemptions from certain operating requirements were required once the reactor was defueled to facilitate the decommissioning. Each case was 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. The 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 to cease operations. Certification will also be required once the fuel is 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. The PSDAR describes the planned decommissioning activities, the associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee is required to submit an application to the NRC to terminate the license, which will include a license termination plan (LTP).

1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[7] (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants' to the DOE. The NWPA provided that DOE would enter into contracts with utilities in which DOE would promise to take the utilities' spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste and utilities would pay the cost of the disposition services for that material. The NWPA, along with the individual contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule. By January 1998, the DOE had failed to accept any spent fuel or high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts. Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation for DOE's breach of contract.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page5 of 8 Operation of DOE's yet-to-be constructed repository is contingent upon the review and approval of the facility's license application by the NRC and the successful resolution of pending litigation. The DOE submitted its license application to the NRC on June 3, 2008, seeking authorization to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Assuming a.

timely review and adequate funding, the DOE expects that receipt of fuel could begin as early as 2020. [s8 It is generally necessary that spent fuel be actively cooled and stored for a minimum period at the generating site prior to transfer. As such, the NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.54(bb). [91 This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimate, for example, associated with the isolation and continued operation of the spent fuel pools and ISFSI.

DOE's contracts with utilities order the acceptance of spent fuel from utilities based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE is expected to begin in 2020 (in accordance with DOE's latest published schedule). The first assemblies removed from the Diablo Canyon site are assumed to be in 2028. With an estimated maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year from the commercial generators, completion of the removal of fuel from the Diablo Canyon site is projected to be in the year 2051. Consequently, costs are included within the estimates for the long-term caretaking of thespent fuel at the Diablo Canyon site until the year 2051.

An ISFSI, which is independently licensed and operated, will remain operational after the cessation of plant operations. For the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, the facility is expanded to accommodate the inventory of spent fuel residing in the plant's storage pools at the conclusion of the required cooling period. Once emptied, the spent fuel pool facilities can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage.

1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive) waste, [10] although not all of the TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 6 of 8 material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980, [11] and its Amendments of 1985, [121 the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.

Until recently, there were two facilities available to PG&E for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by Diablo Canyon. As of July 1, 2008, however, the facility in Barnwell, South Carolina was closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprised of the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina). This leaves the facility in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions, as the only available destination for low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal.

For the purpose of this analysis, the EnergySolutions' facility is used as the disposal site for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A).

There are no currently operating disposal facilities available to PG&E that have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. As such, waste disposal costs must be estimated. The disposal cost for low-level radioactive waste is based on a study sponsored by PG&E and Southern California Edison Company, "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning."[ 131 The study was done to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for these owners to conservatively estimate their nuclear decommissioning LLRW disposal rates.

The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste.

However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance. As such, the GTCC radioactive waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 1, Page 7 of 8 For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in the same type of canister used for spent fuel. The GTCC material is either stored with the spent fuel or shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (depending upon the timing of the decommissioning and whether the spent fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning).

A significant portion of the waste material generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials. This waste can be analyzed on site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, for processing and/or for conditioning/recovery. Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimates for Diablo Canyon reflect the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination In 1997, the NRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," [14] amending 10 CFR Part 20. This subpart provides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use.

The regulation states 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 that residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).

The decommissioning estimates assume that the Diablo Canyon site will be remediated to a residual level consistent with the NRC-prescribed level.

It should be noted that the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) differ on the amount of residual radioactivity considered acceptable in 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). [15]

An additional and separate limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR § 141.16, is applied to drinking water. [16]

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 8 of 8 On October 9, 2002, the NRC signed an agreement with the EPA on the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [17] provides that EPA will defer exercise of authority under CERCLA for the majority of facilities decommissioned under NRC authority. The MOU also includes provisions for NRC and EPA consultation for certain sites when, at the time of license termination, (1) groundwater contamination exceeds EPA-permitted levels; (2) NRC contemplates restricted release of the site; and/or (3) residual radioactive soil concentrations exceed levels defined in the MOU.

The MOU does not impose any new requirements on NRC licensees and should reduce the involvement of the EPA with NRC licensees who are decommissioning. Most sites are expected to meet the NRC criteria for unrestricted use, and the NRC believes that only a few sites will have groundwater or soil contamination in excess of the levels specified in the MOU that trigger consultation with the EPA. However, if there are other hazardous materials on the site, the EPA may be involved in the cleanup. As such, the possibility of dual regulation remains for certain licensees. The present study does not include any costs for this occurrence.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 1 of 13

2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant for the following approved decommissioning alternatives: DECON and SAFSTOR. Although the alternatives differ with respect to technique, process, cost, and schedule, they attain the same result: the ultimate release of the site for unrestricted use.

Two decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for the two nuclear units. The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows:

DECON: Units 1 and 2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minimum cooling period of 12 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim storage. This scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. Any residual spent fuel is transferred to the ISFSI so as to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel handing building. Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2051.

SAFSTOR: The units are placed into safe-storage in this scenario. The start of field decommissioning is deferred to the end of the fuel storage period. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minimum cooling period of 12 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim storage. As with the DECON scenario, decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2051.

The following sections describe the basic activities associated with each alternative.

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 the expected scope of work, i.e., engineering and planning at the time of decommissioning.

The conceptual approach that the NRC has described in its regulations divides decommissioning into three phases. The initial phase commences with the effective date of permanent cessation of operations and involves the transition of both plant and licensee from reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facility de-activation and closure. During the first phase, notification is to be provided to the NRC TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 2 of 13 certifying the permanent cessation of operations and the removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. The licensee is then prohibited from reactor operation.

The second phase encompasses activities during the storage period or during major decommissioning activities, or a combination of the two. The third phase pertains to the activities involved in license termination. The decommissioning estimates developed for Diablo Canyon are also divided into phases or periods; however, demarcation of the phases is based upon major milestones within the project or significant changes in the projected expenditures.

2.1 DECON The DECON alternative, as defined by the NRC, is "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." This study does not address the cost to dispose of the spent fuel residing at the site; such costs are funded through a surcharge on electrical generation. However, the study does estimate the costs incurred with the interim on-site storage of the fuel pending shipment by the DOE to an off-site disposal facility.

2.1.1 Period 1 - Preparations In anticipation of the cessation of plant operations, detailed preparations are undertaken to provide a smooth transition from plant operations to site decommissioning. Through implementation of a staffing transition plan, the organization required to manage the intended decommissioning activities is assembled from available plant staff and outside resources. Preparations include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications applicable to the operating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility and major components, and the development of the PSDAR.

Engineering and Planning The PSDAR, required within two years of the notice to cease operations, provides a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, a timetable, and the associated financial requirements of the intended decommissioning program. Upon receipt of the PSDAR, the NRC will make the document available to the public for comment in a local hearing to be held in the vicinity of the reactor site. Ninety days TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 3 of 13 following submittal and NRC receipt of the PSDAR, the licensee may begin to perform major decommissioning activities under a modified 10 CFR §50.59 procedure, i.e., without specific NRC approval. Major activities are defined as any activity that results in permanent removal of major radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure of the containment, or results in dismantling components (for shipment) containing GTCC, as defined by 10 CFR §61. Major components are further defined as comprising the reactor vessel and internals, large bore reactor coolant system piping, and other large components that are radioactive. The NRC includes the following additional criteria for use of the §50.59 process in decommissioning. The proposed activity must not:

o foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, o significantly increase decommissioning costs, o cause any significant environmental impact, or o violate the terms of the licensee's existing license.

Existing operational technical specifications are reviewed and modified to reflect plant conditions and the safety concerns associated with permanent cessation of operations. The environmental impact associated with the planned decommissioning activities is also considered.

Typically, a licensee will not be allowed to proceed if the consequences of a particular decommissioning activity are greater than that bounded by previously evaluated environmental assessments or impact statements.

In this instance, the licensee would have to submit a license amendment for the specific activity and update the environmental report.

The decommissioning program outlined in the PSDAR will be designed to accomplish the required tasks within the ALARA guidelines (as defined in 10 CFR §20) for protection of personnel from exposure to radiation hazards. It will also address the continued protection of the health and safety of the public and the environment during the dismantling activity. Consequently, with the development of the PSDAR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, work packages and procedures, would be assembled to support the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 4 of 13 Site Preparations Following final plant shutdown, and in preparation for actual decommissioning activities, the following activities are initiated:

0 Characterization of the site and surrounding environs. This includes radiation surveys of work areas, major components (including the reactor vessel and its internals), internal piping, and primary shield cores.

0 Isolation of the spent fuel storage pools and fuel handling systems, such that decommissioning operations can commence on the balance of the plant. The pools will remain operational for approximately twelve years following the cessation of operations before the inventory resident at shutdown can be transferred to the DOE.

o Specification of transport and disposal requirements for activated materials and/or hazardous materials, including shielding and waste stabilization.

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

2.1.2 Period 2 - Decommissioning Operations This period includes the wet spent fuel storage and physical decommissioning activities associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated and activated components and structures, including the successful termination of the 10 CFR §50 operating license. Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include:

o Operations, maintenance, and security associated with storing of spent fuel in the spent fuel storage pools.

o Transferring spent fuel from the storage pools to the ISFSI.

o Construction of temporary facilities and/or modification of existing facilities to support dismantling activities. This may include a centralized processing area to facilitate equipment removal and component preparations for off-site disposal.

Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as needed to support decommissioning operations. This may include the TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page5 of 13 upgrading of roads (on- and off-site) to facilitate hauling and transport. Modifications may be required to the containment structure to facilitate access of large/heavy equipment. Modifications may also be required to the refueling area of the building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals and component extraction.

Design and fabrication of temporary and permanent shielding to support removal and transportation activities, construction of contamination control envelopes, and the procurement of specialty tooling.

" Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste.

o Decontamination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimize) worker exposure.

o Removal of piping and components no longer essential to support decommissioning operations.

o Removal of control rod drive housings and the head service structure from the reactor vessel head. Segmentation of the vessel closure head.

o Removal and segmentation of the upper internals assemblies.

Segmentation will maximize the loading of the shielded transport casks, i.e., by weight and activity. The operations are conducted under water using remotely operated tooling and contamination controls.

" Disassembly and segmentation of the remaining reactor internals, including the core shroud and lower core support assembly. Some material is expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements. As such, the segments will be packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal.

o Segmentation of the reactor vessel. A shielded platform is installed for segmentation as cutting operations are performed in-air using remotely operated equipment within a contamination control envelope. The water level is maintained just below the cut to minimize the working area dose rates. Segments are transferred in-air to containers that are stored under water, for example, in an isolated area of the refueling canal.

o Removal of the activated portions of the concrete biological shield and accessible contaminated concrete surfaces. If dictated by the steam TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 6 of 13 generator and pressurizer removal scenarios, those portions of the associated cubicles necessary for access and component extraction are removed.

Removal of the steam generators and pressurizer for material recovery and controlled disposal. The generators will be moved to an on-site processing center, the steam domes removed and the internal components segregated for recycling. The lower shell and tube bundle will be packaged for direct disposal. These components can serve as their own burial containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed and the internal contaminants are stabilized, e.g.,

with grout. Steel shielding will be added, as necessary, to those external areas of the package to meet transportation limits and regulations. The pressurizer is disposed of intact.

At least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination, an LTP is required. Submitted as a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or its equivalent, the plan must include: a site characterization, description of the remaining dismantling activities, plans for site remediation, procedures for the final radiation survey, designation of the end use of the site, an updated cost estimate to complete the decommissioning, and any associated environmental concerns. The NRC will notice the receipt of the plan, make the plan available for public comment, and schedule a local hearing. LTP approval will be subject to any conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by the Commission. The licensee may then commence with the final remediation of site facilities and services, including:

o Removal of remaining plant systems and associated components as they become nonessential to the decommissioning program or worker health and safety (e.g., waste collection and treatment systems, electrical power and ventilation systems).

o Removal of the steel liners from refueling canal, disposing of the activated and contaminated sections as radioactive waste. Removal of any activated/ contaminated concrete.

o Surveys of the decontaminated areas of the containment structure.

o Remediation and removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the auxiliary building and any other contaminated facility. Radiation and contamination controls will be utilized until residual levels indicate that the structures and equipment can be released for unrestricted access and conventional demolition. This activity may necessitate the dismantling and disposition of most of TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 7 of 13 the systems and components (both clean and contaminated) located within these buildings. This activity facilitates surface decontamination and subsequent verification surveys required prior to obtaining release for demolition.

Routing of material removed in the decontamination and dismantling to a central processing area. Material certified to be free of contamination is released for unrestricted disposition, e.g., as scrap, recycle, or general disposal. Contaminated material is characterized and segregated for additional off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction, and waste treatment), and/or packaged for controlled disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

Incorporated into the LTP is the Final Survey Plan. This plan identifies the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed and is developed using the guidance provided in the "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)."[181 This document incorporates the statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation used by the EPA. It also identifies state-of-the-art, commercially available instrumentation and procedures for conducting radiological surveys. Use of this guidance ensures that the surveys are conducted in a manner that provides a high degree of confidence that applicable 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, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license.

The NRC will terminate the operating licenses if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP, and that the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release.

2.1.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities will begin. Efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits will result in substantial damage to many of the structures.

Although performed in a controlled, safe manner, blasting, coring, drilling, scarification (surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially degrade power block structures including the reactor and auxiliary buildings. Under certain circumstances, TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 8 of 13 verifying that subsurface radionuclide concentrations meet NRC site release requirements will require removal of grade slabs and lower floors, potentially weakening footings and structural supports. This removal activity will be necessary for those facilities and plant areas where historical records, when available, indicate the potential for radionuclides having been present in the soil, where system failures have been recorded, or where it is required to confirm that subsurface process and drain lines were not breached over the operating life of the station.

Prompt dismantling of site structures is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site is more efficient than if the process were deferred. Site facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public as well as to future workers. Abandonment creates a breeding ground for vermin infestation as well as other biological hazards.

This cost study presumes that non-essential structures and site facilities are dismantled as a continuation of the decommissioning activity.

Foundations and exterior walls are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. The three-foot depth allows for the placement of gravel for drainage, as well as topsoil, so that vegetation can be established for erosion control. Site areas affected by the dismantling activities are restored and the plant area graded as required to prevent ponding and inhibit the refloating of subsurface materials.

Non-contaminated concrete rubble produced by demolition activities is processed to remove reinforcing steel and miscellaneous embedments.

The processed material is then used on site to backfill foundation voids.

Excess non-contaminated materials are trucked to an off-site area for disposal as construction debris.

2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning The ISFSI will continue to operate under a separate and independent license (10 CFR §72) following the termination of the §50 operating licenses. Assuming the DOE starts accepting fuel from the industry in 2020, transfer of spent fuel from Diablo Canyon is anticipated to begin in 2028, and continue through the year 2051.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 9 of 13 At the conclusion of the spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI will be decommissioned. The Commission will terminate the §72 license when it determines that the remediation of the ISFSI has been performed in accordance with an ISFSI license termination plan and that the final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. Once the requirements are satisfied, the NRC can terminate the license for the ISFSI.

The ISFSI is based upon the currently licensed facility that uses multi-purpose canisters and concrete overpacks for pad storage. For purposes of this cost analysis, it is assumed that once the inner canisters containing the spent fuel assemblies have been removed, any required decontamination performed on the storage overpack (some minor activation is assumed), and the license for the facility terminated, the concrete overpacks can be dismantled using conventional techniques for the, demolition of reinforced concrete. The concrete storage pad is then removed and the area regraded.

2.2 SAFSTOR 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 levels that permit release for unrestricted use." The facility is left intact (during the dormancy period), with structures maintained in a sound condition. Systems that are not required to support the spent fuel pools or site surveillance and security are drained, de-energized, and secured. Minimal cleaning/removal of loose contamination and/or fixation and sealing of remaining contamination is performed. Access to contaminated areas is secured to provide controlled access for inspection and maintenance.

The engineering and planning requirements for physical dismantling activities are similar to those for the DECON alternative. Site preparations for physical dismantling are also similar to those for the DECON alternative, with the exception of certain activities, such as spent fuel pool operations and maintenance, and chemical decontamination of primary systems.

Decommissioning operations are assumed to begin once the transfer of the spent fuel to the DOE is completed.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 10 of 13 2.2.1 Period 1 - Preparations Preparations for long-term storage include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications appropriate to the operating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility and major components, and the development of the PSDAR.

The process of placing the plant in safe-storage includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

Isolating of the spent fuel storage services and fuel handling systems so that safe-storage operations may commence on the balance of the plant. This activity may be carried out by plant personnel in accordance with existing operating technical specifications. Activities are scheduled around the fuel handling systems to the greatest extent possible.

o Transferring of the spent fuel from the storage pools to the DOE, following the minimum required cooling period in the spent fuel pools.

o Draining and de-energizing of the non-contaminated systems not required to support continued site operations or maintenance.

o Disposing of contaminated filter elements and resin beds not required for processing wastes from layup activities for future operations.

o Draining of the reactor vessel, with the internals left in place and the vessel head secured.

o Draining and de-energizing non-essential, contaminated systems with decontamination as required for future maintenance and inspection.

o Preparing lighting and alarm systems whose continued use is required; de-energizing portions of fire protection, electric power, and HVAC systems whose continued use is not required.

" Cleaning of the loose surface contamination from building access pathways.

" Performing an interim radiation survey of plant, posting warning signs where appropriate.

o Erecting physical barriers and/or securing all access to radioactive or contaminated areas, except as required for inspection and maintenance.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 11 of 13 0 Installing security and surveillance monitoring equipment and relocating security fence around secured structures, as required.

2.2.2 Period 2 - Dormancy The second phase identified by the NRC in its rule addresses licensed activities during a storage period and is applicable to the dormancy phases of the deferred decommissioning alternatives. Dormancy activities include a 24-hour security force, preventive and corrective maintenance on security systems, area lighting, general building maintenance, heating and ventilation of buildings, routine radiological inspections of contaminated structures, maintenance of structural integrity, and a site environmental and radiation monitoring program.

Resident maintenance personnel perform equipment maintenance, inspection activities, routine services to maintain safe conditions, adequate lighting, heating, and ventilation, and periodic preventive maintenance on essential site services.

An environmental surveillance program is carried out during the dormancy period to ensure that releases of radioactive material to the environment are prevented and/or detected and controlled. Appropriate emergency procedures are established and initiated for potential releases that exceed prescribed limits. The environmental surveillance program constitutes an abbreviated version of the program in effect during normal plant operations.

Security during the dormancy period is conducted primarily to prevent unauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of its own actions. The security fence, sensors, alarms, and other surveillance equipment provide security. Fire and radiation alarms are also monitored and maintained.

Consistent with the DECON scenario, the spent fuel storage pools are emptied within approximately 12 years of the cessation of operations.

The transfer of the spent fuel to the DOE continues throughout the dormancy period until completed in 2051. Once emptied, the ISFSI is secured for storage and decommissioned along with the power block structures in Period 4.

After an optional period of storage (such that license termination is accomplished within 60 years of final shutdown), it is required that the licensee submit an application to terminate the license, along with an LTP (described in Section 2.1.2), thereby initiating the third phase.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 12 of 13 2.2.3 Periods 3 and 4 - Delayed Decommissioning Prior to the commencement of decommissioning operations, preparations are undertaken to reactivate site services and prepare for decommissioning. Preparations include engineering and planning, a detailed site characterization, and the assembly of a decommissioning management organization. Final planning for activities and the writing of activity specifications and detailed procedures are also initiated at this time.

Much of the work in developing a termination plan is relevant to the development of the detailed engineering plans and procedures. The activities associated with this phase and the follow-on decontamination and dismantling processes are detailed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. The primary difference between the sequences anticipated for the DECON and this deferred scenario is the absence, in the latter, of any constraint on the availability of the fuel storage facilities for decommissioning.

Variations in the length of the dormancy period are expected to have little effect upon the quantities of radioactive wastes generated from system and structure removal operations. Given the levels of radioactivity and spectrum of radionuclides expected from forty years of plant operation, no plant process system identified as being contaminated upon final shutdown will become releasable due to the decay period alone, i.e., there is no significant reduction in the waste generated from the decommissioning activities. However, due to the lower activity levels, a greater percentage of the waste volume can be designated for off-site processing and recovery.

The delay in decommissioning also yields lower working area radiation levels. As such, the estimate for this delayed scenario incorporates reduced ALARA controls for the SAFSTOR's lower occupational exposure potential.

Although the initial radiation levels due to 60Co will decrease during the dormancy period, the internal components of the reactor vessel will still exhibit sufficiently high radiation dose rates to require remote sectioning under water due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides such as 94Nb, 59 Ni, and 6 3Ni. Therefore, the dismantling procedures described for the DECON alternative would still be employed during this scenario. Portions of the biological shield will still be radioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with long half-lives (152Eu and 15 4Eu). Decontamination will require controlled removal and TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 13 of 13 disposal. It is assumed that radioactive corrosion products on inner surfaces of piping and components will not have decayed to levels that will permit unrestricted use or allow conventional removal. These systems and components will be surveyed as they are removed and disposed of in accordance with the existing radioactive release criteria.

2.2.4 Period 5 - Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site-restoration activities can begin. Dismantling, as a continuation of the decommissioning process, is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option, as described in Section 2.1.3. The basis for the dismantling cost in this scenario is consistent with that described for DECON, presuming the removal of structures and site facilities to a-nominal depth of three feet below grade and the limited restoration of the site.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 1 of 27

3. COST ESTIMATE The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning Diablo Canyon consider the unique features of the site, including the NSSS, power generation systems, support services, site buildings, and ancillary facilities. The basis of the estimates, including the sources of information relied upon, the estimating methodology employed, site-specific considerations, and other pertinent assumptions, is described in this section.

3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The estimates were developed using the site-specific, technical information from the 2005 analysis. This information was reviewed for the current analysis and updated as deemed appropriate. The site-specific considerations and assumptions used in the previous evaluation were also revisited. Modifications were incorporated where new information was available or experience from ongoing decommissioning programs provided viable alternatives or improved processes.

3.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop the estimates follows the basic approach originally presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study report, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"[191 and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[ 20] These documents present a unit factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations. Unit factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch) are developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs are estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed from plant drawings and inventory documents. Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures rely upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R.S. Means. [21]

The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates. The detail provided in the unit factors, including activity duration, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, ensures that essential elements have not been omitted. Appendix A presents the detailed development of a typical unit factor. Appendix B provides the values contained within one set of factors developed for this analysis.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01.1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page2 of 27 This analysis reflects lessons learned from TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, as well as the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells, and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and engineering for the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Oyster Creek, Connecticut Yankee, and San Onofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.

Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment. WDFs are assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments.

The ranges used for the WDFs are as follows:

o Access Factor 10% to 20%

o Respiratory Protection Factor 10% to 50%

o Radiation/ALARA Factor 10% to 37%

o Protective Clothing Factor 10% to 30%

o Work Break Factor 8.33%

The factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunction with the AIF/NESP-036 study. The application of the factors is discussed in more detail in that publication.

Scheduling Program Durations The unit factors, adjusted by the WDFs as described above, are applied against the inventory of materials to be removed in the radiologically controlled areas.

The resulting man-hours, or crew-hours, are used in the development of the decommissioning program schedule, using resource loading and event sequencing considerations. The scheduling of conventional removal and dismantling activities is based upon productivity information available from the "Building Construction Cost Data" publication.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 3 of 27 engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting costs.

3.3 IMPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING MULTIPLE REACTOR UNITS In estimating the near simultaneous decommissioning of two co-located reactor units there can be opportunities to achieve economies of scale, by sharing costs between units, and coordinating the sequence of work activities. There will also be schedule constraints, particularly where there are requirements for specialty equipment and staff, or practical limitations on when final status surveys can take place. For purposes of the estimate, Units 1 and 2 are assumed to be essentially identical. Common facilities have been assigned to Unit 2. A summary of the principal impacts are listed below.

" The sequence of work generally follows the principal that the work is done at Unit 1 first, followed by similar work at Unit 2. This permits the experience gained at Unit 1 to be applied by the workforce at the second unit. It should be noted however, that the estimate does not consider productivity improvements at the second unit, since there is little documented experience with decommissioning two units simultaneously.

The work associated with developing activity specifications and procedures can be considered essentially identical between the two units, therefore the second unit costs are assumed to be a fraction of the first unit (- 43%).

o Segmenting the reactor vessel and internals will require the use of special equipment. The decommissioning project will be scheduled such that Unit 2's reactor internals and vessel are segmented immediately after the activities at Unit 1 have been completed.

" Some program management and support costs, particularly costs associated with the more senior positions, can be avoided with two reactors undergoing decommissioning simultaneously. As a result, the estimate is based on a "lead" unit that includes these senior positions, and a "second" unit that excludes these positions. The designation as lead is based on the unit undertaking the most complex tasks (for instance vessel segmentation) or performing tasks for the first time.

o The final radiological survey schedule is also affected by a two-unit decommissioning schedule. It would be considered impractical to try to complete the final status survey of Unit 1, while Unit 2 still has ongoing radiological remediation work and waste handling in process. As such, the transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pools and subsequent TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 4 of 27 decontamination of the spent fuel pool areas is coordinated so as to synchronize the final status survey for the station.

" The final demolition of buildings at Units 1 and 2 are considered to take place concurrently. This is considered a reasonable assumption since access to the buildings is considered good at the station.

" Unit 1, as the first unit to enter decommissioning, incurs the majority of site characterization costs.

o Shared systems and common structures are generally assigned to Unit 2.

o Station costs such as emergency response fees, regulatory agency fees, corporate overhead, and insurance are generally allocated on an equal basis between the two units.

3.4 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's proprietary decommissioning cost model, DECCER, produces a number of distinct cost elements. These direct expenditures, however, do not comprise the total cost to accomplish the project goal, i.e., license termination and site restoration.

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, illnesses, weather delays, and labor stoppages. In the DECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. 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 duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes funds to cover these types of expenses.

3.4.1 Contingency The activity- and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning cost. A contingency is then applied on a line-item basis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in the AIF/NESP-036 study. "Contingencies" are defined in the American Association of Cost Engineers "Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook"[221 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 analysis are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 5 of 27 contingency is included. In the AIF/NESP-036 study, the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning are discussed and guidelines are provided for percentage contingency in each category. It should be noted that contingency, as used in this analysis, includes contingency based on a preliminary technical position[231 to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements.

Contingency Based on AIF Guidelines As stated in the AIF study contingency funds are an integral part of the total cost to complete the decommissioning process. Exclusion of this component puts at risk a successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, subsequent related activities. For this study, TLG examined the major activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling, packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate a contingency. Individual activity contingencies ranged from 10% to 75%, depending on the degree of difficulty judged to be appropriate from TLG's actual decommissioning experience. The contingency values used in this study are as follows:

o Decontamination 50%

o Contaminated Component Removal 25%

o Contaminated Component Packaging 10%

o Contaminated Component Transport 15%

o Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25%

o Reactor Segmentation 75%

o NSSS Component Removal 25%

o Reactor Waste Packaging 25%

6 Reactor Waste Transport 25%

o Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50%

o GTCC Disposal 15%

o Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15%

o Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15%

" Supplies 25%

o Engineering 15%

o Energy 15%

o Characterization and Termination Surveys 30%

o Construction 15%

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 6 of 27 o Taxes and Fees 10%

o Insurance 10%

o Staffing 15%

The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis. The composite contingency value (excluding additional contingency described in the Preliminary Technical Position) for the DECON alternative is approximately 17.9%.

The value for the SAFSTOR alternative is approximately 17.5%.

Contingency Based on Preliminary Technical Position In addition to the contingency based on the AIF guidelines additional contingency was added to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission desire for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements. Based on the previously referenced technical position, additional contingency was added to reflect an overall project contingency of 25% (both scenarios). This contingency was incorporated on a line item basis, with each line item receiving a pro-rated share of the increase.

3.4.2 Financial Risk In addition to the routine uncertainties addressed by contingency, another cost element that is sometimes necessary to consider when bounding decommissioning costs relates to uncertainty, or risk.

Examples can include changes in work scope, pricing, job performance, and other variations that could conceivably, but not necessarily, occur.

Consideration is sometimes necessary to generate a level of confidence in the estimate, within a range of probabilities. TLG considers these types of costs under the broad term "financial risk." Included within the category of financial risk are:

" Transition activities and costs: ancillary expenses associated with eliminating 50% to 80% of the site labor force shortly after the cessation of plant operations, added cost for worker separation packages throughout the decommissioning program, national or company-mandated retraining, and retention incentives for key personnel.

" Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, and national and local hearings.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 7 of 27 o 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 contamination), variations in plant inventory or configuration not indicated by the as-built drawings.

o Regulatory changes, for example, affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal.

0 Policy decisions altering national commitments (e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition), or in the timetable for such, for example, the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE.

0 Pricing changes for basic inputs such as labor, energy, materials, and disposal. Items subject to widespread price competition (such as materials) may not show significant variation; however, others such as waste disposal could exhibit large pricing uncertainties, particularly in markets where limited access to services is available.

It has been TLG's experience that the results of a risk analysis, when compared with the base case estimate for decommissioning, indicate that the chances of the base decommissioning estimate's being too high is a low probability, and the chances that the estimate is too low is a higher probability. This is mostly due to the pricing uncertainty for low-level radioactive waste burial, and to a lesser extent due to schedule increases from changes in plant conditions and to pricing variations in the cost of labor (both craft and staff). This cost study, however, does not add any additional costs to the estimate for financial risk, since there is insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities. Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk are revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimates.

3.5 SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS There are a number of site-specific considerations that affect the method for dismantling and removal of equipment from the site and the degree of restoration required. The cost impact of the considerations identified below is included in this cost study.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page8 of 27 3.5.1 Spent Fuel Management The cost to dispose of spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission the Diablo Canyon site.

Ultimate disposition of the spent fuel is within the province of the DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the NWPA. As such, the disposal cost is financed by a 1 milllkWhr surcharge paid into the DOE's waste fund during operations. However, the NRC requires licensees to establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactors until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy. This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain high-level waste cost elements within the estimate, as described below.

The total inventory of assemblies that will require handling during decommissioning is based upon the following assumptions. The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE is expected to begin in 2020. The first assemblies removed from the Diablo Canyon site are assumed to be in 2028. With an estimated, maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year, [24] completion of the removal of fuel from the site is projected to be in the year 2051. Consequently, costs are included within the estimates for the long-term caretaking of the spent fuel at the Diablo Canyon site until the year 2051.

The estimates incorporate a minimum cooling period of approximately 12 years for the spent fuel that resides in the storage pools when operations cease. The current Part 72 ISFSI license does not allow dry cask storage of spent fuel with burnups above 45,000 MWD/metric ton.

It is assumed that PG&E can amend the Part 72 license to store the higher burnup fuel, but that as a condition of the amendment it will require longer decay times (12 years) before storing the spent fuel in the casks.

In both scenarios that were analyzed, any residual fuel remaining in the pool after the 12-year period is relocated to the ISFSI to await transfer to a DOE facility. Operation and maintenance costs for the storage facilities are included within the estimates and address the cost for staffing the facilities, as well as security, insurance, and licensing fees.

The estimates include the costs to purchase, load, and transfer the fuel storage canisters. Costs are also provided for the final disposition of the facilities once the transfer is complete.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 9 of 27 Canister Design A multi-purpose storage canister (HOLTEC HI-STORM 100 system),

with a 32-fuel assemblies capacity, is assumed for future cask acquisitions. A unit cost of approximately $1,000,000 is used for pricing the internal multi-purpose canister (MPC) and concrete overpack. The DOE is assumed to provide the MPC for fuel transferred directly from the pools to the DOE at no cost to the owner.

Canister Loading and Transfer An average cost of approximately $220,000 per canister is used for the labor and consumables to load/transport the spent fuel from the pools to the ISFSI pad, based upon Diablo Canyon operating experience. An average cost of approximately $200,000 per canister is used to estimate the cost to transfer the fuel from the spent fuel pools to the DOE. For estimating purposes, 50% of the pool to DOE cost is used to estimate the cost to transfer the fuel from the ISFSI to the DOE.

Operations and Maintenance Annual costs (excluding labor) of approximately $1,500,000 and

$430,000 are used for operation and maintenance of the spent fuel pools and the ISFSI, respectively.

ISFSI Decommissioning Design Considerations A HI-STORM multi-purpose (storage and transport) dry shielded storage canister with a vertical, reinforced concrete storage overpack is used as a basis for the cost analyses. Approximately 50% of the overpacks are assumed to have some level of neutron-induced activation as a result of the long-term storage of the fuel, i.e., to levels exceeding free-release limits. Approximately 10% of the concrete and steel is assumed to be removed from the overpacks for controlled disposal. The cost to dispose of this material, as well as the demolition of the ISFSI facility, is included in the estimates.

GTCC The dismantling of the reactor internals generates radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)).

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 10 of 27 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. Although there are strong arguments that GTCC waste is covered by the spent fuel contact with DOE and the fees being paid pursuant to that contract, DOE has taken the position that GTCC waste is not covered by that contract or its fees and that utilities, including PG&E, will have to pay an additional fee for the disposal of their GTCC waste. However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance. As such, the GTCC radioactive waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.

For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in the same type of canister used to store spent fuel. Disposal costs are based upon a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. It is not anticipated that the DOE would accept this waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel. Therefore, until such time the DOE is ready to accept GTCC waste, it is reasonable to assume that this material would remain in storage with the spent fuel in the ISFSI at the Diablo Canyon site (for the DECON alternative). In the SAFSTOR scenario, the GTCC material is shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated since the fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning and the ISFSI deactivated.

3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented for disposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation is performed in the refueling canal, where a turntable and remote cutter are installed. The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mounted cutter supported off the lower head and directed from a shielded work platform installed overhead in the reactor cavity. Transportation cask specifications and transportation regulations dictate the segmentation and packaging methodology.

Intact disposal of reactor vessel shells has been successfully demonstrated at several of the sites currently being decommissioned.

Access to navigable waterways has allowed these large packages to be transported to the Barnwell disposal site with minimal overland travel.

Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components can TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 11 of 27 provide savings in cost and worker exposure by eliminating the complex segmentation requirements, isolation of the GTCC material, and transport/storage of the resulting waste packages. Portland General Electric (PGE) was able to dispose of the Trojan reactor as an intact package (including the internals). However, its location on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since:

0 the reactor package could be secured to the transport vehicle for the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted during transport, o there were no man-made or natural terrain features between the plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and 0 transport speeds were very low, limited by the overland transport vehicle and the river barge.

As a member of the Northwest Compact, PGE had a site available for disposal of the package - the US Ecology facility in Washington State.

The characteristics of this arid site proved favorable in demonstrating compliance with land disposal regulations.

It is not known whether this option will be available when the Diablo Canyon plant ceases operation. Future viability of this option will depend upon the ultimate location of the disposal site, as well as the disposal site licensee's ability to accept highly radioactive packages and effectively isolate them from the environment. Consequently, the study assumes the reactor vessel will require segmentation, as a bounding condition. With lower levels of activation, the vessel shell can be packaged more efficiently than the curie-limited internal components.

This will allow the use of more conventional waste packages rather than shielded casks for transport (although some shielded casks are still required).

3.5.3 Primary System Components In the DECON scenario, the reactor coolant system components are assumed to be decontaminated using chemical agents prior to the start of dismantling operations. This type of decontamination can be expected to have a significant ALARA impact, since in this scenario the removal work is done within the first few years of shutdown. A decontamination factor (average reduction) of 10 is assumed for the process. Disposal of the decontamination solution effluent is included within the estimates TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 12 of 27 as a- "process liquid waste" charge. In the SAFSTOR scenario, radionuclide decay is expected to provide the same benefit and, therefore, a chemical decontamination is not included.

The following discussion deals with the removal and disposition of the steam generators, but the techniques involved are also applicable to other large components, such as heat exchangers, component coolers, and the pressurizer. The steam generators' size and weight, as well as their location within the reactor building, will ultimately determine the removal strategy.

A trolley crane is set up for the removal of the generators. It can also be used to move portions of the steam generator cubicle walls and floor slabs from the reactor building to a location where they can be decontaminated and transported to the material handling area.

Interferences within the work area, such as grating, piping, and other components are removed to create sufficient laydown space for processing these large components.

The generators are rigged for removal, disconnected from the surrounding piping and supports, and maneuvered into the open area where they are lowered onto a dolly. Each generator is rotated into the horizontal position for extraction from the containment and placed onto a multi-wheeled vehicle for transport to an on-site processing and storage area.

The generators are disassembled on-site with the steam domes and lightly contaminated subassemblies designated for off-site recycling. The more highly contaminated lower shell and tube bundle are packaged for direct disposal. The interior volume is filled with low-density cellular concrete for stabilization of the internal contamination.

Disposal costs are based upon the displaced volume of the units. Each component is then loaded onto a rail car for transport to the disposal facility.

Reactor coolant 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 nozzle zone. The piping is boxed and transported by shielded van. The reactor coolant pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, and transported for processing and/or disposal.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 13 of 27 3.5.4 Retired Components Both Diablo Canyon units are expected to replace their original sets of steam generators prior to final shutdown; these retired sets will be stored on site within a concrete protective structure. The cost for transportation and disposal of these retired sets of steam generators has been included in this analysis.

3.5.5 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. The turbine rotors and shafts are removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings are removed from their anchors by controlled demolition. The main condensers are also disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material is then prepared for transportation to an off-site recycling facility where it is surveyed and designated for either decontamination or volume" reduction, conventional disposal, or controlled disposal. Components are packaged and readied for transport in accordance with the intended disposition.

3.5.6 Transportation Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than the highly activated reactor vessel and internal components will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, as described in Title 49.[251 The contaminated material will be packaged in Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2, or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411) for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shipping containers. The reactor vessel and internal components are expected to be transported in accordance with Part 71, as Type B. It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as LSA II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated within the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport.

Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessel and internal components, will be by shielded truck cask. Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vessel segment(s), supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer. The maximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible was based upon the license limits of the available shielded transport casks. The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internal segments is designed to meet these limits.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 14 of 27 The transport of large intact components (e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components) will be by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter.

Transportation costs for Class A low-level radioactive waste are based upon the mileage to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah.

Transportation costs for Class B and C waste are based upon the mileage to Andrews County, Texas. Transportation costs for off-site waste processing are based upon the mileage to Memphis, Tennessee.

Truck transport costs are estimated using published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit. [26]

3.5.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal To the greatest extent practical, metallic material generated in the decontamination and dismantling processes is processed to reduce the total cost of controlled disposal. Material meeting the regulatory and/or site release criterion, is released as scrap, requiring no further cost consideration. Conditioning (preparing the material to meet the waste acceptance criteria of the disposal site) and recovery of the waste stream is performed off site at a licensed processing center. Any material leaving the site is subject to a survey and release charge, at a minimum.

Based on TLG's experience, rates were assumed for off-site processing as well as survey and release.

The mass of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in the detailed Appendices C and D, and summarized in Section 5. The quantified waste summaries shown in these tables are consistent with 10 CFR Part 61 classifications. Commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations. The volumes - are calculated based on the exterior package dimensions for containerized material or a specific calculation for components serving as their own waste containers.

The more highly activated reactor components will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are lower for the highly activated materials (greater than TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 15 of 27 Type A quantity waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.

For the purpose of this analysis, the EnergySolutions' facility is used as the disposal site for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A). This waste was disposed of at a rate of $62 per cubic foot for "Bulk" waste, and a rate of $252 per cubic foot for "General" waste. These rates include State of Utah taxes and Southwest Compact fees. There are no currently operating disposal facilities available to PG&E that have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. As such, waste disposal costs were estimated. The cost for disposal for Class B and C waste was $2,916 per cubic foot. This rate includes Southwest Compact fees. These disposal costs for low-level radioactive waste are based on a study sponsored by PG&E and Southern California Edison Company, "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning."[131 The study was done to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for these owners to conservatively estimate their nuclear decommissioning LLRW disposal rates.

3.5.8 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC will terminate (or amend) the site license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the license termination plan, and that the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. The NRC's involvement in the decommissioning process will end at this point. Local building codes and state environmental regulations will dictate the next step in the decommissioning process, as well as the owner's own future plans for the site.

All structures will be removed except for the switchyard. The switchyard is required for grid operations. Structures to be removed include but are not 'limited to the reactor buildings, auxiliary building, turbine buildings, intake and discharge structures, and steam generator storage facility.

The structures that are expected to require decontamination or radiological remediation are the reactor buildings, auxiliary building, and radwaste storage building.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 16 of 27 The estimates presented herein include the dismantling of the major structures to a nominal depth of three feet below grade, backfilling and the collapsing of below grade voids, and general terra-forming such that the site upon which the power block and supplemental structures are located is transformed into a "grassy plain."

The estimate does not assume the remediation of any significant volume of contaminated soil. This assumption may be affected by continued plant operations and/or future regulatory actions, such as the development of site-specific release criteria.

3.6 ASSUMPTIONS The following are the major assumptions made in the development of the estimates for decommissioning the site.

3.6.1 Estimating Basis The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors. These factors address the impact of activities such as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training, and the use of respiratory protection and protective clothing. The factors lengthen a task's duration, increasing costs and lengthening the overall schedule. ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering and planning, and in the development of activity specifications and detailed procedures. Changes to worker exposure limits may impact the decommissioning cost and project schedule.

3.6.2 Labor Costs The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear plant is acquired through standard site contracting practices. The current cost of labor at the site is used as an estimating basis.

The owner will provide radiological health and safety, quality assurance and overall site administration during the decommissioning and derholition phases. Contract personnel will provide engineering services, e.g., for preparing the activity specifications, work procedures, activation, and structural analyses, under the direction of PG&E.

Personnel costs are based upon average salary information provided by PG&E. Overhead costs are included for site and corporate support, reduced commensurate with the staffing of the project.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 17 of 27 Security, while reduced from operating levels, is maintained throughout the decommissioning for access control, material control, and to safeguard the spent fuel.

3.6.3 Design Conditions Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g., 137 Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major NSSS components to be shipped under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements.

The curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown are derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474.[271 Actual estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the Diablo Canyon components, projected operating life, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from CR-0130[ 28] and CR-0672,[291 and benchmarked to the long-lived values from CR-3474.

The control elements are disposed of along with the spent fuel, i.e., there is no additional cost provided for their disposal.

Activation of the containment building structure is confined to the biological shield. More extensive activation (at very low levels) of the interior structures within containment has been detected at several reactors and the owners have elected to dispose of the affected material at a controlled facility rather than reuse the material as fill on site or send it to a landfill. The ultimate disposition of the material removed from the containment building will depend upon the site release criteria selected, as well as the designated end use for the site.

3.6.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses are cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by PG&E and its subcontractors. The plant's operating staff performs the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period:

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 18 of 27 o Drain and collect fuel oils, lubricating oils, and transformer oils for recycle and/or sale.

o Drain and collect acids, caustics, and other chemical stores for recycle and/or sale.

" Process operating waste inventories, i.e., the estimates do not address the disposition of any legacy wastes; the disposal of operating wastes during this initial period is not considered a decommissioning expense.

Secondary Side Systems Selected secondary side systems are assumed to be contaminated, and will require radiological controls during dismantling, and off-site waste processing. Systems assumed to be affected include:

o Auxiliary Steam o Condensate o Extraction Steam and Heater Drip o Lube Oil Distribution and Purification o Turbine Steam Supply o Turbine and Generator o Main Condensers o Main Turbine/Generator Contaminated Surfaces Contaminated concrete surfaces in the reactor buildings, fuel handling areas, containment penetration areas, radwaste storage building and auxiliary building will require decontamination by scabbling (removal of concrete surfaces to a depth of one-half inch), or a drill and spall technique (removal of concrete surfaces to a depth of two inches).

Electrical Switchyard The existing electrical switchyard will remain after decommissioning in support of the utility's electrical transmission and distribution system.

Scrap and Salvage The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only. PG&E will make economically TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 19 of 27 reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following final plant shutdown.

However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in this analysis are not consistent with removal techniques required for salvage (resale) of equipment. Experience has indicated that some buyers wanted equipment stripped down to very specific requirements before they would consider purchase. This required expensive rework after the equipment had been removed from its installed location. Since placing a salvage value on this machinery and equipment would be speculative, and the value would be small in comparison to the overall decommissioning expenses, this analysis does not attempt to quantify the value that an owner may realize based upon those efforts.

It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that any value received from the sale of scrap generated in the dismantling process would be more than offset by the on-site processing costs. The dismantling techniques assumed in the decommissioning estimates do not include the additional cost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnace ready" conditions. For example, the recovery of copper from electrical cabling may require the removal and disposition of any contaminated insulation, an added expense. With a volatile market, the potential profit margin in scrap recovery is highly speculative, regardless of the ability to free release this material. This assumption is an implicit recognition of scrap value in the disposal of clean metallic waste at no additional cost to the project.

Furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other property is removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities. Spare parts are also made available for alternative use.

Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be de-energized, with the exception of those facilities associated with spent fuel storage.

Replacement power costs are used to calculate the cost of energy consumed during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.

Insurance Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) following cessation of plant operations and during decommissioning are included and based upon current operating premiums. Reductions in TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page20 of 27 premiums, throughout the decommissioning process, are based upon the guidance and the limits for coverage defined in the NRC's proposed rulemaking "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors."[ 301 The NRC's financial protection requirements are based on various reactor (and spent fuel) configurations.

Taxes Property taxes are included for all decommissioning periods.

Site Modifications The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers will be moved, as appropriate, to conform to the Site Security Plan in force during the various stages of the project.

3.7 COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

Schedules of expenditures are provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. The tables delineate the cost contributors by year of expenditures as well as cost contributor (e.g., labor, materials, and waste disposal).

Additional tables in Appendices C and D provide detailed costs elements. The cost elements are also assigned to one of three subcategories: "License Termination," "Spent Fuel Management," and "Site Restoration." The subcategory "License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50.75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the plant's operating license, recognizing that there may be some additional cost impact from spent fuel management.

The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the pools to the DOE and the transfer of casks from the ISFSI to the DOE. Costs are also included for the operations of the pools and management of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer of all fuel from this facility to an off-site location (e.g., geologic repository) is complete.

"Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination. This includes structures never exposed to radioactive TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page21 of 27 materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to local grade.

As discussed in Section 3.4.1, it is not anticipated that the DOE will accept the GTCC waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel. Therefore, the cost of GTCC disposal is shown in the final year of ISFSI operation (for the DECON alternative). While designated for disposal at the geologic repository along with the spent fuel, GTCC waste is still classified as low-level radioactive waste and, as such, included as a "License Termination" expense.

Decommissioning costs are reported in 2008 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure (or projected lifetime of the plant). The schedules are based upon the detailed activity costs reported in Appendices C and D, along with the timeline presented in Section 4.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page22 of 27 TABLE 3.1a DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2008 dollars)

PG&E Equipment & Contractor Year Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Total 2024 5,240 426 2,808 8 3,301 11,783 2025 31,907 4,829 19,265 3,169 21,306 80,477 2026 25,455 19,743 33,361 38,606 20,127 137,292 2027 21,656 20,478 34,008 45,390 15,945 137,476 2028 15,898 9,071 24,740 12,725 10,316 72,750 2029 13,422 7,763 20,678 10,605 10,308 62,776 2030 1,057 1,239 373 8 10,408 13,086 2031 1,057 1,239 373 8 10,408 13,086 2032 1,060 1,243 374 8 10,437 13,122 2033 1,057 1,239 373 8 10,408 13,086 2034 1,057 1,239 373 8 10,408 13,086 2035 1,057 1,239 373 8 10,408 13,086 2036 1,060 1,243 374 8 10,437 13,122 2037 2,560 2,521 4,083 2,289 9,623 21,077 2038 5,485 3,510 22,055 3,466 4,296 38,813 2039 1,101 8,431 9,927 1 2,422 21,882 2040 1,012 8,664 9,559 0 2,393 21,627 2041 603 663 2,866 0 2,235 6,366 2042 569 0 2,312 0 2,222 5,103 2043 569 0 2,312 0 2,222 5,103 2044 570 0 2,319 0 2,228 5,117 2045 569 0 2,312 0 2,222 5,103 2046 569 0 2,312 0 2,222 5,103 2047 569 0 2,312 0 2,222 5,103 2048 570 0 2,319 0 2,228 5,117 2049 569 0 2,312 0 2,222 5,103 2050 569 0 2,312 0 2,222 5,103 2051 569 349 2,315 4 13,014 16,251 2052 220 1,457 1,466 516 1,287 4,945 1137,653 1 96,587 1 210,569 1 116,839 1 209,499 1 771,148 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 23 of 27 TABLE 3.1b DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2008 dollars)

PG&E Equipment & Contractor Year Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Total 2025 9,011 1,157 7,959 17 6,861 25,005 2026 25,695 7,762 26,170 6,668 19,904 86,198 2027 23,205 21,815 43,514 44,172 16,257 148,963 2028 22,538 19,284 43,905 37,978 14,646 138,350 2029 21,813 10,551 39,706 11,900 12,513 96,482 2030 16,451 7,340 29,024 7,731 11,705 72,250 2031 6,522 1,396 9,246 12 10,208 27,383 2032 6,540 1,400 9,271 12 10,236 27,458 2033 6,522 1,396 9,246 12 10,208 27,383 2034 6,522 1,396 9,246 12 10,208 27,383 2035 6,522 1,396 9,246 12 10,208 27,383 2036 6,540 1,400 9,271 12 10,236 27,458 2037 8,254 2,774 12,749 2,132 9,398 35,307 2038 10,960 4,123 35,182 3,229 4,018 57,511 2039 4,739 32,960 36,726 1 2,424 76,850 2040 4,618 34,005 36,793 0 2,402 77,819 2041 880 2,602 4,956 0 2,240 10,677 2042 571 0 2,319 0 2,227 5,116 2043 571 0 2,319 0 2,227 5,116 2044 572 0 2,325 0 2,233 5,130 2045 571 0 2,319 0 2,227 5,116 2046 571 0 2,319 0 2,227 5,116 2047 571 0 2,319 .0 2,227 5,116 2048 572 0 2,325 0 2,233 5,130 2049 571 0 2,319 0 2,227 5,116 2050 571 0 2,319 0 2,227 5,116 2051 570 349 2,322 4 13,050 16,296 2052 220 1,461 1,472 518 1,290 4,962 1193,262 154,566 396,886 114,419 198,066 1 1,057,198 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01 -1 604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 24 of 27 TABLE 3.2a SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2008 dollars)

PG&E Equipment & Contractor Year Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Total 2024 5,259 352 1,131 8 1,443 8,192 2025 30,958 4,209 8,474 326 9,132 53,099

.2026 9,269 3,677 3,298 671 24,008 40,923 2027 1,114 1,348 351 31 10,012 12,857 2028 1,118 1,351 352 31 10,039 12,892 2029 1,114 1,348 351 31 10,012 12,857 2030 1,114 1,348 351 31 10,012 12,857 2031 1,114 1,348 351 31 10,012 12,857 2032 1,118 i,351 352 31 10,039 12,892 2033 1,114 1,348 351 31 10,012 12,857 2034 1,114 1,348 351 31 10,012 12,857 2035 1,114 1,348 351 31 10,012 12,857 2036 1,118 1,351 352 31 10,039 12,892 2037 589 295 2 31 2,644 3,561 2038 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2039 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2040 589 293 1 31 2,631 3,545 2041 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2042 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2043 1 588 293 1 31 2,624 1 3,536 2044 589 293 1 31 2,631 3,545 2045 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2046 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2047 588 1 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2048 589 293 1 31 2,631 3,545 2049 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2050 588 293 1 31 2,624 3,536 2051 1,377 353 869 32 2,616 5,246 2052 19,859 1,950 21,842 44 2,726 46,420 2053 19,369 14,251 35,855 28,584 14,007 112,066 2054 118,116 1 19,367 33,742 46,649 16,313 1 134,188 2055 13,128 8,946, 24,128 12,817 5,269 64,289 2056 10,885 7,302 19,633 10,431 4,349 52,600 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 25 of 27 TABLE 3.2a (continued)

SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2008 dollars)

PG&E Equipment & Contractor Year Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Total 2057 1,474 335 3,053 12 481 5,353 2058 2,900 4,447 17,762 22 1,033 26,164 2059 1,013 8,889 9,674 0 290 19,866 2060 677 5.942 6.467 0 194 13,280 1153,673 1 97,609 1 189,456 1 100,344 1 218,830 1 759,912 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 26 of 27 TABLE 3.2b SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2008 dollars)

PG&E Equipment & Contractor Year Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Total 2025 11,261 1,014 5,491 18 4,215 21,999 2026 32,110 7,428 20,954 728 15,858 77,079 2027 10,473 2,042 10,517 336 15,904 39,272 2028 6,569 1,323 9,229 35 9,739 26,895 2029 6,552 1,319 9,204 35 9,712 26,821 2030 6,552 1,319 9,204 35 9,712 26,821 2031 6,552 1,319 9,204 35 9,712 26,821 2032 6,569 1,323 9,229 35 9,739 26,895 2033 6,552 1,319 9,204 35 9,712 26,821 2034 6,552 1,319 9,204 35 9,712 26,821 2035 6,552 1,319 9,204 35 9,712 26,821 2036 6,569 1,323 9,229 35 9,739 26,895 2037 5,824 1,134 8,370 34 8,408 23,770 2038 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2039 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2040 2,598 309 4,674 32 2,613 10,227 2041 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2042 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2043 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2044 2,598 309 4,674 32 2,613 10,227 2045 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2046 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2047 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2048 2,598 309 4,674 32 2,613 10,227 2049 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2050 2,591 308 4,662 32 2,606 10,199 2051 2,508 307 4,470 32 2,536 9,854 2052 2,516 489 1,382 33 1,101 5,520 2053 14,922 2,305 11,448 41 2,785 31,502 2054 18,130 16,601 31,370 33,107 13,418 112,627 2055 19,728 19,645 37,211 41,953 14,797 133,334 2056 18,988 10,267 33,375 10,869 4,704 78,203 2057 17,524 9,174 33,462 9,390 4,226 73,775 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page27 of 27 TABLE 3.2b (continued)

SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2008 dollars)

PG&E Equipment & Contractor Year Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Total 2058 6,494 14,496 34,206 24 872 56,092 2059 3,370 34,316 33,548 0 296 71,530 2060 2,253 22,940 22,427 0 198 47,817 1258,817 1 158,049 1 431,782 1 97,302 1 210,703 1 1,156,654 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page 1 of 8

4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE The schedules for the decommissioning scenarios considered in this study follow the sequences presented in the AIF/NESP-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 described in Section 3.5.1.

A schedule or sequence of activities for the DECON alternative from shutdown ISFSI site restoration is presented in Figure 4.1. The scheduling sequence is based on the fuel being removed from the spent fuel pools within twelve years. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the cost tables, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience. The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project Professional 2003" computer software. [31]

4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule 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 work activity durations used in the precedence network reflect the actual man-hour estimates from the cost table, adjusted by stretching certain activities over their slack range and shifting the start and end dates of others. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedule:

o The spent fuel pools are isolated until such time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the spent fuel pools to the DOE. Decontamination and dismantling of the storage pools is initiated once the transfer of spent fuel is complete (DECON option).

o All work (except vessel and internals removal) is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime. There are eleven paid holidays per year.

o Reactor and internals removal activities are performed by using separate crews for different activities working on different shifts, with a corresponding backshift charge for the second shift.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page2 of 8 For plant systems removal, the systems with the longest removal durations in areas on the critical path are considered to determine the duration of the activity.

4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the detailed cost tables are based upon the durations developed in the schedules for decommissioning. 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 period-dependent costs. A second critical path is shown for the spent fuel storage period, which determines the release of the fuel pool areas for~final decontamination.

Project timelines are for the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios are provided in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 with milestone dates based on the 2024 and 2025 shutdown dates for Units 1 and 2, respectively. The fuel pools are emptied approximately twelve years after shutdown, while ISFSI operations continue until the DOE can complete the transfer of assemblies to its geologic repository. Deferred decommissioning in the SAFSTOR scenarios is assumed to commence so that the physical dismantling takes place immediately after all spent fuel has been removed from the site.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page3 of 8 FIGURE 4.1 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE

- i Diablo Canyon Unit 1 & 2 schedule I LL- LA L 0 Y" 11011111211311 I Shutdown Unit 1 - November 2, 2024 Period la Unit 1 - Shutdown through transition Certificate of permanent cessation of operations submitted Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations i 40 Reconfigure plant Prepare activity specifications Perform site characterization PSDAR submitted Written certificate of permanent removal of fuel submitted Eli Site specific decommissioning cost estimate submitted DOC staff mobilized Period lb Unit 1 -Decommissioning preparations Fuel storage pool operations Recanfigure plant (continued) ni Dry fuel storage operations Prepare detailed work procedures Decon NSSS Isolate spent fuel pool Period 2a Unit 1 - Large component removal Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations Preparation for reactor vessel removal Reactor vessel & internals Remaining large NSSS components disposition Non-essential systems Main turbine/generator Main condenser License termination plan submitted Period 2b Unit 1 - Decontamination (wet fuel)

Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page4 of 8 FIGURE 4.1 (continued)

ACTIVITY SCHEDULE Task Nam Iy5 IVAIA I!'VAIV'7IVRIVQyinyivi9VqV1y4 IV9 44.St VI 5.5.

Task NaTne Remove systems not supporting wet fuel storage Lt~Lt~ I *~ - L4 - .*~

Decon buildings not supporting wet fuel storage License termination plan approved Fuel storage pool available for decommissioning Period 2c Unit 1 Wet and Dry Fuel Storage Unit 1 Fuel Stored Wet Unit 1 Fuel Stored Dry Unit 2 Operations Shutdown Unit 2 - August 26, 2025 .1 I Period la Unit 2 - Shutdown through transition P31 Certificate of permanent cessation of operations submitted Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations Reconfigure plant Prepare activity specifications Perform site characterization E"11 PSDAR submitted Written certificate of permanent removal of fuel submitted Site specific decommissioning cost estimate submitted DOC staff mobilized Period lb Unit 2 - Decommissioning preparations Fuel storage pool operations Reconfigure plant (continued)

Dry fuel storage operations Prepare detailed work procedures Decon NSSS Isolate spent fuel pool Period 2a Unit 2 - Large component removal Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations I I Preparation for reactor vessel removal Reactor vessel & internals Remaining large NSSS components disposition TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page 5 of 8 FIGURE 4.1 (continued)

ACTIVITY SCHEDULE

ý AW& i I.......

Non-eesenthal systems Main turLbinelgnerator Main condenser License termination plan submitted Period 2b Unit 2 - Deconteraination (wet fuel)

Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operatiors Remove systerra nmt supporting wet fuel storage Decon buildngs not supporting wet fuel storage SEP License termination plan approved Fuel storage pool available for decormmissioning 2

Period c Unit 2 Wet Fuel Storage Unit 2 Wet Fuel Storage Period 2d Unit 1 & 2 - Decontamination following wet fuel storage Dry fuel storage operations Remove remaining sy*atrns Deoon wet fuel storage aea Period 2e Unit 1 & 2 - Plant license termination Dry fuel s torage operations EM I Final Site Suovey TPRCreview & approval Part 50 license terminated Period 3b Unit I & 2 - Site restoration Dry fuel storage operations Building dem.litions, bockfill and lsndsceping Period So - Unit I & 2 Fuel Storage Operations/Shipping All Spent Fuel Off Site (actual Daecomer "lO1)

Period 3d - Unit 1 & 2 GTCC shipping End GTCC shipment (aloual end of 2061)

Period 39 - ISFSI Decontamination End Decontamination (actual end of April M052)

Period 3f - ISFSI Site Restoration End Restoration (actual end of June "052)

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page 6 of 8 FIGURE 4.1 (continued)

ACTIVITY SCHEDULE LEGEND Legend: 1. Red text and/or shaded scheduling bars indicate critical path activities

2. Shaded scheduling bars associated with major decommissioning periods, e.g., Period la, indicate overall duration of that period

3. Blue text and/or diamond symbols indicate major milestones

4. Due to limitations within Microsoft PROJECT, dates beyond 2049 can not be printed. Those activities that continue past 2049 have the end date noted in the Task Name.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page 7 of 8 FIGURE 4.2 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE DECON (not to scale)

Unit 1 (Shutdown November 2, 2024)

Pool and ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Transition and Site Decommissioning 11 / 2024 05 / 2026 01/2039 01/2041 12/2051 06/2052 Storage Pools Empty Unit 1 - 01 / 2037 Unit 2 - 10 / 2037 Unit 2 (Shutdown August 26, 2025)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Transition Decommissioning ISFSI Operations 08/2025 02/2027 01/2039 01/2041 12/2051 06/2052 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page 8 of 8 FIGURE 4.3 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE SAFSTOR (not to scale)

Unit 1 (Shutdown November 2, 2024)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Transition Dormancy Decommissioning 11 / 2024 05 / 2026 12/2051 06/2053 08/2058 09/2060 Unit 1 Pool Empty 01 / 2037 Dry Spent Fuel Storage ISFSI Empty 12/ 2051 Unit 2 (Shutdown August 26, 2025)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Transition and Delayed Dormancy Decommissioning 08/2025 02/2027 11/2052 05/2054 08/2058 09/2060 Unit 2 Pool Empty 10 / 2037 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 1 of 6

5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of all radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of the NRC license. This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act,[321 the NRC is responsible for protecting the public from sources of ionizing radiation. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations delineates the production, utilization, and disposal of radioactive materials and processes. In particular, Part 71 defines radioactive material as it pertains to transportation and Part 61 specifies its disposition.

Most of the materials being transported for controlled burial are categorized as Low Specific Activity (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) materials containing Type A quantities, as defined in 49 CFR Parts 173-178. Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in 10 CFR

§173.411). For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for °the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations.

The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site are shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C and D, and summarized in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with Part 61 classifications. The volumes are calculated based on the exterior dimensions for containerized material and on the displaced volume of components serving as their own waste containers.

The reactor vessel and internals are categorized as large quantity shipments and, accordingly, will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners.

In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are lower for the highly activated materials (greater than Type A quantity waste),

where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.

No process system containing/handling radioactive substances at shutdown is presumed to meet material release criteria by decay alone (i.e., systems radioactive at shutdown will still be radioactive over the time period during which the decommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides).

While the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as 13 7Cs will still control the disposition requirements.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 5, Page 2 of 6 The waste material produced in the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plants is primarily generated during Period 2 of DECON and Period 4 of SAFSTOR. Material that is considered potentially contaminated when removed from the radiological controlled area is sent to processing facilities in Tennessee for conditioning and disposal. Heavily contaminated components and activated materials are routed for controlled disposal. The disposal volumes reported in the tables reflect the savings resulting from reprocessing and recycling.

For the purpose of this analysis, the EnergySolutions' facility is used as the disposal site for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A). This waste was disposed of at a rate of $62 per cubic foot for "Bulk" waste, and a rate of $252 per cubic foot for "General" waste. These rates include State of Utah taxes and Southwest Compact fees. There are no currently operating disposal facilities available to PG&E that have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. As such, waste disposal costs and waste transportation distances were estimated. For purposes of estimating the Class B and C waste transportation cost it was assumed that this waste was shipped to Andrews County, Texas. The cost for disposal for Class B and C waste was $2,916 per cubic foot. This rate includes Southwest Compact fees.

These disposal costs for low-level radioactive waste are based on a study sponsored by PG&E and Southern California Edison Company. The study was done to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for these owners to conservatively estimate their nuclear decommissioning LLRW disposal rates.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 3 of 6 TABLE 5.1 UNIT 1 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Mass Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet) (pounds)

Low-Level Radioactive EnergySolutions A 137,783 12,029,047 Waste (near-surface disposal) Estimate [2] B 5,627 684,759 Estimate [2] C 574 69,650 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository) Equivalent GTCC 433 85,510 Total [31 144,417 12,868,966 Processed/Conditioned Recycling (off-site recycling center) Vendors A 402,284 15,636,010 Scrap Metal 95,983,842

[11 Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55

[2] Costs for disposal of Class B and C waste was based on the following study: "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning", Robert A Snyder NEWEX, Revision 0, July 2008

[3] Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 5, Page 4 of 6 TABLE 5.2 UNIT 2 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Mass Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet) (pounds)

Low-Level Radioactive Waste (near-surface EnergySolutions A 146,080 12,657,732 disposal) Estimate [21 B 5,645 686,747 Estimate [21 C 574 69,650 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository) Equivalent GTCC 433 85,510 Total [31 152,732 13,499,639 Processed/Conditioned Recycling (off-site recycling center) Vendors A 358,841 13,879,480 Scrap Metal 153,210,831

[1] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55

[21 Costs for disposal of Class B and C waste was based on the following study: "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning", Robert A Snyder NEWEX, Revision 0, July 2008

[31 Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 5 of 6 TABLE 5.3 UNIT 1 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Mass Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet) (pounds)

Low-Level Radioactive EnergySolutions A 130,665 10,701,162 Waste (near-surface disposal) Estimate [2] B 2,754 353,167 Estimate [2] C 584 68,960 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository) Equivalent GTCC 433 85,510 Total [3] 134,437 11,208,799 Processed/Conditioned Recycling (off-site recycling center) Vendors A 416,013 16,212,920 Scrap Metal 96,120,000

[1] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55

[21 Costs for disposal of Class B and C waste was based on the following study: "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning", Robert A Snyder NEWEX, Revision 0, July 2008

[31 Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 6 of 6 TABLE 5.4 UNIT 2 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Mass Waste Cost Basis Class [1M (cubic feet) (pounds)

Low-Lev'el Radioactive EnergySolutions A 137,862 11,224,803 Waste (near-surface E disposal) Estimate [21 B 2,754 353,167 Estimate [2] C 584 68,960 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository) Equivalent GTCC 433 85,510 Total [3] 141,634 11,732,440 Processed/Conditioned Recycling (off-site recycling center) Vendors A 371,549 14,414,930 Scrap Metal 153,348,000

[1] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55

[2] Costs for disposal of Class B and C waste was based on the following study: "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning", Robert A Snyder NEWEX, Revision 0, July 2008

[31 Columns may not add due to rouiiding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 1 of 7

6. RESULTS The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission Diablo Canyon relied upon the site-specific, technical information developed for a previous analysis prepared in 2005. While not an engineering study, the estimates provide PG&E with sufficient information to assess their financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station.

The estimates described in this report are based on numerous fundamental assumptions, including regulatory requirements, project contingencies, low-level radioactive waste disposal practices, high-level radioactive waste management options, and site restoration requirements. The decommissioning scenarios assume continued operation of the station's spent fuel pools for a minimum of twelve years following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of the assemblies.

The cost projected to promptly decommission (DECON) Diablo Canyon is estimated to be $1,828.3 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 68.2%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plant so that the operating license can be terminated. Another 20.9% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. The remaining 10.9% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site.

The cost projected for deferred decommissioning (SAFSTOR) is estimated to be

$1,916.6 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 55.7%) is associated with placing the plant in storage, ongoing caretaking of the plant during dormancy, and the eventual physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plant so that the operating license can be terminated. Another 34.0% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. The remaining 10.3% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site.

The primary cost contributors, identified in Tables 6.1 thru 6.4, are either labor-related or associated with the management and disposition of the radioactive waste.

Program management is the largest single contributor to the overall cost. The magnitude of the expense is a function of both the size of the organization required to manage the decommissioning, as well as the duration of the program. The size and composition of the management organization varies with the decommissioning phase and associated site activities. However, once the operating licenses are terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site, and the long-term care of the spent fuel (for the DECON alternative).

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page2 of 7 As described in this report, the spent fuel pools will remain operational for a minimum of twelve years following the cessation of operations. The pools will be isolated and an independent spent fuel island, created. This will allow decommissioning operations to proceed in and around the pool areas. Over the twelve-year period, the spent fuel will be packaged into multi-purpose canisters for transfer to the ISFSI. Spent fuel will also be in storage at the ISFSI (from operations). This inventory will be transferred to the DOE after the pools are emptied.

The cost for waste disposal includes only those costs associated with the controlled disposition of the low-level radioactive waste generated from decontamination and dismantling activities, including plant equipment and components, structural material, filters, resins and dry-active waste. As described in Section 5, disposition of the majority of the low-level radioactive material requiring controlled disposal is at the EnergySolutions' facility. Highly activated components, requiring additional isolation from the environment (GTCC), are packaged for geologic disposal. The cost of geologic disposal is based upon a cost equivalent for spent fuel.

A significant portion of the metallic waste is designated for additional processing and treatment at an off-site facility. Processing reduces the volume of material requiring controlled disposal through such techniques and processes as survey and sorting, decontamination, and volume reduction. The material that cannot be unconditionally released is packaged for controlled disposal at one of the currently operating facilities. The cost identified in the summary tables for processing is all-inclusive, incorporating the ultimate disposition of the material.

Decontamination and removal costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program. Non-radiological demolition is a natural extension of the decommissioning process. The methods employed in decontamination and dismantling are generally destructive and indiscriminate in inflicting collateral damage. With a work force mobilized to support decommissioning operations, non-radiological demolition can be an integrated activity and a logical expansion of the work being performed in the process of terminating the operating license. Prompt demolition reduces future liabilities and can be more cost effective than deferral, due to the deterioration of the facilities (and therefore the working conditions) with time.

The reported cost for transport includes the tariffs and surcharges associated with moving large components and/or overweight shielded casks overland, as well as the general expense, e.g., labor and fuel, of transporting material to the destinations TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 3 of 7 identified in this report. For purposes of this analysis, material is primarily moved overland by truck.

Decontamination is used to reduce the plant's radiation fields and minimize worker exposure. Slightly contaminated material or material located within a contaminated area is sent to an off-site processing center, i.e., this analysis does not assume that contaminated plant components and equipment can be decontaminated for uncontrolled release in-situ. Centralized processing centers have proven to be a more economical means of handling the large volumes of material produced in the dismantling of a nuclear plant.

License termination survey costs are associated with the labor intensive and complex activity of verifying that contamination has been removed from the site to the levels specified by the regulating agency. This process involves a systematic survey of all remaining plant surface areas and surrounding environs, sampling, isotopic analysis, and documentation of the findings. The status of any plant components and materials not removed in the decommissioning process will also require confirmation and will add to the expense of surveying the facilities alone.

The remaining costs include allocations for heavy equipment and temporary services, as well as for other expenses such as regulatory fees and the premiums for nuclear insurance. While site, operating costs are greatly reduced following the final cessation of plant operations, certain administrative functions do need to be maintained either at a basic functional or regulatory level.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page4 of 7 TABLE 6.1 UNIT 1 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 18,180 2.4 Removal 116,996 15.2 Packaging 18,508 2.4 Transportation 15,738 2.0 Waste Disposal 81,180 10.5 Off-site Waste Processing 48,280 6.3 Program Management [1] 255,057 33.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 11,358 1.5 Spent Fuel Management 145,290 18.8 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 20,535 2.7 Energy 11,230 1.5 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 19,165 2.5 Property Taxes 3,177 0.4 Miscellaneous Equipment 6,454 0.8 Total [21 771,148 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 538,104 69.8 Spent Fuel Management 189,088 24.5 Site Restoration 43,956 5.7 Total [21] 771,148 100.0

[1] Includes engineering and security costs

[21 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 6, Page5 of 7 TABLE 6.2 UNIT 2 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 21,089 2.0 Removal 213,110 20.2 Packaging 18,570 1.8 Transportation 15,183 1.4 Waste Disposal 84,060 8.0 Off-site Waste Processing 43,016 4.1 Program Management [1] 450,584 42.6 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 7,593 0.7 Spent Fuel Management 144,151 13.6 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 18,420 1.7 Energy 11,137 1.1 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 20,718 2.0 Property Taxes 3,090 0.3 Miscellaneous Equipment 6,478 0.6 Total [21 1,057,198 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 709,740 67.1 Spent Fuel Management 192,789 18.2 Site Restoration 154,668 14.6 Total [21 1,057,198 100.0

[M] Includes engineering and security costs 121 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 6, Page 6 of 7 TABLE 6.3 UNIT 1 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 15,031 2.0 Removal 116,384 15.3 Packaging 14,704 1.9 Transportation 14,078 1.9 Waste Disposal 62,782 8.3 Off-site Waste Processing 50,229 6.6 Program Management [1] 250,533 33.0 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 11,398 1.5 Spent Fuel Management 145,031 19.1 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 27,205 3.6 Energy 15,758 2.1 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 20,915 2.8 Property Taxes 4,126 0.5 Miscellaneous Equipment 11,738 1.5 Total [21 759,912 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 510,831 67.2 Spent Fuel Management 203,537 26.8 Site Restoration 45,545 6.0 Total [2] 759,912 100.0

[1] Includes engineering and security costs

[21 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 6, Page 7 of 7 TABLE 6.4 UNIT 2 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 21,150 1.8 Removal 213,969 18.5 Packaging 15,027 1.3 Transportation 13,709 1.2 Waste Disposal 65,153 5.6 Off-site Waste Processing 44,863 3.9 Program Management [1] 550,768 47.6 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 7,627 0.7 Spent Fuel Management 144,707 12.5 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 25,122 2.2 Energy 16,017 1.4 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 22,518 1.9 Property Taxes 4,043 0.3 Miscellaneous Equipment 11,980 1.0 Total [21 1,156,654 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage NRC License Termination 555,813 48.1 Spent Fuel Management 448,831 38.8 Site Restoration 152,010 13.1 Total [21 1,156,654 100.0

[1] Includes engineering and security costs

[21 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7, Page 1 of 3

7. REFERENCES

1. "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant,"

Document No. P01-1513-004, Rev. 1, TLG Services, Inc., August 2005

2. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988

3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," October 2003

4. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination"

5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20 and 50, "Entombment Options for Power Reactors," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register Volume 66, Number 200, October 16, 2001

6. 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 (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996

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

8. DOE/RW-0604, "Project Decision Schedule," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, January 2009

9. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses"

10. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55, "Waste classification"

11. "Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act," Public Law 96-573, 1980

12. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1986 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7, Page 2 of 3

7. REFERENCES (continued)

13. "Establishing an Appropriate Disposal Rate for Low Level Radioactive Waste During Decommissioning", Robert A Snyder NEWEX, Revision 0, July 2008

14. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 139 (p 39058 et seq.), July 21, 1997

15. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997.

16. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 141.16, "Maximum contaminant levels for beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in community water systems"

17. "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites," OSWER 9295.8-06a, October 9, 2002

18. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),"

NUREG-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000

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

20. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S.

Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980

21. "Building Construction Cost Data 2008," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.,

Kingston, Massachusetts

22. Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7, Page3 of 3

7. REFERENCES (continued)

23. "Technical Position Paper for Establishing an Appropriate Contingency Factor for Inclusion in the Decommissioning Revenue Requirements", Study Number:

DECON-POS-H002, Revision A, Status: Preliminary (provided by PG&E)

24. DOE/RW-0351, "Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document", Revision 5, May 31, 2007

25. U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178, 2007

26. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No. MC-427719 Rules Tariff, March 2004, Radioactive Materials Tariff, January 2008

27. J.C. Evans et al., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials" NUREG/CR-3474, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 1984

28. R.I. Smith, G.J. Konzek, W.E. Kennedy, Jr., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station,"

NUREG/CR-0130 and addenda, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 1978

29. H.D. Oak, et al., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0672 and addenda, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 1980

30. "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors," 10 CFR Parts 50 and 140, Federal Register Notice, Vol. 62, No. 210, October 30, 1997

31. "Microsoft Project Professional 2003," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

32. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919)

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page2 of 4 APPENDIX A 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 Critical Act Activity Duration Duration ID Description (minutes) (minutes)*

a Remove insulation 60 (b) b Mount pipe cutters 60 60 c Install contamination controls 20 (b) d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines 60 60 e Cap openings 20 (d) f Rig for removal 30 30 g Unbolt from mounts 30 30 h Remove contamination controls 15 15 i Remove, wrap, send to waste processing area 60 60 Totals (Activity/Critical) 355 255 Duration adjustment(s):

+ Respiratory protection adjustment (50% of critical duration) 128

+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (37% of critical duration) 95 Adjusted work duration 478

+ Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration) 143 Productive work duration 621

+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) 52 Total work duration (minutes) 673

• • • Total duration = 11.217 hr *

• alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix A, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A (continued)

3. LABOR REQUIRED Duration Rate Crew Number (hours) ($/hr) Cost Laborers 3.00 11.217 $48.88 $1,644.86 Craftsmen 2.00 11.217 $59.39 $1,332.36 Foreman 1.00 11.217 $62.93 $705.89 General Foreman 0.25 11.217 $65.78 $184.46 Fire Watch 0.05 11.217 $48.88 $27.41 Health Physics Technician 1.00 11.217 $53.75 $602.91 Total Labor Cost $4,497.89

4. EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs none Consumables/Materials Costs

-Blotting paper 50 @ $0.58 sq ft (1} $29.00

-Plastic sheets/bags 50 @ $0.18/sq ft {2} $9.00

-Gas torch consumables 1 @ $10.52/hr x 1 hr (3} $10.52 Subtotal cost of equipment and materials $48.52 Overhead & profit on equipment and materials @ 17.25 % $8.37 Total costs, equipment & material $56.89 TOTAL COST:

Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pounds: $4,554.78 Total labor cost: $4,497.89 Total equipment/material costs: $56.89 Total craft labor man-hours required per unit: 81.88 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 4 of 4

5. NOTES AND REFERENCES o Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum's (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.

o References for equipment & consumables costs:

1. McMaster-Carr, Item 7193T88, Spill Control

2. R.S. Means (2008) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0200, page 20

3. R.S. Means (2008) Division 01 54 33, Section 40-6360, Reference-10 o Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for San Luis Obispo, California.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 1 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only)

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page2 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 0.53 Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 5.65 Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 7.99 Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 15.37 Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 29.88 Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 38.77 Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 57.06 Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 67.83 Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches 102.44 Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches 153.66 Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches 298.82 Removal of clean valve >14 to 20 inches 387.72 Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches 570.65 Removal of clean valve >36 inches 678.35 Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping 33.90 Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping 124.18 Removal of clean pump, <300 pound 257.65 Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound 711.04 Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound 2,828.75 Removal of clean pump, >10,000 pound 5,465.31 Removal of clean pump motor, 300-1000 pound 299.03 Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 1,177.97 Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound 2,650.42 Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound 1,516.92 Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound 3,810.98 Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator 10,757.59 Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater 22,135.40 Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons 331.59 Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon 1,048.60 Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area 8.70 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 3 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor CostlUnit($)

Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound 141.13 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 486.82 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 973.67 Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,308.13 Removal of clean electrical transformer < 30 tons 1,602.97 Removal of clean electrical transformer > 30 tons 4,616.28 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW 1,637.30 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW 3,654.56 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, >1 MW 7,565.66 Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 13.16 Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot 5.74 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound 141.13 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 486.82 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 973.67 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,308.13 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound 141.13 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 486.82 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 973.67 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 2,308.13 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound 0.56 Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 1.64 Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 22.13 Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 38.42 Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 60.30 Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 119.72 Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 144.08 Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 200.04 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 236.75 Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches 466.22 Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches 558.77 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches 1,152.68 Removal of contaminated valve >14 to 20 inches 1,466.63 Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches 1,955.83 Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches 2,322.96 Removal-of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping 114.31 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping 379.89 Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound 994.26 Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound 2,289.60 Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound 7,519.81 Removal of contaminated pump, >10,000 pound 18,316.19 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound 967.26 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 3,053.97 Removal of contaminated pump motor, >10,000 pound 6,856.50 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound 4,554.78 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound 13,175.19 Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons 1,651.42 Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot 32.24 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound 773.83 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,860.19 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,581.23 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 6,982.38 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 37.36 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot 17.17 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound 861.55 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 2,056.73 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,953.19 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 6,982.38 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound 861.55 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 2,056.73 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,953.19 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page5 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 6,982.38 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound 2.29 Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in. 4.11 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot 8.60 Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot 36.12 Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length 7,312.90 Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon 16.76 Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard 145.04 Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard 193.82 Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 379.84 Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 1,123.28 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 254.39 Removal'of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 2,251.67 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 321.60 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 2,980.61 Removal heavily rein concrete w #18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard 491.72 Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard 379.84 Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 958.59 Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 2,250.19 Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 752.34 Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 2,096.28 Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard 32.43 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 108.56 Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 357.95 Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 108.56 Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 357.95 Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 28.42 Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot 122.09 Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 154.57 Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard 3.06 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard 42.67 Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard 24.58 Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard 26.80 Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot 0.32 Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot 1.27 Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot 4.40 Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot 2.47 Removal of transite panels, $/square foot 2.33 Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot 15.00 Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot 8.77 Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot 22.75 Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot 77.64 Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot 7.26 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 673.87 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 1,906.00 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 1,617.31 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 4,573.64 Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity 6,744.05 Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity 28,851.72 Removal of structural steel, $/pound 0.23 Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot 4.69 Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot 13.68 Removal of clean free standing steel liner, S/square foot 13.05 Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot 37.73 Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 6.52 Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 43.96 Placement of scaffoldingin clean areas, $/square foot 17.73 Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot 29.17 Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre 26,058.01 Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use 1,931.00 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor CostfUnit($)

Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparation for use 1,702.11 Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for use 1,666.89 Cost of CPC B-144 LSA box & preparation for use 10,158.75 Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use 161.97 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins) 8,060.01 Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot 0.75 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page1 of 24 APPENDIX C DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DECON TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page2 of 24 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Sits LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Conetactor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contnlen Costse Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Felt Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD la - Shutduows through Transition Period la Direct Decommissioning Activities la.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 156 32 188 188 1,300 la1.2 Notificationof Cessation of Operations a la.1.3 Remove fuel & source matedal We 1a.1.4 Notificationof Permanent Defueling la.1.5 Deactivate plant systems & process waste a la.1.6 Prepare and submit PSDAR 240 50 289 289 2,000 l1.1.7 Review plant dwgs &specs. 551 114 666 666 4,600 la.1.8 Perform detailed rad survey 120 25 145 145 -1,000 la.1.9 Estimate by-product inventory la.1.10 End product description 120 25 145 145 1.000 tult. Detailed by-product inventory 156 32 188 188 1,300 la.1.12 Define major work sequence 899 186 1,086 1,086 7,500 la.1.13 Perform SER and EA 372 77 449 449 3,100 la.1.14 Perform Site-Specific Cost Study 599 124 724 724 5,000 la.1.15 Prepare/submit License Termination Plan 491 102 593 593 4,096 la.1.16 Receive NRC approval ofiterminabon plan a Activity Specifications la.1.17.1 Plant &temporary facilties 590 122 712 641 71 4,920 la 1.17.2 Plant systems 104 603 543 60 4,167 5o0 la.1.17.3 NSSS Decontamination Flush 60 12 72 72 500 la.1.f17.4 Reactor internals 851 176 1.028 1.028 7,100 la.1.17.5 Reactor vessel 779 162 941 941 6,500 la.1.17.6 Biological shield 60 12 72 72 5o0 la.1.17.7 Steam generatom 374 78 452 452 3.120 la.1.17.8 Reinforced concrete 1 92 40 232 116 116 1.600 la.1.t7.9 Main Turbine 48 10 5 - 58 400 la.1.17.10 Main Condensers 48 10 58 - 58 400 la.1.17.11 Plant structures & buildings 374 78 452 226 226 3.120 la.1.17.12 Waste management 55 1 114 666 666 4,600 1a.1.17.13 Facility &site closeout 1I08 22 130 65 65 900 la.1.17 Total 4,535 940 5,475 4,821 654 37,827 Planning &Site Preparations la.1.18 Prepare dismantling sequence 298 60 347 347 2.400 la.1.19 Plant prep.& temp. svces 2,700 560 3,260 3,260 la.1.2i0 Design outer clean-up system 168 35 203 203 1,400 la.1.21 Rigging/Cont. Cod Envlpsltoolingletc. 2,100 435 2,535 2.535 la.1.22 Procure casks/Iinem &containers 147 31 178 178 1.230 la.1 Subtotal Period ta ActivityCosts 13.642 2,828 16.470 15.816 654 73,753 Period la AdditionalCosts I:.2.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 9,407 1,950 11.358 11,358 1a,2 Subtotal Period la Additional Costs 9,407 1,950 11,358 11f358 Period la Collateral Costs taa3.1 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer 836 173 1,009 1,009 Ia.3 Subtotal Period la Collateral Costs 836 173 1.009 1,009 Period la Period-Dependent Costs l..4.1 Insurance 1,195 165 1,360 1.360 ta.4.2 Property taxes 101 14 115 115 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Docunent P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page3 of 24 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index ActivityDescriptlon Cost Cost Costs Costs Cests Costs Costs Continsency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Fest Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period la Period-Dependent Costs (continued) 1a.4.3 Health physics supplies 486 168 654 654 la.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 490 102 591 591 11 38 - 16 69 69 610 12,190 22 la.4.5 Disposal of DAWgenerated l1.4.6 Plant energy budget 1,330 276 1.605 1,605 la.4.7 NRC ISFSIFees 159 - 159 - 159 la.4.8 NRC Fees 706 98 803 803 1,258 la.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 174 1,432 - 1.432 la.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 735 152 887 887 la.4.11 ISFSI - Operating Costs 118 24 142 142 1a.4.12 Spent Fuel StoragelCapital Equipment 1,594 330 1.925 1,925 la.4.13 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 239 50 289 - 289 1o.4.14 Security Staff Cost 775 161 936 936 12.264 1a.4.15 UtilityStaff Cost 26,403 5,473 31,876 31,876 423.400 Subtotal Period to Period-Dependent Costs 976 11 4 38 34,612 7,202 42,843 38,009 4,834 610 12,190 22 435.664 1s.4 la.0 TOTALPERIOD ta COST 976 11 4 38 58,497 12,153 71.680 65,183 5,842 654 610 12,190 22 509,417 PERIOD Ib - Decommissioning Preparations Period lb Direct Decommissioning Activities Detailed Work Procedures lb.1.1.1 Plant systems 118 685 617 69 4.733 567 lb.1.1.2 NSSS Decontamination Flush 120 25 145 145 1,000 1b.1.1.3 Reactor internals 300 62 362 362 2,500 1b.1.1.4 Remaining buildings 162 34 195 49 147 1,350 1b.1.1.5 CRD cooling assembly 120 25 145 145 1,000 120 1b.1.1.6 CRD housings & IC tubes 25 145 145 - 1.80D 120 lb.1.1.7 Incore instrumentation 25 145 145 - 1.801D tb.1.1.8 Reactor vessel 435 90 525 525 - 3,830 lb.1.1.9 Facility ctosnoot 144 30 174 87 87 1,200 lb.1.1.10 Missile shields 54 11 65 65 450 lb.1.1.11 Biologicalshield 144 30 174 174 1,200 lb.1.1.12 Stea" generators 551 114 666 666 4,600 lb.1.1.13 Reinforced concrete 120 25 145 72 72 1,000 lb.1.1.14 Main Turbine 187 39 226 - 226 1.560 lb.1.1.15 Main Condensers 187 39 226 - 226 1,560 lb.1.1.16 Auxiliarybuildiog 327 68 395 356 40 2,730 lb.1.1.17 Reactor building 327 68 395 356 40 2,730 lb.1.1 Total 3,986 826 4,812 3,907 905 - 33.243 lb.1.2 Decon primary lop 1,623 1,122 2,745 2,745 1.067 -

lb.1 Subtotal Period l b ActivityCosts 1,623 3,986 1,948 7,557 6,652 905 1.067 33.243 Period 1b AdditionalCosts lb.2.1 ' Site Characterization 4,549 1,886 6,435 6,435 25,000 9.412 l.b2,2 Hazardous Waste Management 590 122 713 713 lb.2.3 MixedWaste Management 912 189 1,101 1,101 lb.2 Subtotal Period 1b Additional Costs 6,051 2,197 8,248 8,248 25,000 9,412 Period 1b Collateral Costs 1b.3.1 Decoc equipment 935 - 194 1,129 1.129 1 b.3.2 DOCstaff relocation expenses 1,395 289 1,684 1,684 lb.3.3 Process liquid waste 64 188 786 6,988 - 2,648 10.674 10,674 400 2,403 290,742 547 lb.3.4 Small toot allowance 0 3 3 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Doeument P01-1604-003, Roe. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page4 of 24 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit I DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Oft-its LLRW NRC Spest Foal Site Processed BurialVolumes BurialI Utilityand Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Proesseed Craft Contractor index Activity Descripton Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Foot Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period lb Collateral Costs (orrtinued) lb.3.5 Pipe cutting equipment - 1,000 207 1.207 1.207 1b.3.6 Decon ng 1,400 290 1.690 1,690 l b.3.7 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer - - 496 103 599 - 599 1b.3 Subtotal Period 1 b Collateral Costs Z,399 1,002 188 786 6.998 1,891 3.731 16,966 16,388 599 400 2,403 290,742 547 Period lb Pedod-)ependent Costs lb.4.1 Decon supplies 28 - 10 38 38 11.4.2 Insurance 592 82 674 674 lb.4.3 Property taxes 50 7 57 57 11b.4.4 Health physics supplies 272 94 366 366 11b.4.5 - Heavy equipment rental 243 50 293 293 1tb.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 7 2 - 22 - 9 40 40 354 7,084 13 1b.4.7 Plant energy budget 1,319 273 1,592 1,592 lb.4.8 NRC ISFSI Fees 95 - 95 - 95 11.4.9 NRC Fees 350 48 398 398 lb.4AI0 Emergency Planning Fees 369 51 420 - 420 lb.4.11 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 364 76 440 440 lb.4.12 ISFSI- Operating Costs 70 14 84 -. 84 I b.4.13 Spent Fuel Storage/Capoal Equipment 1.578 327 1,906 1,906 15.4.14 ISFSI- Fixed Costs 142 29 172 - 172 1b.4.15 Security Staff Cost 385 80 464 464 6,082 lb.4.16 DOCStaff Cost 5,260 1,090 6,350 6,350 63,091 l1.4.17 UtilityStaff Cost 13,172 2.730 15,902 15.902 210.994 lb.4 Subtotal Period 1b Period-Dependent Costs 28 515 7 2 22 23.745 4.972 29.292 26,176 3,116 354 7,084 13 280.167 1b.0 TOTAL PERIOD t b COST 4,051 1,517 195 789 7.010 35,672 12.849 62.083 57.464 3.714 905 755 2.403 297.826 26.626 322.822 PERIOD 1 TOTALS 4,051 2,493 206 793 7,048 94.170 25,002 133,763 122,647 9,557 1,559 1,364 2.403 310,016 26,648 832.239 PERIOD 2a - Large Component Removal Period 2a Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 2a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 305 287 40 40 766 - 588 2,027 2,027 2.141 258,908 10.138 2a.1.1.2 Pressurizer Quench Tank 32 29 6 6 108 72 254 254 329 36,557 1.073 2a.1.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 120 101 44 121 1,358 618 2,360 2,360 5.388 871,200 4,152 2a.1.1.4 Pressurizer 38 59 454 295 - 620 385 1,852 1,852 - 2.460 269,821 2,282 -

2a.1.1.5 Steam Generators 394 3,846 2,686 1.924 2,974 5.939 5.040 22.803 22.803 37.344 23.568 3.353.901 23.234 1,750 2a.1.1.6 Retired Steam Generator Units - - 1,895 1,890 2,974 5,768 3.263 15.790 15,790 37,344 22.887 3,128,906 10.800 1,125 2a.1.1.7 CRDMsllCls/Senice Structure Removal 162 92 224 37 - 255 270 1,040 1,040 - 3,881 86,025 4.285 -

2a.1.1,8 Reactor Vessel Internals 144 2.231 5,070 914 4,579 234 7,692 20,864 20,864 1,753 845 574 359,588 28,500 1,272 2a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel 100 4,159 1,598 651 - 8,548 234 11,113 26,404 26,404 6,416 2,379 - 964,382 28,500 1,272 2a.1.1 Totals 1,295 t0.804 12,018 5,878 5,948 27,941 469 29,041 93,394 93.394 74,688 68,822 3,224 574 9,329,287 112,963 5,419 Removal of Major Equipment 2a.1.2 Matn Turbine/Generator - 534 192 139 881 605 631 2,981 2,981 7,712 2,301 551,290 9,450 2a.1.3 Main Condensers 1,529 181 131 831 570 950 4.193 4.193 7,274 2,170 520.010 27.028 Cascading Costs from Clean BuildingDemolition 2a.1.4.1 fReactor 1,208 - 250 1,458 1,458 13,127 2a.l.4.2 Containment Penetration Area 66 14 79 79 704 2a.1.4.3 Fuel Handling 175 36 212 212 1,746 2a.1d4 Totals 1.449 300 1,749 1,749 15,578 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page5 of24 Table C-i Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissionin~g Cost Estimate (Thousands of22888 Dollars)

Off-Sits LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and

,, - Decon Remoeat Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Conbtactor I I

IActioity Inlay A*ti*i* n*FinNNn Cost Cost Costs Costs Casts Costs Costs Continaency Costs Costs Casts Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feel Cu. Feet Cu. Faet Cu. Feet WtL Lbs. Manhours Manhours ndox t v ascription Disposal of Plant Systems 2a.1.5.1 AuxiliarySteam 245 6 56 458 192 958 958 4.445 180,494 4,001 2a.1.5.2 AuxiliarySteam (RCA) 213 3 29 240 130 616 616 2.330 -4.627 3,528 1,131 68 592 4,856 1.530 8,176 8,176 47,076 1,911,765 18.771 2a.1.5.3 Condensate System 401 21 182 1.497 489 2,590 2,590 14.512 589.348 6,833 2a.1.5.4 Condensate System (Insulated) 2a.1.5,5 Containment Spray 194 10 87 713 234 1.237 1,237 6.908 280.525 3,329 450 16 143 1,176 431 2,216 2,216 11,399 462,924 7,441 2a.1.8.6 Extraction Steam SHeater Drip 65 5 48 395 115 628 628 3,829 155,509 1,130 2a.1.5.7 Feedwater System 271 11 101 825 287 1,495 1,495 7,995 324,669 4,542 2a.1.5.8 Feedwater System (Insulated) 2a.1.5.9 Feedwater System (RCAInsulated) 98 3 24 199 81 405 405 1.926 78,223 1,693 5 1 10 4 21 21 101 4.117 81 2a.1.5.10 Feedw.tor System (RCA) 2a.1.5.11 Lube Oil Distrbutiun &Putiguation 188 3i 25 205 113 533 533 1.986 80,661 3.052 17 3 28 - 20 - -- 315 2a.1.S.12 Nitrogon& Hydrogen 2a.1.5.13 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) 1 0 1 - 1 - - 17 5 2 2 9 9 20 793 75 2a.1.5.14 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA Insulated) 0 50 2a.1.5.15 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA) 87 38 39 169 169 371 15.060 1,433 1 464 2a.15.16 OilyWater Separator &TB Sump 30 8 63 25 126 126 - 607 24,649 162 33 195 - 195 - - 2,926 2a.1.5.17 SaitwuoterSystom 1,227 80 700 5,742 1,770 9,519 9,519 - 55.669 2,260,765 20,590 2a.1.5.18 Turbine Stoam Supply 671 22 182 1,497 583 2,954 2,954 14.508 589,194 11,474 2a.1.5.19 Turbine Stoam Supply (RCA) 116 4 37 300 110 567 567 2,909 118.127 1.947 2a.1.5.20 Turotne and Gennratot 49 63 32 152 152 - 607 24,645 777 2a.1.5.21 Turbine and Geneoraor (Insulated) 1 8 5,622 256 2,228 18,278 6.204 32.587 32,371 216 177.198 7,196,094 94,419 2a.1.5 Totals 2,311 12 67 10 819 3,227 3,227 - 586 37 - 29,669 18,689 2a.1.6 Scaffolding insupport of decommissioning -

2a.1 Subtotal Period 2a ActivityCosts 1,295 22,249 12.658 8,384 26,006 29,126 469 37.945 138.131 137,915 216 267.458 73.330 3.224 574 - 17.626.350 278.128 5.419 Period 2a Additional Costs 2a-2.1 Retired Reactor Head - 102 151 55 - 503 15 528 1,355 1.355 2.002 211,020 2,100 84 2a.2 Subtotal Period 2a AdditionalCosts - 102 151 55 - 503 15 528 1,355 1,355 2.002 211,020 2,100 84 Period 2a Collateral Costs 2a.3.1 Process liquid waste 106 - 49 196 183 184 718 718 - - 725 43,508 141 2a'.32 Small tool allowance - 299 62 361 325 36 -

2a.3.3 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer - 1,586 329 1.915 - 1,915 --

106 299 49 196 575 2.994 1,043 1,915 36 725 43,508 141 2a.3 Subtotal Period 2a Collateral Costs 183 1,586 Period 2a Peoiod-Dependent Costs 2a.4.1 Decon supplies 91 - 31 122 122 2a.4.2 Insurance 699 97 796 796 2a.4.3 Property taxes 160 22 182 164 18 2a.4.4 Hearth physics supplres 2,049 708 2.756 2.756 2a.4.5 Heavy equipment rentat 3.735 774 4,509 4.509 2a.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 97 36 320 - 131 584 584 5,158 103,157 188 2a.4.7 Plant energy budget - 2.004 415 2,419 2.419 2a.4.8 NRC ISFSI Fees 302 - 302 - 302 2a.4.9 NRC Fees 1,044 144 1,188 1,188 2a.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 892 123 1,015 - 1,015 2a.4.11 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 1,165 242 1,407 1,407 2a.4.12 ISFSI - Operating Costs 224 46 270 270 2a.4.13 Spent Fuol StoragetCapital Equipment 6,026 1,249 7.276 7,276 2a.4.14 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 454 94 549 - 549 2a.4.15 Security Staff Cost 1,151 239 1,390 1,390 18,197 2a.4.16 DOC Staff Cost 20,607 4,272 24,879 24.879 251.451 29.137 6.040 35,177 35,177 460,189 2a.4.17 UtilityStaff Cost - 5,158 -

2a.4 Subtotal Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs 91 5,784 97 36 320 63.867 14,629 84,823 73,986 10.819 16 103.157 188 729,838 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysios j Appendix C, Page 6 of 24 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel sito Processed Burial Volumes Burial/ Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activlty Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WE, Lbs. Manhoutr Manhours 2o.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2a COST 1.492 28,433 12,955 8.671 26,006 30.131 65.937 53.676 227,302 214,298 12,734 271 267.458 81,215 3,224 574 - 17,984,030 280,557 735,341 PERIOD 21 - Site Decontamination Period 2b Direct Decommissioning Activities Disposal of Plant Systems 2b.1.1.1 Capital Additions 85-2002 (clean) 155 32 187 - - 187 - - - - 2.830 2b.1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2002 (contaminated) - 353 3 28 234 - 177 795 795 - 2,266 - 92,043 6.160 2b.1.1.3 Chemical &Volume Control 725 948 62 87 475 573 1.152 4,023 4.023 4,609 2,316 380,777 26,732 2b.1.1.4 Chemical &Voiume Control (Insulated) 265 341 19 13 40 161 370 1,218 1,210 - 383 615 70,078 10,196

- 166 34 201 - 201 - - - 3,078 2b.1.1.5 Component Cooling Water 478 13 107 876 371 1.844 1.844 -

S 8,495 344,999 8.025 2b.1.1.6 Component Cooling Water (RCA) 2b.1.1.7 Compressed Air 148 31 178 - 178 - - 2.744 2b.1.1.8 Compressed Air (Insulated) 5 1 6 - 6 - - 98 22 0 1 10 10 45 45 -S 102 4,130 380 21.1.1.9 Compressed Air (RCA Insulated) 2b.1.1.10 Compressed Air (RCA) 413 3 24 199 190 830 830 - 1.932 78,476 6,959 2b.1.1.11 Diesel Engine-Generator 152 32 184 - 184 - - 2.760 2b.1.1.12 Diesel Engine-Generator (Insulated) 10 2 12 12 178 1,809 375 2,184 2,184 - 32,770 2b.1.1.13 Electrical (Clean) 2b.1.1.14 Electrical (Contaminated) 491 9 63 505 35 301 1,404 1,404 - 4.898 132 210,603 8,543 2b.1.1.15 Electrical (Decontaminated) 3,025 73 612 5.022 2.223 10,955 10,955 48,689 - 1,977,300 51.247 2b.1.1.16 Fire Protection 311 11 93 761 286 1,460 1.460 7,373 299,432 5,298 2b.1.1.17 Gaseous Radsaste 66 4 3 14 28 36 151 151 131 105 14,631 1,089 2b.1.1.18 HVAC (Clean Insulated) 24 5 29 - 29 - - S- 475 304 63 367 - 367 - - - 5,804 21,1.1.19 HVAC (Clean) 2b.1.1.20 HVAC (Contaminated Insulated) 254 6 36 281 30 165 772 772 - 2,728 114 120,927 4,027 2b.1.1.21 HVAC(Contaminated) 1,128 34 178 1.381 183 781 3,684 3,684 13,391 695 605,518 - 18,115 478 598 48 44 172 440 741 2,521 2,521 1.667 1,886 216,389 18.104 2b.1.1.22 Liquid Rad-aste 2b'1.1.23 Liquid Radvaste (Insulated) 56 63 4 2 5 36 75 241 241 - 46 135 13,869 1,993 2b.1.1.24 Make-upWater 306 63 369 - 369 - - - 5,614 28 6 34 - 34 - - 521 2b.1.1.25 Make-up Water (Insulated) 34 0 3 28 18 84 84 269 10,909 564 2b.1.1.26 Mak-p Water (RCAInsulated)

- 180 2 19 157 99 458 458 1,522 61,817 2.969 2b.1.1.27 Make-opWoter (RCA) 17 98 4 5 29 31 64 250 250 203 124 21,970 1.932 2b.1.1.28 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolant 146 4 6 31 35 71 292 292 299 133 23,955 2.684 2b.1.1.29 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling

- 44 1 1 1 8 19 73 73 10 31 3,177 816 20.1.1.30 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling (Insuloted 2b.1.1.31 Residual Heat Removal 275 258 56 68 309 589 569 2,124 2,124 2.999 2,242 320,783 5,703

- 101 4 11 76 31 64 287 287 736 121 40.322 1,773 2b.1.1.32 Safety Injection 2b.1.1.33 Sa fety Injection (Insulated) 5 0 0 3 2 3 13 13 25 7 1,628 82 2b.1.1.34 Safety Injection (RCAInsulated) 32 2 4 23 17 23 100 100 221 64 14,653 537 270 17 33 205 151 197 874 874 1.989 576 131,878 4.462 2b.1.1.35 Safety Injection (RCA) 100 21 121 - 121 - 1,856 2b.1.1.36 Service Cooling Water 2b.1.1.37 Service Cooling Water (RCA) 23 O 3 26 - 14 67 67 - 253 - 10,286 384 1,445 10,864 2,349 8,681 38.426 34,556 3,871 105,317 9.297 5,070,550 247,503 2b.1.1 Totals 1.817 12,889 3 82 Scaffolding in suppod of decommissioning 2,889 15 11 84 12 1,024 4,034 4.034 - 733 46 37,087 23,361 20.1.2 Decontamination of Site Buildings 2b.1.3.1 *Reactor 1,524 1,737 381 349 426 3.703 3,146 11,265 11.265 4,128 20,482 2,076,526 53,197 21.1.3.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 27 23 1 4 40 3 36 133 133 386 14 16,586 839 266 198 29 33 120 394 421 1.450 1.450 1,164 1,509 180,273 7,367 2b.1.3.3 Containment Penetration Area 2b.1.3 Totals 1.817 1,947 410 386 586 4.099 3,603 12,848 12.848 5,670 22,005 2,273,384 61,403 3,634 17,724, 807 1,842 11,533 6,460 13.308 55,308 51,438 3,871 111,728 31,348 7,381,021 332,267 2b.1 Subtotal Period 2b ActivityCosts TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page 7 of 24 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Actieity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total tic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activito Desription Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contin enc Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 2b Collateral Costs 2b.3.1 Process liquid -iste 210 - 189 779 - 1,011 - 682 2,873 2,873 2.821 240,731 550 2b.3.2 Small tool allowance - 366 - 76 441 441 2b.3.3 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer 898 186 1,084 - 1,084 2b.3 Subtotal Period 2b Collateral Costs 210 366 189 779 1,011 - 898 944 4.399 3.314 1,084 2,821 240.731 550 Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 2b.4.1 Deoon supplies 792 274 1,066 1,066 2b.4.2 Insurance - 846 117 963 963 2b.4.3 Property taxes 194 27 220 220 2b.4.4 Health physics supplies 2.360 815 3,176 3.176 2b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 4,490 931 5,420 5,420 2b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 89 33 294 121 536 536 4,735 94,697 172 2b.4.7 Plant energy budget 1.915 397 2.312 2,312 2b.4.8 NRC ISFSI Fees 366 - 366 - 366 2b.4.9 NRC Fees 1.264 175 1,439 1,439 2b.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 715 99 814 - 814 2b.4.11 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 918 190 1,108 1,108 2b.4.12 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 1.411 293 1,704 - 1,704 2b.4.13 Liquid Rad'cste Processing Equipment/Serices 369 76 445 445 2b.4.14 ISFSI - Operating Costs 271 56 327 - 327 2b.4.15 Spent Fuel Storage/Capitat Equipment 5,128 1.063 6.191 6,191 2b.4.16 ISFS - FixedCosts 550 114 664 - 664 2b.4.17 Security Staff Cost 1,394 289 1.683 1.683 22,031 2b.4.18 DOC Staff Cost 17.1a4 3.562 20.747 20,747 216.309 2b04.19 UtilityStaff Cost 25.221 5,228 30,450 30,450 402.574 792 6.850 89 33 294 57,747 13.827 79.632 68,458 11,174 4,735 94,697 172 640,914 2b.4 Subtotal Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 2b.0 TOTALPERIOD 20 COST 4,636 24,940 1,086 2,654 11,533 7,765 58.645 28,079 139,339 123,210 12,258 3,871 111,728 38,904 7,716,449 332,989 640.914 PERIOD 2c - Wet Fuel Storage Period 2c Direct Decommissioning Activities Period 2c Collateral Costs 2c.3.1 Spent Fuel Caputal and Transfer 9,873 2,047 11.920 11.920 - - -

2c.3 Subtotal Period 2c Collateral Costs 9,873 2,047 11.920 11.920 Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 3.474 480 3,954 3,954 2..4.2 Property taxes 805 111 917 917 2c.4.3 Health physics supplies 701 242 943 943 2c.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 15 6 49 - 20 90 80 797 15,949 29 2c.4.5 Plant energy budget 2,016 418 2,434 2,434 2c,4.6 NRC ISFSI Fees 1,522 - 1,522 - 1.522 2c,4.7 NRC Fees 1,457 201 1,659 1.659 2c,4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 2,974 411 3,386 - 3,386 2c.4.9 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSIto DOE 4.050 839 4,889 4,889 2c.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 5.868 1.216 7,084 7,084 2c.4.11 ISFSI - Operating Costs 1,125 233 1,359 1,359 2c.4.12 Spent Fuel StorageJCapial Equipment 44.027 9,127 53,154 53,154 2c.4.13 ISFS - Fixed Costs 2,288 474 2,762 2,762 2c.4.14 UtilityStaff Cost 15 6 - 49 6,990 1.449 8,439 8,439 -- - 118.932 701 15 6 - 49 76,596 15,223 92,590 18,435 74.155 797 15,949 29 118.932 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.0 TOTALPERIOD 2c COST 701 15 6 49 86,469 17,270 104,510 18.435 86.075 797 15,949 29 118.932 TLG Serviees, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Docurnent P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page 8 of 24 Table C-i Diablo Canyon Unit I DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollairs)

Decon Removal Packaging Transport Off-ita Processing LLRW Disposal Other Total Total Lic.NRC Term. Spent Fuel Management Sit.

Restoration Processed Volume Class A BurialB Volumes Class Class C GFCC Burial IUtility Craft Processed and Contractor IActivity Costs Costs Costs Continnencv Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. FPet Co. Feet CuoFeet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhoourn Manhours I I In*I A*IVIW UQSCrl D*on Cost Cost Costs Costs ndox ct i Description PERIOD 2d - Decontamination Followdng Wet Fuel Storage Period 2d Direct Decommissioning Activities 2d.1.1 Remove spent fuel racks 477 47 136 34 656 598 1,948 1,948 2,496 221.587 962 Disposal of Plant Systems 142 10 77 5. 69 305 305 746 20 ' 32,098 2,475 2d.1.2.1 Electrical (Contaminated) - FHB 11 880 90 742 478 2.202 2.202 7,198 292.312 14,847 2d.1.2.2 Electrical (Decontaminated) - FHB 191 2 20 162 104 478 478 1,570 63,760 3.139 2d.1.2.3 Fire Protection (RCA) 268 8 41 320 36 181 854 854 3,102 138 138.203 4,294 2d.1.24 HVAC (Contaminated)- FHB 2d.1.2.5 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling - 70 22 26 117 221 133 588 580 1,130 841 120,463 1,270 2d.1.2.6 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling - FHB 97 24 27 125 237 150 660 660 1,209 903 129,199 1,737 1,649 68 214 1,543 499 1,116 5,088 5,088 14,955 1,902 776,035 27,761 2d.1.2 Totals Decontamination of Site Buildings 48 206 610 944 3,134 3.134 2d.1.3.1 Fuel Handling 665 723 39 1,996 1,965 253,465 23.531 2d.1.3 Totals 665 723 39 48 206 510 944 3,134 3,134 1,996 1,965 253.465 23,531

- 578 3 2 17 2 205 907 807 147 9 7,417 4.672 2d.1.4 Scaffolding in support ofdecommissioning 2d.1 Subtotal Period 2d ActivityCosts 1,142 2.996 246 298 1,765 1.668 2,862 10.977 10,977 17,097 6,372 1.258.505 56,927 Period 2d Additional Costs 2d.2.1 License Termination SurmeyPlanning 669 277 946 946 6,240 669 277 946 946 6,240 2d.2 Subtotal Period 2d AdditionalCosts Period 2d Collateral Costs 2d.3.1 Process liquid waste 116 - 53 215 200 201 785 785 794 47,648 155 2d.3.2 Small tool allowance - 72 - 15 87 87 2d.3.3 Decommissioning Equipment Disposition - - 121 107 686 99 215 1.229 1.229 6.000 378 303,548 88 2d.3 Subtotal Period 2d Collateral Costs 116 72 174 322 686 299 432 2,101 2,101 6,000 1,172 351,197 243 Period 2d Period-Dependent Costs 2d.4.1 Decon supplies 210 - 73 283 283 2d.4.2 insurance 177 24 201 201 2d.4.3 Property taces 46 6 53 53 2d.4.4 HeaSt physics sopplies 443 153 597 597 2d.4.5 Heavy equipmrent rental 1,076 223 1,299 1,299 2d.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated -

S 26 10 87 - 36 159 159 1,400 28,006 51 2d.4.7 Plant energy budget 245 51 296 296 2d.4.8 NRC ISFSI Fees 88 - 86 - 88 2d.4.9 NRC Fees 303 42 345 345 2d.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 171 24 195 - 195 2d.4.11 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 207 43 250 - 250 2d.4.12 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Semices 177 37 213 213 2d.4.13 ISFS - Operating Costs 65 13 78 - 78 2d4.414 SFS - Fined Costs 132 27 159 - 159 2d.4.15 Security Staff Cost 182 38 220 220 2,880 2,769 574 3,343 3,343 35.040 2d.4.16 DOC Staff Cost

- - 3,526 731 4,257 4,257 58,080 2d.4.17 LUilityStaff Cost 2d.4 Subtotal Period 2d Period-Dependent Costs 210 1,519 26 10 - 87 8,089 2,095 12,036 11,265 770 1,400 28,006 51 96,000 630 2,451 2,054 8,757 5,666 26,060 25,290 770 23,097 8.944 1,637,707 57.221 102.240 2d.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2d COST 1.469 4,587 446 TLG Servies, foe.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Documnent P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommuisioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page9 of 24 Table C-I Diablo Canyon Unit I DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

P Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial) Utility and

, - Devon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor IActivity m IN.hi B A*IVI* I)O* f I*NOn Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continoency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WE, Lbs. Manhours ManhoursI ndox ctivi Descri on PERIOD 2e -License Termination Period 2e Direct Decommissioning Activities 2e.1.1 ORISE confirmatory survey 153 63 218 218 2e.1.2 Terminate license 2e.1 Subtotal Period 2e ActivityCosts 153 83 216 216 Period 2e Additional Costs 2e.2.1 License Termination Survey - -- - - - 8,178 3,390 11.568 11.568 142.829 3,120 3.390 11,568 11,568 142,829 3,120 2e.2 Subtotal Period 2e AdditionalCosts - -- - - - 8.178 Period 2e Collateral Costs 2e.3.1 DOC staff relocation expenses - -. - - - 1,395 289 1,684 1,684 2e.3 Subtotal Period 2e Collateral Costs - -- - - - 1.395 289 1.684 1,684 Period 2e Period-Dependent Costs 2e.4.1 Insurance 290 40 330 330 2e.4,2 Property taxes 76 11 86 86 2e.4.3 Health physics supplies 919 - - 318 1,236 1,236 6 2 20 - 8 36 36 319 6,371 12 2e.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 2e'4.5 Plant energy budget 200 42 242 242 2e.4.6 NRC ISFSI Fees 144 - 144 - 144 2e.4.7 NRC Fees 532 73 605 605 2e.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 281 39 319 - 319 2e.4.9 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 339 70 409 409 2e.4.10 SFS1 -Operaling Costs 106 22 128 128 2e.4.11 SF51-Fixed Costs 216 45 261 - 261 298 62 360 360 4,714 2e.4.12 Security Staff Cost 2e.4.13 DOC Staff Cost 2,847 590 3,437 3,437 36.143 2,525 523 3,048 3,048 39.286 2e.4.14 UtilityStaff Cost 919 6 2 20 7,852 1.842 10.642 9,381 1,261 319 -6,371 12 80,143 2e.4 Subtotal Period 2e Period-Oependent Costs 919 6 2 - 20 17.578 5,585 24.110 22.849 1.261 319 - 6,371 142,841 83.263 2e.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2e COST 7,597 59,580 14,508 11,9,53 39,990 40.020 237.386 110,277 521,321 404,082 113,090 4.141 402,284 130,180 3,224 574 27.360,510 813,637 1.680,690 PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3b -Site Restoration Period 3b Direct Decommissioning Activities Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings

- 6,873 - - 1,425 8,298 - 74,901 -

3b.1.1.1 *Reactor 8,298 273 57 330 330 3,572 3b.1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 3b.1.1.3 Containment Penetration Area 615 127 742 742 6,563 31.1.1.4 Miscellaneos 26 5 31 31 249 3,274 679 3,952 3,952 38,602 3b.1.1.5 Turbine 1,212 251 1,463 1.463 11,300 31.1.1.6 Turbine Pedestal 1,689 350 2,039 2.039 16,750 3b.1.1.7 Fuel Handling 13.961 2.894 16.856 16,856 151,936 3b.1.1 Totals Site Closeout Activities 3b.1.2 Grade &landscape site 2-272 - 471 2,743 - 2,743 4,587 187 39 226 226 S - 1,560 3b.1.3 Final report to NRC 16.234 187 3,404 19,825 226 19,599 156,523 1,560 3b.1 Subtotal Period 30 ActivityCosts TLG Services,Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page 10 of24 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removul Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index AcEvita Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continsency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 3b Additional Costs 3b.2.1 Concrete Crushing 464 96 560 560 2,063 3b.2.2 Cofferdam Construction and Teardown 438 91 529 529 4,004 3b.2 Subtotal Period 35 AdditionalCosts 901 187 1,089 1,089 6,067 Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Small tool allowance 187 39 225 225 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs 187 39 225 225 Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Insurance 787 109 896 896 3b.4.2 Property taxes 207 29 235 235 3b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 6,420 1.331 7,750 - 7.750 3b.4.4 Plant energy budget 273 56 329 - 329 3b.4.5 NRC ISFSI Fees 391 - 391 391 -

3b.4.6 Emergency Planning Fees 763 105 869 869 3b.4.7 -Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 921 191 1,112 1,112 3b.4.8 ISFSI - Operating Costs 289 60 349 349 3b.4.9 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 587 122 709 709 -

3b.4.10 Security Staff Cost 338 70 408 - 408 5.343 3b.4.11 DOC Staff Cost 6,581 1,364 7.945 - - 7.945 81,211 3b.4.12 UtilityStaff Cost 1,713 355 2,068 0 1,158 910 27,783 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 6,420 12.849 3.792 23.061 0 5.718 17.342 114.337 3b.0 TOTALPERIOD 3b COST 23.741 13,036 7.422 44.199 226 5,718 38.255 162.590 115,897 PERIOD 3c - Fuel Storage OperationslShipping Period 3o Direct Decommissioning Activities Period 3c Collateral Costs 3X.3 Subtotal Period 3c Collateral Costs Perod 3c Period-Dependent Costs 3`.4.1 Insurance 4,184 578 4,762 4,762 3c.4.2 Property taxes 1,098 152 1,250 1,250 3c.4.3 Plant energy budget 3c.4.4 NRC ISFSI Fees 2,075 - 2.075 2.075 3c.4.5 Emergency Planning Fees 4,055 560 4.615 4,615 3c.4.6 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 4.865 1,009 5,874 5.874 3c.4.7 ISFSI - Operating Costs 1,534 318 1,852 1,852 3..4.8 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 3,119 647 3,766 3,766 3c.4.9 Security Staff Cost 20,852 4,323 25,174 25,174 306,566 3c.4.10 UtilityStaff Cost 5,130 1,064 6.194 6,194 76,755 3X.4 Subtotal Period 3c Period-Dependent Costs 46.913 8.650 55,562 55,562 383,321 3c.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3. COST 46.913 8.650 55.562 55.562 383,321 PERIOD 3d - GTCC shipping Period 3d Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 3d.1.1.1 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 300 8,952 1.897 11.150 11.150 433 85,510 3d.1.1 Totals 300 8,952 1.897 11.150 11.150 433 85,510 3d.1 Subtotal Period 3d ActivityCosts 300 8,952 1.897 11.150 11.150 433 85,510 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page11 of 24 Table C-I Diablo Canyon Unit I DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

SActivity Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor tIdex Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continaency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 3d Collateral Costs 3d.3 Subtotal Period 3d Collateral Costs Period 3d Period-Dependent Costs 3d.4.1 Insuranoe 15 2 17 17 3d.4.2 Properly taxes 4 1 4 4 3d.4.3 Plant energy budget 3d.4.4 NRC ISFSI Fees 7 - 7 7 3d.4.5 Emergency Planning Fees 14 2 16 16 5 1 7 7 3d.4.6 ISFSI - Operating Costs 3d.4.7 SF51 - Fixed Costs 11 2 13 13 3d.4.8 Security Staff Cost 73 15 89 89 1,080 3d.4.9 UtilityStaff Cost 4 22 22 270 3d.4 Subtotal Period 3d Period-Dependent Costs 148 27 175 175 1,350 3d.0 TOTALPERIOD 3d COST 300 8.952 148 1,924 11.325 11.150 175 -- - - 433 85.510 1,350 PERIOD 3e - ISFSI Decontamination Period 3e Direct Decommissioning Activities Period 3e AdditionalCosts 3e.2.1 ISFSI License Termination 1,059 4 100 387 789 678 3,016 - 3,016 6,239 748.943 15,356 1,280 3e.2 Subtotal Period 3e Additional Costs 1.059 4 100 387 789 678 3,016 3,016 6,239 748.943 15,356 1,280 Period 3e Colateral Costs 3e.3.1 Small tool alvnance - 14 - 3 17 17 - - - - -

3e.3 Subtotal Period 3e Collateral Costs - 14 - 3 17 17 - - . - -

Period 3e Period-Deperdent Costs 3e.4.1 Insurance 127 18 145 145 3e.4.2 Property taxes 33 5 38 38 3e.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 309 64 373 373 3e.4.4 Plant energy budget 3e.4.5 Securty Staff Cost 172 36 207 207 2,510 3e.4.6 UtilityStaff Cost 129 27 156 156 1,901 3e.4 Subtotal Period 3e Period-Dependent Costs 309 461 t49 919 919 4,411 3e.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3e COST 1,383 4 100 387 1,250 829 3,953 3.953 6,239 748,943 15.356 5,691 PERIOD 31 - ISFSISite Restoration Period 3f Direct Decommissioning Activities Period 3f Additional Costs 31.21 ISFSIDemolition and Site Restoration 562 24 121 707 707 - - - - - - - 3,446 50 3f.2 Subtotal Period 3f AdditionalCosts 562 24 121 707 707 - - - - - - - 3,446 80 Period 31Collateral Costs 3f.3.1 SmaI tool alluwowce - 4 1 5 3fi3 Subtotal Period 3f Collateral Costs - 4 1 5 Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs 3f4.1 Insurance 19 3f14.2 Property taxes 17 2 19 21 125 125 31.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 103 31.4.4 Plant energy budget TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1904-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 12 of 24 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume ClassA Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activit Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contisgency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhours Mambo-rs Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs (continued) 3f.4.5 Security Staff Cost 86 18 104 -104 - 1,265 3f.4.6 UtilityStaff Cost 54 11 65 -65 - 784 3f.4 Subtotal Period 3f Penod-Dependent Costs 103 158 53 314 314 2,050 3f.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3f COST 669 181 175 1,025 1,025 3,446 2,130 PERIOD 3 TOTALS 25,793 304 1O0 - 9,339 61.529 19,000 116t064 11,375 66,434 38.255 6,239 433 834,453 181,392 508,389 TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSION 11,648 87.866 15,019 12,856 39.990 56,407 393.084 154.278 771,148 538,104 189,088 43.956 402,284 137,783 5,627 574 433 28,504,980 1,021.677 3,021.318 7OTALCOST TO DECOMMISSIONWITH25.01% CONTINGENCY: $771,148 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALNRC UCENSE TERMINATIONCOST IS69.78% OR: $538,104 thousands of 2008 dollars PENT FUEL MANAGEMENTCOST IS24.52% OR: $189,088 thousands of 2008 dollars ON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITIONCOST IS 5.7%OR: $43,956 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALLOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVEWASTE VOLUMEBURIED (EXCLUDINGGTCC): 143,984 Cubic Feet TOTALGREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTEVOLUMEGENERATED: 433 Cubic Feet TOTALSCRAP METALREMOVED: 47,992 Tons TOTALCRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS: 1,021,677 Man-hours End Notes:

n/a - indicates that this activity not charged as decommissioning expense.

a -indicates that this activoy performed by decommissioning staff.

0 -indicates that this value is less than 0.5 but is non-zero.

a cell containing "-" indicates a zero value TLG Serices, Inc.

Diablo CanyonPower Plant Docunent P01.1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page18 of24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Sits LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volures Burtal/ Utility asd Astiofy Decon Removal Packaging Transport Prsoessing Disposas Other Total Total Lic. Tesm. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Actlvi Description Cost Cost Costs Cost Costs Costs Costs Contlonfsenc Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fast Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD Ia - Shutdown through Transition Period ia Direct Decommissioning Actilities ta.t.l Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 67 14 81 81 556 a.2

• 1 Notificationof Cessation of Operations l a. 1.3 Remove fuel &source material Nia 1a.1.4 Notificationof Permanent Defueting I..1.5 Deactivate plant systems & process waste 1a.1.6 Prepare and submit PSDAR 103 22 124 124 855 l:.1.7 Review plant dwgs &specs. 236 50 2 286 1.967 l'.1,8 Perform detailed red survey Ia.1.9 Estimate by-productinventory 51 11 62 62 428 I:.1.10 End product description 51 11 62 62 428 ll..11 Detailed by-productinventory 67 14 81 81 556 ls.1.12 Define major work sequence 384 81 466 466 3.207 la.1.t3 Perform SER and EA 159 33 192 192 1.326 l1a1.14 Perform Site-Specific Cost Study 256 54 310 310 2,138 Iail15 Prepare/submit License Termination Plan 210 44 254 254 1,751 la.1016 Receive NRC approval of terminationplan a ActivitySpecifcations la.1.17.1 Plont &temporary facilities - - - 252 53 305 275 31 2,104 45 259 233 2 - 1,782 ta.I.17.2 Plant systems la.1.17.3 NSSS Decontamination Flush 26 5 31 31 214 ta,1.17.4 Reactor internals 364 77 441 441 3.038 ta.1.17.5 Reactor essel 333 70 403 403 2.779 ta.t.17.6 Biologicalshield 26 5 31 31 214 ta.n.17.7 Steam generators - - - 160 34 194 194 1.334 ta.1.17.8 Reinforced concrete 82 17 99 50 - 50 684 1:1.1t7.9 MsinTurbine 4 25 - 25 171 ta.t.17.10 Main Condensers 21 4 25 - 25 171 ta.1.17.17 Plant structres &buildings 34 194 97 97 1.334 ta.t.17.12 Wasto management - - - 236 50 286 286 1'967 ta.1.17.13 Pacil]y &site closeout 10 56 28 28 385

- - - 1,939 409 2,348 2,067 280 16,175 lait7 Total Planning &Srie Preparations lo1f1 Prepare dismantling sequence 123 26 149 149 1.026 Sa.t.t1 Plant prep. &temp. svces 2,70 569 3,269 3,269 Ia.1.20 Design water cleas-op system 72 ts 87 87 599 ta.l.2t RiggingiCont CntrdEnvlpsdoolingletc. 2,100 443 2,543 2,543 ln.t.22 Procure casksliners &containers 63 13 76 76 526 la.1 Subtotal Period Ia ActivityCosts 8,581 1,808 10.389 10.109 280 31.537 Period ta AdditionalCosts no.2.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 6,272 1.322 7.593 7,593 ta.2 Subtotal Period ta AdditionalCosts 6,272 1.322 7,593 7.593 Period ta Collateral Costs la.3.1 Spent Fuel Capial and Transfer 1.649 348 1.997 1,997 la.3 Subtotal Period ta Collateral Costs 1,649 348 1,997 1,997 Period ta Perod-Dependent Costs la.4.t Insurance 1,195 168 1,363 1,363 lo 14 115 115 ts.4.2 Property toxes ta.4.3 Health physics supplies 457 161 618 618 ta.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 490 103 593 593 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Re.. 0 DecommissioningCastAnalysis Appendix C, Page 14 of24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars) I Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C OTCC Prooessed Craft Contractor ilndex Actlvity Description Cost Cost Costs -Costs Costs Costs Costs Contntenc Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feel Co. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhourm Manhours Period ta Petiod-Dependent Costs (continued)

a.4.5 Disposal o DAWgenerated - 35 - 15 64 64 565 11,299 21 1a.4.6 Ploor energy budget 1,330 280 1,610 1,610 ta:4.7 NRC ISFSI Fees 191 191 - 191 l.4.8 NRC Fees 471 66 537 537 la,4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 1,258 177 1,434 - 1,434 la.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 735 155 890 890 1..4.11 ISFSI - Operating Costs 141 30 171 171 la.4.12 Spent Fuel Starage/Capital Equipment 4,385 924 5.309 5,309 l1.4.13 ISFSI - Flxed Costs 286 60 347 - 347 la.4.14 Security Staff Cost 10,231 2,156 12.358 12,388 157,471 21,222 4,473 25,695 25,695 346,229 t:.4.15 UtlfuyStaff Cost 947 11 1l.4 Subtotal Period la Peood-Dependent Costs 35 41,545 8.782 51.324 42,982 8,341 565 11,299 21 503,700 947 11 60,684 10,338 280 - 565 11.299 21 535,237 la.0 TOTALPERIOD ta COST 35 58,047 12,259 71,303 PERIODlb - Decommissioning Preparations Period lb Direct Decommissioning Activities DetailedWork Procedures 1b.1.1.1 Plant systems 243 51 294 264 29 2,024 1b.1.1.2 NSSS Decontamination Flush 51 11 62 62 428 lb.1.1.3 Reactor internals 128 27 155 155 1,069 1b.1.1.4 Remaining buildings 69 15 84 21 63 577 1b.1.1.5 CRD cooling assembly 51 11 60 62 428 lb1..1.6 CRD housings & ICItubes 51 11 62 62 428 lb.1.1.7 Incore instrumentation 51 11 62 62 428 tb.1.1.t Reactor vessel 186 39 225 225 1,552 62 13 74 37 37 513 lb.1.1.9 Facility closeout 23 5 28 28 192 fl.t.1.t0 Missile shields tb.1.1.t Biological shield 62 13 74 74 513 lb.t.1.12 Steam generators 236 55 286 286 1,967 31 428 lb.1.1.13 Reinforoed concreto 51 I1 62 31

- - 80 17 97 - 97 667 lb.1.1.14 Main Turbine

b. .1.15 Main Coodensers 80 17 97 - 97 667 lb.1.1,16 Auxiliarybuilding 140 29 169 153 17" 1,167 1b.1..17 Reactor building 140 29 169 153 17 1.167 th,1.1 Total 1.704 359 2,063 1.675 388 - 14,215 1b.1.2 Decn primary loop 1,635 1.148 2,783 2.783 1,067 -

lb.t Subtotal Period toActivityCosts 1.835 1,704 1.508 4,847 4,459 388 - 1,067 14,215 Period 1 b AdditionalCosts 1b.2.1 Site Characterization 1,945 820 2,765 2,765 10,690 4.024 Ib.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management 590 124 715 715 Ib.2.3 Mood Waste Management 912 192 1,104 1,104 3,447 1,136 4,583 4,583 10,690 4,024 lb.2 Subtotal Period 11Addional Costs Period 1b Collateral Costs lb.3.1 Dacon equipment 935 197 1,132 1,132 1b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses - . - 1,395 294 1,689 1,689 lb.3.3 Procoss liquidwsste 64 - 190 791 7.041 - 2,711 10,796 10,796 401 2,421 292,773 550 10.3.4 Small tool atlowasce 2 0 3 3 1b.3.5 Pipe cutting equipment 1,000 211 1,211 1,211 1 ,.3.6 Decoc "g 1,400 295 1,695 1.695 Ib.3.7 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer S - - 504 106 610 - 610 1b.3 Subtotal Period lb CollateralCosts 2,399 1,002 190 791 7,041 1,899 3,815 17,137 16,526 610 401 2,421 292.773 550 TLG Services, Inc.

Diabto Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 15 of 24 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollairs)

Ac,*tivity o ff-Sit LLRW NRC Spent Fuel bit. Prcesse Burial B Volumes Uurialii I I dnex Decon Cost Removal Cost Packaging Costs Transport Costso Processing sts Co Disposal ststs Other Costs Total Contisgoscy Total Costs Lic. Term.

Costs Management Costs Restoration Costs Volume Cu. Feet Close A Cu. Foot Class Cu. Feet Class C Cu. Fait OTCC Cu. Feet Prosesser Wt., Lbs.

Craft Manhoura Contrectar Manhourse 1-Iludy Period lb Period-Dependect Costs I

Ib.4.1 Decon supplies 29 - 10 39 39 lb.4.2 Insurance 602 85 687 687 Ib.4.3 Property taxes - 51 7 58 58 lb.4.4 Health physics supplies 255 - 90 345 345 lb.4.5 H-eavyequipment rectal 247 - 52 299 299 6 2 2 0- - 8 37 37 327 6.541 12 lb.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated lb.4.7 Plant energy budget 1,341 283 1,623 1,623 lb.4.R NRC ISFSIFees 96 - 96 - 96 lb.4.9 NRC Fees 237 33 271 271 lb4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 375 53 427 - 427 1 b.4.11 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 370 78 448 448 71 15 86 86 "

lb.4.12 ISFSI- Operating Costs 1 b.4.13 Spent Fuel Storage/Capoal Equipment 1,919 404 2,324 2.324 lb.4.14 SFS1 -Foxed Costs 144 30 175 - 175 lb.4.15 Security Staff Cost 5,158 1,087 6,245 6.245 79,383 814 4,677 4,677 -. 47,314 lb.4.16 DOC Staff Cost 3,863 2.255 12.953 12.953 - 174,537 lb.4.17 UtildyStaff Cost 10,698 6 2 20 24.926 5,304 30,790 27,234 3,556 327 6.541 12 301,234 1b.4 Subtotal Period 1b Perod-Dependent Costs 29 502 4,063 1,505 196 794 7,061 31,976 11.763 57.356 52,802 4,167 388 726 2,421 299.314 12,319 319,473 lb.0 TOTALPERIODlb COST 2,452 206 798 7,096 90,023 24.022 128,660 113,486 14.505 669 0 - . 1,293 2,421 310.613 12.339 854,710 PERIOD I TOTALS 4,063 PERIOD 2a - Large Component Removal Period 2a Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 2o.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 305 287 40 40 766 - 598 2,036 2.036 2,141 258,908 10,138 2a.1.1.2 Pressurer Quench Tank 32 29 6 6 108 73 255 255 329 36,557 1,073 2a.l.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps &Motors 120 101 44 121 1,358 628 2,371 2.371 5,388 871,200 4,152 38 59 454 295 - 620 391 1,859 1,859 - 2,460 209,821 2,282 -

2a.l.1.4 Pressurizer 2a.1.1.5 Steam enerators 394 3.846 2,606 1,924 2,974 5,939 5,124 22,887 22,887 37,344 23,568 3.353,901 23,234 1,750

- - 1,895 1,890 2,974 5,768 3.317 15,844 15,844 37,344 22,887 3,128,906 10,800 1,125 2a.l.1.6 Retired Steam Generator Units 2a.1.1.7 CRDMsolCIs/SeovceStructure Removal 162 92 224 37 255 275 1,044 1,044 - 3,881 86,025 4,285 -

2a.1.1.8 Reactor Vessel Intemals 134 2.198 5,018 870 4,516 229 7,700 20,667 20.667 S1,502 845 574 352,188 27.833 1,245 2a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel 100 4.126 1,562 651 - 8,548 229 11,250 26,467 26,467 6,416 2,379 - 964,382 27.833 1,245 1,285 10.739 11,930 5,835 5,948 27.878 459 29.356 93,430 93.430 74,688 68.572 3,224 574 9,321.887 111,630 5,366 2s.1.1 Totals Removal of Major Equipment 2a.1.2 Main Turbine/Generator - 532 191 138 879 603 640 2,983 2,983 7,691 2,294 549,788 9,425 131 831 570 966 4,208 4,208 7.274 2.170 520.010 27.028 2as.t3 Main Condensers 1.529 181 Cascading Costs fromClean BuildingDemolit0n 1,208 - 255 1.462 1,462 - 13.127 2s.1.4.1 *teoctor 137 790 790 7,054 2o.1.4,2 Auxiliary 652 14 80 80 704 .

2a.1.4.3 Containment Penetration Area 66 82 17 99 99 918 2a1 :14.4 RaduwasteStorage 175 37 212 212 1.746 2a.1.4.5 Fuel Handling 2,183 460 2,643 2,643 23,550 2a.1.4 Totals Disposal of Plant Systems 2a.1.5.1 AuciliarySteam 128 6 31 252 105 519 519 2,440 99,082 2,123 2a.1.5.2 AuxiliarySteam (RCA) 109 14 118 67 310 310 - 1,146 46,536 1,820 2

6 -1 7 - 7 - - 106 2a.1.5.3 BuildingServices (Non-PourerBlock) 2a.t.5.4 Condensate System 1.031 62 546 4,477 1,429 7,545 7,545 43,400 1,762,487 17,105 388 21 181 1.481 490 2,561 2,561 14,362 583,235 6,634 2a.1.5,5 Condensate System (insulated)

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Documont P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decoatissiooionag Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 16 of 24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-,Site LLRW NRC; Spent Fuel Site Processe BurlaJ Volumnes Bun.l i Utllty n IAotN. Oecon Cost Removal Cost Packaging Coats Transport Conts Processing Costs Disposal Coots Other Costa Total Coetinoanco Total Costs Lic. Teom.

Costs Management Costs Restoration Costs Volume Cu. Feet Claos A Cua Fst Class B Cu. Fet Class C Cu Fet GTCC Cu Feet Processed Wt.. bs.

Craft Manhors Contrator I m Inaex Ac[IV* U*BCrlOTIOR Manhos Index -nim, ...- ...

Period 2a Disposal of Plant Systems (continued) 2a.1.5,6 Containment Spray 183 10 84 688 228 1,192 1,192 6,687 270,737 3.135 2o.1.5.7 Extraction Steam&Heater Drip 391 16 137 1.126 406 2,078 2,076 10,916 443,294 6.490 2oal.5,8 Foedwater System 93 13 112 919 252 1,389 1,389 - 8,906 361,684 1,645 2a l.5.0 Feadwatet Systom (Insulated) 137 - - 29 166 - 166 - - 2,547 2a.1.5.10 Feedwater System (RCAInsulated) 93 197 3 24 80 396 396 - 1,907 77,448 1.601 2a.1.5.11 Feedwater System (RCA) 4 0 1 10 4 20 20 100 4,076 76 2a.t.5.12 NSSS Sampling 128 4 3 8 43 63 251 251 81 164 17,884 3.398 2a.1.5.13 NSSS Sampling (Insulated) 38 1 0 15 59 5 - - 20 1,787 711 2a.1.5,14 Nitrogeno Hydrogen 16 3 20 - 20 309 2a.1.5.15 Nitrogen S Hydrogon (Insulated) 1 - - 0 1 - 1 - - 16 2a.1.5.16 Nitrogen 5 Hydrmgtn (RCAInsulated) 4 0 0 2 2 8 8 17 705 72 2o.1.5.17 Nitrogen &Hydrogen (RCA) 81 0 4 34 37 157 157 330 13,400 1,362 2a.1.5.18 Oly Water Separator &TB Sump 24 1 5 41 108 89 5 - 402 16,329 394 2a.1.5.19 Saltsater System 153 - - 32 186 - 186 - - 2.779 2a.1.5.20 Turbino Steam Supply 1,240 81 714 5,855 1,831 9,721 9.721 6.760 5- 2,305,038 20,783 2a.1.5.21 Turbine Steam Supply (RCA) 685 23 191 1,567 614 3,079 3,079 15,189 616,829 11.698 2a.1.5.22 Turbine ano Generaton 119 4 39 318 118 598 598 3,082 125,162 2.001 2a.1 .5.23 Turbioe mnlGenerator (Insulated) 44 1 7 58 29 140 140 - 565 22,940 696 2a.1.5 Totals 5,099 245 2,093 17,151 48 5,854 30,489 30.110 380 166.269 185 6,768,654 86.499 2a.1.6 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning - 4,344 26 19 149 22 1,572 6,132 6,132 - 1,300 82 65.745 37,341 2a.1 Subtotal Period 2a ActivityCosts 1.285 24,426 12,573 8,216 24,958 29,122 459 38,848 139,887 139.507 380 257,222 73.303 3,224 074 17.226,080 295,473 5,366 Period 2a Additonal Costs 2a.2.1 Renired Reactor Head 102 151 503 15 537 1,363 1,363 2.002 211,020 2,100 84 2a.2 Subtotal Period 2a Additional Costs -102 151 55 503 15 537 1,363 211,020 2.100 84 1,383 2,002 Period 2a Collateral Costs 2a,3,1 Process liquid waste 107 - 49 184 189 727 727 731 43,889 143 2a.3.2 Small tool allowance 318 - 87 385 346 - 38 198 2a.3.3 Spent Fuel Capial and Transfer - 1,160 244 1,404 - 1.404 2a.3 Subtotal Period 2a Collateral Costs 107 318 49 198 184 1i1t0 500 2,516 1.074 1,404 38 731 43,889 143 Period 2a Pearod-Dependent Costs 2a.4.1 Decon supplies 80 31 120 120 2a.4.2 Insurance -6 85 96 781 781 2o.4.3 Property taces 157 22 179 161 18 2a.4.4 HeaSh physics supplies 2,113 742 2,856 2,R56 2a.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 3,658 771 4,428 4.428 2a.4.5 Disposal OfDAWgenerated 104 39 342 - 143 628 628 5,524 110,482 201 2a.4.7 Plant energy budget - 1.962 414 2,376 2,376 2a.4.8 NRC ISFSIFees 296 - 206 - 290 2..4,9 NRC Fees 700 98 708 798 -

2a.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 876 123 1,000 - 1,000 2a,4,11 Spent PuelTransfer- Pool or ISFSI to DOE 352 74 427 427 2a.4. 2 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 1,141 241 1,382 1,382 2a.4,13 ISFSI- Operatng Costs 219 46 265 265 2o.4,14 Spent Fuel Storage/Capital Equipment 4,531 955 5,481 5,486 2a.4.15 ISFSI- FiXed Costs 445 94 539 539 2o,4,16 Security Stfff Cost 13,382 2,820 18,202 16.202 - 204,930 2a.4.17 DOCStaff Cost 20,180 4,253 24,433 24.433 246,240 2a4.18t UilityStaff Cost 29,194 6,153 35,347 35.347 - - 458,460 2a,4 Subtotal Period 2a Peyod-Dependent Costs 89 5,771 104 39 342 74,121 17,076 97,542 88,131 9,394 18 5,524 110,482 201 909,630 2a.0 TOTALPERIOD2a COST 1,481 30,617 12,877 8,508 24,958 30,151 75,755 56,961 241.309 230,074 10,798 436 257,222 81,561 3,224 574 17,591,480 297,917 915,080 TLG Serrices, Inc.

Diabso Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 17 sf24 DeeommissioningCost Analysis Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decomnmissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility sod Aotioity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Totot Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Cost tcosts Costs Costs Costs Contic eno Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Ca. Feet Cu,Feet Cs. Feet Co. Feet Wt.Lbs. Machoot Macboors PERIOD21 -Site Decontamination Period 28 DirectDecommissioning Activities Disposal of Plant Systems 382 80 462 - 462 - 7.035 2b.1,1.1 Capital Additions 85-2002 (Clean) - - -

2b.1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2002 (contaminated) - 380 9 38 287 58 224 995 995 - 2,779 224 132,341 6.462 670 815 55 75 403 498 1,040 3,555 3.555 3.909 2,029 326.881 23,723 2b. .1.3 Chemical &Volume Control 241 315 17 12 39 147 345 1,115 1.115 - 375 561 64,973 9.341 2b.1.1.4 Chemical &Volume Control (Insulated) 34 195 - 195 - - - 2.984 2b.1.1.5 Component CoolingWater - 161 462 13 107 877 372 1,831 1.831 - 8.505 345.395 7,753 2b 1.11.6 Component CoolingWater (RCA)

-10 21 122 - 122 - 1.881 2b.1.1.7 Compressed Air 2b.1.1.8 Compressed Airr Insulated) 1 6 - 6 - - 99 2b. 1..9 Compressed Air (RCA Insulated) 23 0 1 11 11 46 46 108 4,393 387 3 26 212 195 847 847 - 2,000-5 83,461 6,991 2b.1.1.10 Compressed Air (RCA) 116 24 141 - 141 - - 2,089 2b.1.1.11 Diesel Engine-Gonerator 2b.f.1.12 Diesel Erngine-Generator(Insulated) - 3 1 3 3 48 2.645 557 3,203 - 3,203 4-7,918 2b.1.1.13 EefrecIal (Clean) 279 5 30 243 17 162 735 735 - 2,355 63 101,246 4.850 2b.1. 114 Electrcal (Contamnnated) 1.691 30 256 2,103 1,095 5,176 5176 20,389 828,008 28,569 2b1.1.115 Electcal (RCA) 293 10 91 750 - 282 1.426 1,426 7.268 295,145 4.992 2b.1.1.16 Fire Protection 102 5 9 61 34 63 273 273 - 587 132 35,376 1,724 2b.1.1.17 Gaseous Radwaste 2b.1.1.18 HVAC(Clean lnsulated) - 34 7 41 - 41 - - S - 662 356 75 431 - 431 - - - - 6,878 2b.1.1.19 HVAC(Clean) 2b.1.1.20 HVAC(Contaminated Insulated) 191 4 25 197 17 120 554 554 - 1,912 64 83,372 3,019 2b.1.1.21 HVAC(Contaminated) 849 22 125 970 124 576 2,665 2,665 9,399 474 423,748 13.623 298 345 30 31 142 274 467 1,588 1.588 1,380 1,251 148,480 10,972 2b.1.1.22 Liquid Radwoste 24 32 2 1 2 18 35 115 115 23 67 6,908 948 2b.1.1.23 Liquid Radwaste (Insulated)

- 211 5 42 342 - 156 755 755 3,315 - 134,627 3,487 2b.1.1.24 Lube Oil Distribution& Purification 2b.1.1.25 Meke-up Water 208 44 251 - 251 - - 3.794 4 24 - 2 - - 376 2b.1.1.26 Mabc-op Water (Insulated) 20 25 0 3 24 15 67 67 - 237 9.606 423 2.1.11.27 Make-up Wator (RCAInsulated) 126 2 17 1 38 77 361 361 - 1,340 54,432 2,103 2b.1.1.28 Make-up Water (RCA) 0 1 - - 19 21.1.1.29 Mechanical Department Equipment 1 2b.1.1.30 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolant 17 101 4 5 30 31 67 256 256 288 124 22,203 1,982 16 1 1 3 7 9 36 36 25 26 3,299 257 2b.1.1.31 Nucear Steam Suppiy Sampiing 7 O 0 1 3 4 15 15 S 11 11 1,414 110 2b.1.1.32 N ucar Steam Supply Sampling(Insulated -

265 236 55 67 305 583 560 - 2,071 2,071 2,957 2,219 317,012 5,170 2b.1.1.33 Residual Heat Removal 4 11 76 31 64 284 284 734 121 40.197 1,726 2b.1.1.34 Safety Injection 98 0 0 3 2 3 12 12 24 7 1,614 70 2b.1.1.3S Safety Injection )Insulated) 4 2b.1.1.36 Safety Injection (RCA Insulated) 30 2 4 23 17 22 97 97 2 218 63 14.529 498 250 17 33 203 150 193 845 845 - 1,971 571 130,758 4,112 2b.1.1.37 Safety injection (RCA) 2b.:.1.38 Serice Cooling Water 118 25 142 - 142 - - - 2,186 1 4 35 18 87 87 - 342 13.881 478 2b.1.1.39 Service Cooling Water (RCA) 29 8 49 - 49 - - 746 2b.1.1.40 Sewr System Expansion 40 1,514 11.507 298 1,015 7,479 2,009 7.055 30,878 25,806 5,072 72.506 8,010 3,623,296 220,481 2b.1.1 Totals Scaffolding in support of decommissioning - 5,430 33 24 186 27 1,966 7,665 7,665 - 1,624 102 82,182 46,676 2b.1.2 Decontamination of Site Buildings 2b.1.3.1 'Reactor 1,524 1.737 381 349 426 3,703 3,198 11.317 11,317 - 4,128 20.482 2,076,526 53,198 2b.1.3.2 Auxiliary 1,080 657 112 106 232 1,592 1,636 5.416 5.416 2,251 6,098 629,318 28,216 2b.1.3,3 Capital Additions 85-2004 345 150 24 21 30 345 430 1,345 1,345 288 1.320 128,360 8,143 2b.1.3.4 Containment Penetration Area 266 188 29 33 120 394 428 1,457 1A57 1,164 1.509 180.273 7,367 2b.1.3.5 Ra/waste Storage 7 56 12 10 8 173 91 356 356 75 660 61.324 8a4 3,222 2,788 558 519 816 6,206 5,782 19,891 19.891 7,907 30,069 3,075,801 97,808 2b.1.3 Totals 2b.1 Subtotal Period 28 ActivityCosts 4,736 19,725 888 1,558 8.480 8,242 - 14,803 58,434 53.362 - 5.072 82,037 38.181 6,781,279 364,965 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Docarnent P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 18 sf24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-SOte LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial IUtiiy and Activity fecon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contioencc Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WI. Lbs. Manhoors Manbours Period 2b Collateral Costs 2b.3.1 Process liquid woste 224 - 185 758 956 679 2,803 2.803 2,749 227,668 536 2b.3.2 Smai tool alloancce - 400 - - - 84 485 485

- - 576 121 697 697 2b.3.3 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer 224 400 185 758 956 576 885 3.984 - 3,287 697 2,749 227,668 536 2b.3 Subtotal Period 2b Collaterat Costs Period 2b Penod-Dependent Costs 2b.4.1 Decon supplies 1,457 512 1,969 1.969 2b.4.2 Insurance - 857 120 978 978 21.4.3 Property taxes 196 28 224 224 2b.4.4 Hea0h physics supplies 2,600 913 3,513 3.513 20.4.5 Heavy equipmrnt rental 4,547 - 958 5.500 5,506 21.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 101 38 333 - 139 610 610 5,355 107,294 195 2b.4.7 Plant energy budget - 1,940 409 2.349 2,349 2b.4.8 NRC ISFSIFees 371 - 371 - 371 2b.4.9 NRC Feec 877 123 1,000 1,000 -

2b.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 724 102 026 - 826 2b.4.11 Spent Fue Transfer- Pool or ISFSI to DOE 1,232 260 1,492 1,492 2b.4.12 Spent Fuel Poi COM 1,429 301 1,730 - 1,730 2b.4.13 LiquidRadooste Processing Equipment/Services 374 79 452 452 -

2b.4.14 ISFSI- Operating Costs 274 58 332 - 332 2b.4.15 Spent Fuel Storage/Capital Equipment 9,137 1,926 11.063 11,063 2b.4.16 ISFS1- FcxedCosts 557 117 675 - 675 2b.4.17 Security Staff Cost 16.757 3.532 20.289 20,289 - 256,614 2b.4.18 DOCStaff Cost 24.325 5.127 29A452 29,452 296,171 2b.4.19 Utilty Staff Cost 35,045 7,386 42,431 42,431 549,743

- - 5.365 2b.4 Subtotal Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 1,457 7,147 101 30 333 94,096 22.088 125.269 108,771 16.489 107,294 195 1,102,529 2b.0 TOTAL PERIOD20 COST 6,418 27,273 1.174 2,353 8,480 9,532 94,672 37,776 187.678 165.421 17.186 5.072 82.037 46,294 7,116,241 365,696 1,102,529 PERIOD 2c -Wet Fuel Storage Period 2c Direct Decommissioning Activities Period 2c Collateral Costs 2c.3.1 Spent FuelCapital and Transfer - - - 9,800 2.065 11.865 11,865 2c.3 Subtotal Period 2c Collateral Costs 9,800 2.065 11.865 11.865 Period 2c Period-DepcndcentCosts 2c.4.1 Insurance 3,161 444 3,005 3,605 2c.4.2 Property taxes 723 102 825 825 2c.4.3 Health physics supplies 809 204 1,093 1,093 2c4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 19 7 - 62 - 26 113 113 090 19,915 36 2c.4.5 Plant energy budget 1,908 402 2.310 2,310 2c.4.6 NRC ISFSIFees 1,367 - 1,367 - 1.307 2c.4.7 NRC Fees 1,224 172 1.395 1,395 -

2c.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 2.671 375 3.047 - 3.047 2c.4.9 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSIto DOE 3.383 713 4,096 4,096 2c.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 5,270 1,111 6,380 6,380 2c.4.11 ISFSI- Operating Costs 1011 Sa 213 1,224 1,224 2c.4.12 Spent Fuel Storage/Capital Equipment 38,301 8,089 46,470 46.470 2c4.13 ISFSI-Fixed Costs - - - 2,000 433 2,488 - 2,408 2c.4.14 Securiy Staff Cost 52,323 11.027 63,350 63.350 - 796,620 2c,4.15 iltlry Staff Cost 38,639 8,143 46,782 46,782 - 590,920 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Perod-Dependent Costs 809 is 7 62 152,115 31.534 184,545 119,474 65,072 996 19,915 36 1.387,540 2c.O TOTALPERIOD 2c COST - 809 19 7 - 62 161,915 33.599 196.411 119,474 76.937 996 19,915 36 1.387,540 TLG Services, Ine.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01.1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 19 of24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Oft-Ste LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial Volumes Burial iUtiliy and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport trooessing Disposal Other Total Total LIc.Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cast Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Casts Casts Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD 2d - Decontamination Following Wet Fuel Storage Period 2d Direct Decommissioning Activties 2d.1.1 Remove spent fuel racks 477 47 136 34 - 656 608 1,958 1.958 - 2,496 - 221,587 962 Disposal of Plant Systems 2d.1.2.1 Electrical (Contaminated) - FHB - 86 1 6 45 3 42 183 183 440 12 18,915 1.488 2d.1.2.2 Electrical (RCA)-FHB 521 6 53 434 - 287 1,301 1,301 4,211 - 171.029 8.801 2d.1.2.3 Fire Protection (RCA) 203 3 27 222 - 124 579 579 2,153 - 67,426 3.365 2d.1.2.4 HVAC(Contaminated) - FHB 190 4 27 212 17 124 573 573 2,055 65 89.234 3.027 2d.1.2.5 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling 72 22 26 119 222 137 597 597 1.156 844 121,824 1,291 2d.1.2.6 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling - FHB 98 24 28 129 238 154 671 671 1,246 907 131.056 1,753 2d.1,2 Totals 1,169 60 166 1,162 480 868 3.905 3,905 11,260 1,828 619,483 19,725 Decontamination of Site Buildings 959 3,150 3,150 1,996 1,965 253,465 23,531 665 723 39 48 206 510 2d.1.3.1 Fuel Handling 2d.t.3 Totals 665 723 39 48 206 510 959 3,150 3.150 1,996 1,965 253,465 23,531 2d.1.4 Scaffoldingin support of decommissioning - 1.086 7 5 37 5 393 1,533 1.533 325 20 16,436 9,335 2d. 1 Subtotal Period 2d ActivityCosts 1.142 3.024 242 253 1.404 1.652 2.828 10,546 10.546 13.581 6,310 1,110,972 53,554 Period 2d Additional Costs 2d.2.1 License Termination Surey Planning 6-9 282 951 951 6.240 2d.2 Subtotal Period 2d AdditionalCosts 669 282 951 951 6.240 Period 2d Collateral Costs 2d.3.1 Process liquid waste 116 - 53 215 200 204 787 787 793 47.568 155 -

2d.3.2 S all tool allowance 14 83 83 2d.3.3 Decommissioning EquipmentDisposition - - 121 107 686 99 219 1,232 1,232 6,000 370 303.548 88 ,

2d.3 Subtotal Period 2d Collateral Costs 16 i68 174 322 686 299 438 2,102 2,102 6,000 1,171 351,117 243 Period 2d Period-Dependent Costs 2d.4.1 Decon supplies 210 - 74 264 284 2d.4.2 Insurance 177 25 202 202 2d.4.3 Propery tax.s 46 7 53 53 2d.4.4 Heaoth physics supplies 445 156 602 602 2d.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 1,076 - 227 1,303 1.303 2d.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated S ,- 13 - 115 48 212 212 1,862 37,235 68 35 2d.4.7 Plant energy budget 245 52 296 296 2d.4.8 NRC ISFSIFees 88 - 08 - 88 2d.4.9 NRC Fees 207 29 237 237 2d.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 171 24 196 - 196 2d.4.11 Spent FuelTransfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 207 44 251 - 251 2d.4.12 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 177 37 214 214 2d.4.13 ISFSI - Operabng Costs 65 14 79 - 79 2d.4.14 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 132 28 160 - 160 2d.4.15 Securdy Staff Cost 2,143 452 2,594 2,594 31.920 2d.4.1 DOC Staff Cost 3,931 828 4,759 4.759 48.000 2d.4.17 Utiny Staff Cost 6,066 1,278 7,344 7,344 91,680 2d44 Subtotal Period 2d Pedod-Dependent Costs 210 1,521 39 13 115 13.655 3.322 18.873 18.100 772 1,862 37,235 68 171,600 2d.0 TOTALPERIOD 2d COST 1,468 4.614 451 588 2,090 2,066 14,324 6.870 32,471 31.699 772 19,581 9,342 1,499.323 53W65 177,840 TLG Serviera, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PonerPlant Doeoussent P01-I6,4-603, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page 20 of 24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-SRt LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utilit and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Tenm. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Cost. Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Mnhours PERIOD2e -License Termination Period 2e DirectDecommissioning Activities 2e.1.1 ORISE confirmatorysurvey 153 64 217 217 2:.1.2 Terminate license 2e. Subtotal Period 2e ActivityCosts 153 64 217 217 Period 2e AdditionalCosts 2e.2.1 License TermninationSurvey 11,808 4,977 16,785 16,785 209,457 3,120 2e.2 Subtotal Period 2e AdditionalCosts 11,808 4,977 16,785 16,785 209,457 3,120 Period 2o CollateralCosts 20.3.1 DOC staffrelocation expenses 1.395 294 1.689 1.689 2e.3 Subtotal Period 2e Collateral Costs 1,395 294 t,689 1,689 Period 2e Period-Dependent Costs 2:.4.1 Insurance 290 41 330 330 2e.4.2 Property taxes 76 11 87 87 2".4.3 Health physics supplies 1.242 - 436 1,679 1,679 2:.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 7 2 22 - 9 40 40 355 7,097 13 20.4.5 Plant energy budget 200 42 243 243 2a.4.6 NRC ISFSI Fees 144 - 144 - 144 2e.4.7 NRC Fees 355 50 405 405 20.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 281 39 320 320 2a.4.9 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSIto DOE 339 71 410 410 20.4.10 ISF51- Operating Costs 106 22 129 129 20.4.11 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 216 45 261 - 261 2e.4.12 Securty Staff Cost 3.433 723 4,156 4.156 51.071 2a.4.13 DOC Staff Cost 4,840 1,020 5A960 55.860 57,357 2..4.14 UtilityStaff Cost 5.631 1.167 6,817 6,817 - 80.929 2e.4 Subtotal Period 2e Period-Dependent Costs 1.242 22 15,910 3,698 20,681 19,617 1,264 355 7.097 13 189,357 20.0 TOTALPERIOD 2e COST 1.242 2 22 29.265 9.033 39.572 38.308 1.264 355 . - - 7,097 209%470 192,477 PERIOD 2 TOTALS 9,367 64,556 14.528 11.458 35,529 41,833 375,931 144.239 697,441 584.976 106,957 5,508 358,841 138.548 3,224 574 - 26,234,050 926,984 3.775,465 PERIOD 3b -Site Restoration Period 3b Direct Decommissioning Actiitoes Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings 3b.1.1.1 *Reactor 6,873 1,449 8.322 8.322 74,901 3b.1.1.2 Administration 960 202 1,163 1.163 10,358 3b.1.1.3 Auxiliary 5,977 1,260 7.237 7,237 64.471 3,915 825 4,740 4.740 47,403 3b.1.1.4 Capital Additions 85-2004 4 1 5 5 46 3b.1.1.5 Chemical Storage 8 2 10 10 99 3b.1.1.6 Chlodnation 31,..1.7 Circulating Water Tunnels 1,008 213 1.221 1.221 12.071 3b.1.1.8 Cold Machine Shop 357 75 433 433 3.785 31.1.1.9 Communication 4 1 5 5 44 3b.1.1.10 Condensate Polishing/TechnicalSupport 763 161 923 923 9.300 3b.1.1.11 Containment Penetration Area 615 130 745 745 6,565 854 180 1,034 1,034 8.317 3b.1.1.12 Discharge Structure 3b.1.1.13 Fabrication Shop 107 23 130 130 1,223 5 1 5 5 55 31b.1.14 Fire Pump House 7 42 42 430 3b.1.1.15 H-aerdous Waste Storage Facility 35 3b.1.1.16 Intake Structure 4.868 1,026 5.893 5,893 46.364 3b.1.1.17 Maintenance Shop 330 69 399 399 3,444 TLG Sersciees, Inc.

/

Diablo Canyon Power Plant DocumentP01-1604-003, ReH. 0 Decommissioning Coot Analysis Appendix C, Page 21 of 24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Ott-Sits LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and, Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor I

IActivity In* A*]V* U*MDZIOn Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs C Cost Costs Co.tinoeoco C Cost Cost. Costs Costs Cu. Feet CU. Feet Cu. Feel Cu. Font Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhours Manhours Index ri ion Period 3b Demolitionof Remaining Site Buildings(continued) 3b.1.1.18 Misceltanous Structures 57 12 69 69 673 3b.1.1.19 NPO Permanent Warehouse 1.221 257 1,478 1,478 14,093 3b.1.1.20 Ponds 2 0 2 2 24 3b1.1.21 Portable Fire Pump &Fuel Cart 1 0 1 1 14 2 11 11 108 3b.1.1.22 Pretreatment 9 31,1.1.23 Radwaste Storage 1,595 336 1,931 1,931 17,854 51 51 662 3b.1.1.24 Radwaste Storage Facility (Additional) 42 9 3b.1.1.225 RotorWarehouse 742 156 898 898 9,938 3b.1.1.26 Security 303 64 366 366 3,944 3b.1.1.27 Securdy Buildings (additional) 46 10 56 56 722 3b.1.1.28 Simulator 370 78 448 448 4,191 3b.1.1.29 Steam Generator Storage Facility 821 173 994 994 8.888 3b.1.1.30 Telephono Terminal 2 1 3 3 28 3b.1.1.31 Turbine 4,940 1,041 5,981 5,981 57,743 3b.1.1.32 Turbine Pedestal 1,212 255 1,467 1,457 11.300 3b.1.1.33 Vehicle Maintenance 30 6 37 37 367 3b.1.1.34 Waste Water Holding &Treatment Facility 20 4 24 24 238 3b.1.1.35 Fuel Handling 356 2,045 2,045 16,7750 3b.1.1 Totals - 39,784 8,384 48,168 48,168 436,410 Site Closeout Activities 3b.t.2 Remove Rubble 1.470 310 1,779 1,779 - - - 8.191 3b.1.3 Goads &landscape site 2,272 - 479 2,751 - 2,751 - - - 4.587 3b.1.4 Final reportto NRC 80 17 97 97 - 667 3b.1 Subtotal Period 3b ActivityCosts 43,526 80 9,190 52.795 97 52,699 - - - 449,187 667 Period 3b Additonal Costs 3b.2.1 Concrete Crushing 8.467 7 1.786 10.261 10,261 37.686 -

3b.2.2 BreakwmterDemoldionand Removal 33,893 11.905 45,798 45,798 128,379 46,649 3b.2.3 Cofferdam Construction and Teardoon 438 92 530 530 4.004 -

3b.2 Subtotal Period 3b AdditionalCosts 42,798 7 13,783 56,589 56,589 170,069 46,649 Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 S-no[ tool allowance 797 168 965 965 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs 797 168 965 965 Period 3b Period-Oependent Costs 3b.4.1 Insurance 787 111 898 898 3b.4.2 Property taxes - 207 29 236 236 -

3b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 6,420 1,353 .7772 - 7,772 3b.4.4 Plant energy budget - 273 57 330 - 330 3b.4.5 NRC ISFSIFees 391 - 391 391 -

3b.4.6 Emergency Planning Fees 753 107 870 870 3b.4.7 Spent FuelTransfer - Pool or ISFSIto DOE 921 194 1.115 1.115 3b.4.8 ISFSI - Operating Costs 289 61 350 350 3b.4.9 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 587 124 711 711 -

3b.4.10 Scuriy Staff Cost 9.337 1,968 11,305 0 4,748 6.557 138,914 3b.4.11 DOC Staff Cost 12,616 2,659 15.275 - - 15.275 145.326 3b.4.12 Utlity Staff Cost 7,795 1,643 9,438 0 1,133 8.305 116,474 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Peitod-Dependent Costs 6.420 33.965 8.305 48,690 0 10,451 38,239 400,714 3b.0 TOTALPERIOD 3b COST 93.541 34.045 31.447 159,040 97 10,451 148,492 619,256 448.030 TLG Services, Inc.

Dirablo Canyon Paouvr Plant Documsent P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommisssionin/sg Cost Anoalysis Appendix C, Page 22 of 24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel s11e Processed B~urialVolumes B~urial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor II Actl Inlay A*tiu* N*ri*lnn Cn.f r"*

ne Cnst. Cn~t. Co.t. Cost. rCO~as Contln.oen..v Casts Canst Costs Casts Cu.Foot Cu.Feet Cu.Feet Cu. Fet Cu.Foot Wt.. Lbs. Manhoues Manhours Index Activity Ue ption Cost Cost costs costs Cast. Cast. Costs Contingency cost. Coal. cost. Cast. Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu Feet C. F-o Co Fset Wt Lbs, Manhouns Manh PERIOD 3c -Fuel Storage Operations/Shipping Period 3c Direct Decommissioning Activites Period 3c Collateral Costs 3c.3 Subtotal Period 3c Colateral Costs Period 3c Period-Dependent Costs 3c.4.1 Insurance 4,184 588 4,772 4.772 3c.4.2 Property taxes 1.098 154 1,252 1,252 3c.4.3 Plant energy budget 3c.4.4 NRC ISFSIFees 2.075 - 2,075 2,075 3c.4.5 Emergency Planning Fees 4,055 570 4.625 4.625 3c04.6 Spent Fuel Transfer- Poolor ISFSI to DOE 4,865 1,025 5.891 5,891 3c.4.7 ISFS1- Operatng Costs -1534 323 1.8577 1.857 -

3c.4.8 SFSI1 Fixed Costs 3.119 657 3,777 3,777 3c.4.9 Security Staff Cost 20.852 4.394 25,246 25.246 306.566 3c.4.10 Ufiby Staff Cost 5,130 1.081 6,212 6,212 76.755 3c.4 Subtotal Period 3c Perod-Depevdent Costs 46.913 8.794 55,706 55.706 383.321 3c.0 TOTALPERIOD 3c COST 46,913 8,794 55,706 55,706 383.321 PERIOD 3d - GTCC shipping Period 3d DirectDecommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 3d.1.1.1 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 300 8,952 1.929 11.181 11.181 433 85,510 3d.1.1 Totals 300 8,952 1,929 11.181 11.181 433 85.510 3d.1 Subtotal Period 3d ActivityCosts 300 8.952 1.929 11,181 11.181 433 85,510 Period 3d Collateral Costs 3d.3 Subtotal Period 3d Collateral Costs Period 3d Period-Dependent Costs 3d.4.1 Insurance 15 2 17 17 3d.4.2 Property taxes 4 1 4 4 3d.4.3 Plant energy budget 3d.4.4 NRC ISFSIFees 7 - 7 7 3d.4.5 EmergencyPlanning Fees 14 2 16 16 3d.4.6 ISFS1- Operating Costs 5 1 7 7 3d.4.7 SFS - Fixed Costs 11 2 13 13 3d.4.8 Security Staff Cost 73 15 89 89 1.080 3d.4.g UtilityStaff Cost 18 4 22 22 270 3d.4 Subtotal Period 3d Penod-Dependent Costs 148 27 175 175 1,350 3d.0 TOTALPERIOD 3d COST - 300 - 8,952 148 1.956 11,357 11.181 175 433 85.510 1.350 PERIOD3e -ISFS Decontamination Period 3e Direct Decommissioning Activites Period 3e AdditionalCosts 3e.2.1 ISFSILicense Termination 1,059 4 100 387 789 689 3,028 3,028 6,239 748,943 15,356 1,280 3e.2 Subtotal Period 3e AdditionalCosts 1.059 4 100 387 789 689 3,028 3,028 6,239 748,943 15.356 1,280 TLG Servcice., Ine.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Documents P01.1604-003, Rev. 0 Deeonmissioniag Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page23 of24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Ot-ffSite LLRW NSC spent Fuel Site Processed burial Volumes BurialI Utility0n0 I

I ctivitivy Inlay miss A*Iv*

A n*t*rlnfl*n rl non Decon Coal Removal Cast Packaging Cnt units Transport coal.

Processing Costs Disposal nt Costs Other nt cost.

Total ntn~~

Cc.1nl

-Im.

Total

-nt Cost.

Lie.Term.

nt osts

~

Management nt Costs

~ ~

Restoration Cost.

• *l ~

Volume Cu Fast Class A I

Cu Feet Class B l*tCJFp Cu Fast

~

Class C u

Cu Feet GTCC

• JF~f Cu Feet Processed Vtlh Wt Craft annm nhoure Contractor Mnnr Mani Period 3e Collateral Costs 3e.3.1 Small tool abovwance 14 - - - - 3 17 17 3e.3 Subtotal Period 3e Collateral Costs 14 - - - - 3 1 7 17 Period 3e Peiod-Dependent Costs 3e.4.1 Insurance 127 18 145 145 3e.4.2 Property taxes 33 5 38 38 3e.4.3 Heaoy equipment rental 309 65 375 375 3e.4.4 Plant energy budget.

3e.4.5 Security Staff Cost 172 36 208 208 2.510 3e.4.6 UrilityStaff Colst 129 27 156 15 - 1,901 3e.4 Subtotal Period 3e Perio-Dependent Costs 309 461 151 922 922 4.411 3e.0 TOTALPERIOD3e COST 1.383 100 387 1,250 843 3,967 3,967 6,239 748,943 15,356 5,691 PERIOD 3f - ISFSISite Restoration Period 3I Direct DecommissioningActivities Period 3fAditdiionalCosts 31.2.1 ISFSI Demolitionand Site Restoration 562 24 123 709 709 - - - - - - - 3,446 80 3f.2 Subtotal Period 3f AdditionalCosts 562 24 123 709 709 - - - - - - - 3,446 80 Period 3f Coulateral Costs 13f.1 Small tool otowacs 4 1 5 50 3f 3 Subtotal Period V Collateral Costs 4 1 5 Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs 11.4.1 Insurance 3f.4.2 Properly taxes - 17 2 19 19 1.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 103 22 125 125 114.4 Plant energy budget 314.5 Security Staff Cost 86 18 105 105 1.265 3f.4.6 UtilityStaff Cost - 54 11 66 66 784 114 Subtotal Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs 103 158 54 314 314 - 2,050 305 TOTAL PERIOD3I COST 669 181 178 1,028 1.029 3,446 2,130 PERIOD3 TOTALS 95,592 304 107 9.339 82,537 43.217 231.097 11t278 71.327 148,492 6,239 433 834,453 638,058 840,522 TLG Serviees, In-.

Diablo C.oyoo P.-o Planot Doeurneot P01.1604-003,Rev. 0 D-no~~eouioei-ig Coo/ Anoalysis Appendix C, Page 24 of 24 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Sit. LLRW NRC Spent Fool Silo Proonoend BurnalVolunnee Buriall Utilityan Activity Oecon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor lndex Activits Description Cost Cost Cost. Cost. Cost. Cost. Costs Contingency Coost Cost. Cost. Cost. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Manhouro Manhoaro TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSION 13,430 162,600 15,038 12,363 35,529 58,267 548.492 211,479 1,057,198 709,740 192,789 154,668 358,841 1460080 5,645 574 433 27.379,120 1,577,382 5,470,697 TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSION WITH 25.01% CONTINGENCY: $1,057,198 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALNRCLICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 67.13% OR: $709,740 thousands of 2008 dollars SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COSTIS 18.24% OR: $192,789 thousands of 2000 dollars 4ON-NUCLEARDEMOLITIONCOSTIS 14.63% OR: $154,668 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALLOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVEWASTE VOLUMEBURIED (EXCLUDINGGTCC): 152,299 Cubic Feet TOTALGREATERTHAN CLASS C RADWASTEVOLUMEGENERATED 433 Cubic Feet TOTALSCRAP METALREMOVED: 76,605 Tons TOTALCRAFT LABORREQUIRIMENTS: 1.577,382 Man-hours End Notes.

na - indicates that this antivitYnot charged as decommnssioningexpense.

a - icdicates that this activityperformed by decommissioning staff.

0- indicates that halue this is less than 0.5 but is non-aero.

a ce0l containing"- indicates a zero value TLG Se-rices, In-.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix D, Page1 of 26 APPENDIX D DETAILED COST ANALYSIS SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Doouentn P01-1604-003,Re. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix D, Page2 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit I SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial! Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoratioo Volume Class A Class B Class C UTCC Processed Craft Contractor index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Conttingetncy Costs Costs Costs Casts Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WL, Lbs. Manhonss Manhours PERIOD ta - Shutldown through Transition Period la Direct Decommissioning Activities

a.1.1 SAFSTOR site characterization survey 414 175 589 589 1.300 la.1.2 Prepare preliminarydecommissioning cost 156 33 189 189 la.1.3 Notification of Cessation of Operations Ia.1.4 Remove fuol &source material a'a la.1.5 Notification of Permanent Defueling a 1a.1.6 Deactivate plant systems & process uaste

a.1.7 Prepare and submit PSDAR 240 51 291 291 2,000 Ia,1.8 Review plant dugs &specs. 156 33 189 189 1,300 la.1.9 Perform detailed rad survey la.1.10 Estimate by-product inventory 120 25 145 145 1,000 la.1.11 End product description 120 25 145 145 1,000 la.1.12 Detailed by-product inventory 180 38 218 218 1,500 120 25 145 145 1,000 1a.1.13 Define major work sequence 1a.1.14 Perform SER and EA 372 79 450 450 3,100 la.1.15 Perform Srie-Specttc Cost Study 599 127 726 726 5.000 ActivitySpecifications 1a.1.16O1 Prepare plant and facilities for SAFSTOR - 90 125 715 715 4,920 ta.1.16.2 Plant systems 500 106 605 605 4,167 l..1.16.3 Plant structures and buildings 374 79 453 453 3,120 la.1.16.4 Waste management 240 51 291 291 2,000 la.1.16.5 Facility and site dormancy 240 51 291 291 2,000 la.1.16 Total 1,943 411 2,354 2.354 16,207 Detailed Work Procedures la.1.17.1 Plant systems 142 30 172 172 1,183 144 30 174 174 1,200 ta.1.17.2 Facility closeout &dormancy 286 60 346 346 2,383 1a.1.17 Total 12 3 15 15 100 1:.1.18 Procure vacuum drying system ls.1. Drain/de-energize non-cont systems 1a.1.20 Drain &dry NSS la.1.21 Drainlde-energize contaminated system la.1.22 Decorusecure contaminated systems Subtotal Period la Activity Costs 4,717 1,086 5,802 5,802 35,890 la.1 Period la Collateral Costs la.3.1 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer 836 177 1.012 - 1,012 la.3 Subtotal Period t a Collateral Costs 836 177 1,012 - 1,012 Period la Perod-Dependent Costs la.d.1 Insurance 1,195 169 1.363 1,363 la.4.2 Property taxes 101 14 115 115 la.4.3 Health physics supplies 486 171 658 658 1a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental - 4 490 11 104 593 593 la.4.5 Disposal cI DAWgenerated 4 38 - 16 69 69 610 12,190 22 la.4.6 Plant energy budget 1.330 281 1,611 1,611 la.4.7 NRC JSFSIFees 159 - 159 - 159 la.4.8 NRC Fees 706 100 805 805'

a.d.9 Emergency Planning Fees 1,258 177 1,435 - 1,435 la.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 735 155 890 890 ta.4.11 ISFSI - Operating Costs 141 30 171 171 TLG Services, Io.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page3 of 24 Table D-I Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lc. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activoty Description Cost Costo sts Ct Cost C sts CoCtonsct Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Mancours Manhours Period la Period-Dependent Costs (continued)

Ia.4.12 Spent Fuel Storage/Capial Equipment 1.594 337 1,932 1,932 1a.4.13 ISFSI- Fixed Costs 239 51 290 - 290 la.4.14 Security Staff Cost 775 164 939 939 12,264 la.4.15 Utity Staff Cost - 26,403 5.587 31.990 31.990 - - 423.400 Ia.4 Subtotal Period la Period-Dependent Costs 976 11 4 38 34,635 7,357 43.021 38.145 4.877 610 12.190 22 435.664 la.0 TOTAL PERIOD la COST 976 11 4 38 40.187 8,620 49,836 43.947 5.889 610 12,190 22 471,554 PERIOD I b - SAFSTOR Limited DECON Activities Period lb Direct Decommissioning Activities Decontamination of Site Buildings 1b,1.1.1 'Reactor 1,501 1,059 2.559 2,251 308 26,109 b.1.1.2 Containment Penetration Area 250 176 426 374 51 4,381 Ib. 1.1.3 Fuel Handling 639 451 1,089 956 131 10,962 1b.1.1 Totals 2.389 1,685 4.074 3,583 491 41,452 1b.1 Subtotal Period l b ActivityCosts 2.389 1,685 4.074 3,583 491 41,452 Period lb Collateral Costs lb.3.1 Decon equipment 935 198 1.133 1.133 lb.3.2 Process liquid vste 165 - 75 304 286 292 1,122 1,122 1,122 67,311 219 lb.3.3 Small toot ailowrance - 46 10 56 56 1b.3.4 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer - 252 53 305 - 305 1b.3 Subtotat Period lb Coliateral Costs 1.100 46 75 304 286 252 553 2.617 2.311 305 1,122 67,311 219 Period lb Penod-Dependent Costs 1b.4 1 Deconsupplies 650 300 1,149 1,149 1b.4.2 Insurance 301 42 344 344 1 b.4.3 Property taxes 25 4 29 29 1b.4.4 HeaDthphysics supplies 303 107 410 410 1b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 123 26 150 150 1b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated S- 10 4 - 34 - 14 63 63 556 11,126 20 1b.4.7 Plant energy budget 335 71 406 406 1b.4.8 NRC ISFSI Fees 48 - 48 - 48 lb.4.9 NRC Fees 178 25 203 203 1b.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 187 26 214 - 214 lb.4.11 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 185 39 224 224 lb.4.12 ISFSI - Operating Costs 36 8 43 43 1o.4.13 Spent Fuel Storage/CapitalEquipment 648 137 785 785 1b.4.14 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 72 15 87 87 1b.4.15 Seourity Staff Cost 195 41 237 237 3,091 lb.4.16 UtilityStaff Cost 5.349 1,132 6.481 6,481 87,269 lb.4 Subtotal Period lb Pefiovl-Dependent Costs 850 426 10 4 - 34 7,561 1.988 10.874 9,472 1,402 556 11,126 20 90,360 1b.0 TOTALPERIOD lb COST 4,339 473 86 307 - 321 7,813 4,226 17.564 15.366 1,707 491 1,678 78,437 41,691 90,360 PERIOD lc - Preparations for SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 1c Direct Decommissioning Activities lc.1.1 Prepare support equipment for storage 431 91 522 522 3,000 lo.1.2 Install containment pressure equal. lines 42 - 9 50 50 700 lc.1.3 Interim survey poiorto dormancy 733 310 1,043 1.043 12,834 lc.1.4 Secure building accesses a TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DeecomruissioningCost Arnatlysi Appendix D, Page 4 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Pocessed Burial Volumes Burial Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lib. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor 1ndex Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 1c Direct Decommissioning Activities (continued)

Ic.1.5 Prepare &submit interimreport 70 15 85 85 - 583 lc.1 Subtotal Period lc ActivityCosts 472 803 425 1,700 1.700 16,534 583 Period lc AdditionalCosts lc.2.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 9.407 1.991 11.398 11.398 lc.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management 590 125 715 715 lc.2.3 Mined Waste Management 912 193 1.104 1.104 lc.2 Subtotal Period Ic Additional Costs 10,909 2,309 13,218 13.218 Period le Collateral Costs lc.3.1 Process liquid waste 208 95 383 361 - 368 1.414 1.414 1.415 - 84.876 276 lc.3.2 Small tool allowance 5 1 5 5 l c.3.3 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer - - - 244 52 295 - 295 lc.3 Subtotal Period to Collateral Costs 208 5 95 383 361 244 421 1.715 1,420 295 1.415 84.876 276 Period lc Period-Dependent Costs lc.4.1 Insurance 291 41 332 332 1c.4.2 Property taxes 25 3 28 28 lc.4.3 Health physics supplies 187 66 253 253 l c.4.4 Heavy equipment rental - 119 25 145 145 lc.4.5 Disposal of DAWgenerated 3 1 9 4 16 16 138 2,755 5 1c.4.6 Plant energy budget 324 69 393 393 lcA.7 NRC ISFSI Fees 46 - 46 - 46 lc.4.8 NRC Fees 172 24 196 196 lc.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 181 26 207 - 207 lc.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 179 38 217 217 lc,4.11 ISFSI- Operating Costs 34 7 42 42 1c.4.12 Spent Fuel StoeagelCapitel Equipment 93f 197 1,127 1,127 lc.4.13 ISFSI- Fixed Costs 70 15 05 - 85 lc.4.14 Security Staff Cost 189 40 229 229 2.990 lc.4.15 UtildyStaff Cost - - 5.175 1,095 6.270 6.270 - - 84,423 lc.4 Subtotal Period lc Period-Dependent Costs - 307 3 1 9 7,617 1.650 9,586 7,962 1,724 138 2,755 5 87,413 lc.f0 TOTAL PERIOD lc COST 208 784 98 384 369 19,573 4,804 26,219 24.200 2,019 1.552 87,631 16,815 87,997 PERIOD 1 TOTALS 4,546 2,232 195 695 728 67,573 17,650 93.620 83,513 9.616 491 3,840 178,258 58,528 649,910 PERIOD 2a - SAFSTOR Dormancy with Wet Spent Fuel Storage Period 2a Direct Decommissioning Activities 2a,1.1 Quartedy Inspection 2a.1.2 Semi-annual environmental survey a 2a. 1.3 Prepare repors 2a.1.4 Bituminous roof replacement 2a.1.5 Maintenance supplies 1,342 473 1,816 - 1.g16 - - - - - -

2a.1 Subtotal Period 2a ActivityCosts 1,342 473 1,816 - 1,816 - - - - - -

Period 2a Collateral Costs 2a.3.1 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer 12,357 2,615 14,973 - 14,973 - - - - - -

2a.3 Subtotal Period 2a Collateral Costs 12,357 2,815 14,573 - 14,973 - - - - - -

Period 2a Period-Oependent Costs 2a.4,1 Insurance 4,707 664 5.371 - 5,371 - - - - - -

2a.4.2 Property taxes -- 1,077 152 1,229 - 1,229 - - - - - -

2a&4.3 Health physics supplies 940 - 331 1,271 - 1,271 - - - - - -

TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Res. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page5 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit I SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Sitl LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total [ic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Conlingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fel Cs. Feet Cu. Feet WL, Lbs. Manhoces Manhours Period 2a Peiod-Dependent Costs (continued) 2a.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 75 28 248 - 104 455 455 3.994 79.890 146 2a.4.5 Plant energy budget 2.840 601 3,441 3,441 2a.4*6 NRC ISFSI Fees 2.035 - 2,035 2,035 2a4.7 NRC Fees 2,152 304 2,456 2,456 2a.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 4,278 604 4,882 4.882 2a.4.9 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 4,601 974 5.575 5.575 2a.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 7.846 1.660 9,507 9.507 2a.4.11 ISFSI- Operating Costs 1.505 318 1.823 1.823 2a.412 Spent Fuel Storage/Capital Equipment 55,181 11,678 66,859 66.859 2a.4.13 ISFSI- Fixed Costs 3,060 647 3.707 3.707 2a.4.14 UtilityStaff Cost 9,823 2,079 11,902 11,902 -- - - 167,057 2a.4 Subtotal Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs 940 75 28 248 99,105 20,116 120,513 120,513 3,994 79.890 146 167,057 2a.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2a COST 940 75 28 248 112,805 23,205 137,301 137,301 3,994 79,890 146 167,057 PERIOD 2b - SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fuel Storage Period 2b Dired Decommissioning Activities 2b.1.1 OuorterlyInspection 2b.1.2 Semi-annual environmental survey 2b.1.3 Prepare reports 2b.1.4 Bituminous tootreplacement 2b.1.5 Maintenance supplies - - - - - - 1,881 663 2.544 2,544 2b.1 Subtotl Period 2b ActivityCosts - - - - - - 1.881 663 2.544 2,544 Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 2b.4.1 Insurance 5,750 811 6,562 6.562 21.4.2 Property taxes 1.509 213 1,722 1,722 2b.4.3 Health physicssupplies 1,276 - - 450 1.726 1,726 21b4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 104 39 343 - 144 630 630 5,534 110,682 202 2b.4.5 Plant energy budget - 1.990 421 2,411 2,411 2b.4.6 NRC ISFSI Fees 2,852 - 2,852 2,852 2h.4.7 NRC Fees 3,015 425 3,441 3,441 2b.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 5,573 786 6,360 6,360 2b.4.9 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 6.699 1,418 8,116 8.116 2b.4.10 ISFSI- Operating Costs 2,108 446 2,555 2.555 2b.4.11 SFSI - Fixed Costs 4,287 907 5,194 5.194 2b.4.12 UtilityStaff Cost 7.259 1,536 8.795 8,795 -- - - 124,846 2b.4 Subtotat Period 2b Pedod-Dependent Costs 1,276 104 39 343 41.043 7.558 50,364 50.364 5.534 110,682 202 124,846 2b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 21 COST 1,276 104 39 343 42,924 8.222 52,909 52.909 5,534 110,682 202 124,846 PERIOD 2 TOTALS 2.216 179 67 591 155,730 31,427 190,210 190,210 9,529 190,572 347 291,903 PERIOD 3a - Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 3a Direct Decommissioning Activities 3a.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 156 33 189 189 1.300 3a.1.2 Reviem plant dogs & specs. 551 117 668 668 4,600 3a.1.3 Perform detailed tad survey 3a.1.4 End product description 120 25 145 145 1,000 3a.1.5 Detailed by-product inventory 156 33 189 189 1,300 3a.1.6 Define major work sequence 899 190 1,089 1,089 7 ,50 e 3a.1.7 Pertorm SER and EA 372 79 450 450 3.100 3a.1.8 Pertorm Site-Specific Cost Study 599 127 726 726 5.000 3a.1.9 Preparetsubmit License Termination Plan 491 104 595 595 4,096 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix D, Page 6 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Managemeet Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Pr.cessed Craft Contractor Index Activit Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Castineensir Costsa Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 3a Direct Decommissioning Activities (continued) 3a.1.10 Receive NRC approval of temination plan ActivitySpecifications 3a.1.11.1 Re-activate plant &temporary facilities 884 187 1,071 964 107 7,370 3a.1.11.2 Plant systems 500 106 605 545 61 4,167 3a.1.11.3 Reactor internals 851 180 1.031 1.031 7,100 3a.1.t1.4 Reactor vessel 779 165 944 944 6.500 3a.1.11.5 Biological shield 60 13 73 73 500 3a.1.11.6 Steam generators 374 79 453 453 3,120 3a.1.11.7 Reinforced concrete 192 41 232 116 116 1,600 3a.1.11.8 Main Turbine 48 10 58 - 58 4W0 3a.1.111.9 Main Condensers 48 10 58 - 58 4O0 3a.11.10 Plant structures & buildings 374 79 453 227 227 3.120 3a.,1.11.11 Waste management 551 117 668 668 4.600 3a.1.11.12 Facility &site closeout S 108 23 131 65 65 900 3a.1.11 Total 4,769 1,0W9 5.778 5.086 692 39,777 Planning & Site Preparations 3a.1.12 Prepare dismanuting sequence 288 61 349 349 2,400 3a.1.13 Plant prep. & temp. svces 2,700 571 3,271 3.271 3a.1.14 Design water clean-up system 168 36 203 203 1,400 3a.1.15 Rigging/Cont. Cntri Envlpn/tooling/etc. 2,100 444 2,544 2,544

3. 1.16 Procure casksliners &containers 147 31 179 179 1.230 3a.1 Subtotal Period 3a ActivityCosts 13,516 2.860 16,377 15,685 692 72.703 Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 3a.4.1 Insurance 367 52 419 419 3a.4.2 Property taxes 101 14 115 115 3a,4.3 Heahlt physics supplies 425 150 575 575 3a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 490 104 593 593 10 32 - 13 59 59 514 10,287 19 -

3a.4.5 Disposal oa DAWgenerated 3a.4.6 Plant energy budget 1,330 281 1,611 1,611 3a.4.7 NRC Fees 249 35 284 284 3a.4.8 Security Staff Cost 4,391 929 5,321 5,321 65,179 3:.d9 UtilityStaff Cost - 16,345 3,459 19,805 19,805 - 258,629 3a.4 Subtotal Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 915 10 4 32 22,784 5,038 28.781 28,781 514 10,287 19 323,807 3a.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3a COST 915 10 4 32 36.300 7,898 45.158 44.466 692 514 10.287 19 396,510 PERIOD 3h - Decommissioning Preparations Period 3b Direct Decommissioning Activities Detailed Work Procedures 3b.1.1.1 Plant systems - 567 120 688 619 69 - - 4.733 3b.1.t.2 Reactor intemals 63 363 363 2,500 3b.1.1.3 Remaining buildings 162 34 196 49 147 1,350 3b1.1.4 CRD cooling assembly 120 25 145 145 1,000 1,000 3b.1.1.5 CRD housings & CI tubes 120 25 145 145 1,000 3b.1.1.6 Incore instrumentahon 120 25 145 145 3b.1.1.7 Reactor vessel 435 92 527 527 3630 3b.l.1.8 Facility closeout 144 30 174 87 87 1,200 3b.1.1.9 Missile shields 54 11 65 65 450 3b.1.1.10 Biological shield 144 30 174 174 1,200 3b.1,1.11 Steam generators 551 117 668 668 4,600 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Documnent P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DeeommissioonigCost Analysis Appendix D, Page 7 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial volumes Barial I Craft utility 000 ContractoI I

Aotivlty Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoratlon Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed I' do. Activity Description Cast Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Co. Feet Co, Feet Co. Peer Ca. Feet Co. Feet Wt., Lbs. Moehoors Mashours cost Cost Costs Costs cost. Costs osts Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Vitt, Lbs. Manhours anh El Period 3b Detailed Work Procedures (continued) 3b.1.1.12 Reinforced concrete 120 25 145 73 73 1,000 187 40 227 227 1,560 3b.1.1.13 Main Turbine 187 40 227 - 227 1,560 3b.1.1.14 Main Condensers 327 69 397 357 40 2,730 3b.1.t.1 5 Auxiliarybuilding 327 69 397 357 40 2,730 3b.1.11t6 Reactor building 3.866 818 4.684 3.776 908 32,243 3b.1.1 Total 3.866 818 4,684 3,776 908 32,243 3b.1 Subtotal Period 3b Activiy Costs Period 3b Additional Costs 3b.2.1 Site Characterization - - - - - 4,549 1,925 6,474 6,474 25,000 9,412 3b.2 Subtotal Period 3b AdditionalCosts - - d549 4, 1,925 6,474 8,474 25,000 9,412 Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Decon equipment. 935 - 198 1,133 1,133 3b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 1.395 295 1,690 1,690 3b.3.3 Pipe cutting equipment - 1,000 - 212 1,212 1,212 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs 935 1,000 1,395 705 4,035 4,035 Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 29 10 39 39 3b.4.2 Insurance 221 31 252 252 3b.4.3 Property taxes 51 7 598 58 3b.4.4 Health physics supplies 235 83 318 318 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 246 52 297 297 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 2 18 - 8 33 33 292 5.834 11 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 667 141 808 808 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 125 18 142 142

- 2,202 466 2,668 2,668 32,679 3b.4.9 Security Staff Cost 4.892 1,035 5,927 5,927 58,560 3b.4.10 DOC Staff Cost

- 8,195 1,734 9,929 9,929 - - 129,669 3b*4.11 UfilityStaff Cost Subtotal Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 29 480 2 18 16,351 3,585 20,471 20,471 292 5,834 11 220,907 3b.4 5 3b.0 TOTALPERIOD 3b COST 964 1,480 2 18 26,161 7,033 35,664 34,756 908 292 5.834 25,011 262,562 5

PERIOD 3 TOTALS 964 2,395 6 50 62,461 14,931 80,822 79,222 1.600 806 16.121 25,029 659,072 5

PERIOD 4a - Large Component Removal Period 4a Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 4a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 66 259 40 32 60 690 - 406 1.554 1,554 214 1,927 256,781 5,614 4a.1.1.2 Pressurizer Quench Tank 7 26 6 5 9 97 52 203 203 33 296 36,557 596 4a.1.3.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps &Motors 26 101 44 121 1,358 564 2,213 2.213 - 5,388 871,200 3.760 4a.1.f.4 Pressurizer 8 59 454 295 - 620 372 1.809 1.809 - 2,460 269,821 1,782 -

4a.1.f.5 Steam Generators 85 3,846 1,858 1,886 2,974 5,768 4.741 21.158 21.158 37,344 22,887 3.128,906 20.508 1,125 1,858 1.886 2,974 5,768 3,325 15.811 15,811 37,344 22,887 3.128,906 10.800 1,125 4a.1.1.6 Retired Steam Generator Units 4a.1.1.7 CRDMsoCIs/Service Structure Removal 35 90 221 29 39 282 173 789 789 419 3,362 83,603 2.134 -

4a.11.8 Reactor Vessel Internaos 60 1,983 3,746 496 - 3,476 197 6,131 16.089 16,089 - 2,693 376 584 - 360,613 23,417 1.069 8,952 - 1,895 10,847 10,847 - - 433 85.510 - -

4a.1,1.9 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 86 3,911 1,315 633 8,565 197 10.969 25,675 25,675 6,481 2,379 - - 964,972 23,417 1,069 4a.1.1.10 Reactor Vessel 4a.1.1 Totals 372 10,275 9,543 5,383 6,057 35,495 394 28,629 96,147 96,147 75,354 68,381 2,754 584 433 9.186.868 92.028 4,387 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 8 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit I SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Oft-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contlenency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Removal of MajorEquipment 4:.1.2 Main Turbine/Generator 471 153 113 928 408 2,073 2,073 8,118 365,301 8,335 4a.1.3 Main Condensers 1,370 145 107 875 711 3,208 3.208 7,657 344,574 24,147 Cascading Costs from Clean Building Demolition 4a:1.4.1 *Reactor 1.208 256 1,463 1,463 13,127 4a. .4.2 Containment Penetration Area 66 14 80 80 704 4a.1.4.3 Fuel Handling 175 37 212 212 1,746 4a.1.4 Totals 1.449 307 1,755 1,755 15.578 Disposal of Plant Systems 4a.1.5.1 AuxiliarySteam 245 6 56 458 196 962 962 4,445 180,494 4,001 4a.1.5.2 AuxltiarySteam (RCA) 213 3 29 240 133 619 619 2,330 94,627 3,528 4a.1.5.3 Condensate System 1.131 68 592 4.856 1,561 8,208 8,208 47.076 1,911,765 18,771 4a.1.5.4 Condensate System (insulated) 401 21 182 1,497 500 2,601 2,601 14.512 589,348 6,833 4a.1.5.5 Containment Spray 194 10 87 713 239 1,242 1,242 6,908 280,525 3,329 4a.1.5.6 Extraction Steam &Heater Drip 450 16 143 1,176 440 2,225 2,225 11.399 462,924 7,441 4a.1.5.7 Feedwater System 65 5 48 395 117 631 631 3,829 155,509 1,130 4a.l.5.8 Feedwoter System (Insulated) 271 11 101 825 293 1,501 1.501 7,995 324,669 4,542 4a.1.5.9 Feedu'ater System (RCA Insulated) 98 3 24 199 82 407 407 1,926 78,223 1.693 4a.1.5.10 Feedwoter System (RCA) 5 0 1 10 4 21 21 101 4.117 81 4a.1.5.1l Lube Oil Distrbution &Purification 188 3 25 205 115 536 536 1,986 80.661 3,052 4a.1.5.12 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 17 4 2i - 20 - - 315 4a.1.5.13 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) - 1 - - - - - 0 1 - 1 - - 17 4a.1.5.14 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCAInsulatnd) 5 0 0 2 2 9 9 20 793 75 4a.1.i.15 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA) 87 1 5 38 40 170 170 371 15,060 1,433 4a.1.5.16 Oily Water Separator &TB Sump 30 1 8 63 25 126 126 - 607 24,649 464 4a.1.5.17 Saltwater System 162 - - - 34 196 - 196 - - 2,926 4a.1.5.18 Turbine Steam Suyply 1,227 80 700 5.742 1.807 9,556 9.556 - 55,669 2.260.765 20,590 4a.1i.5.19 Turbine Steam Supply (RCA) 671 22 182 1,497 595 2,966 2,966 14,508 589,194 11,474 4a.1.5.20 Turtine and Generator S 116 4 37 30 - 113 569 569 2,909 118,127 1,947 4a,1.5.21 Turbine andGenerator (Insulated) 49 1 8 63 32 152 152 - 607 24,645 777 Totals " 5,622 256 2,228 18,278 6.333 32,717 32.500 217 177,198 7,196,094 94,419 4a.1.5 4a.1.6 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 2.236 12 9 67 10 810 3.143 3,143 586 39 29,687 17,211 4a.1 Subtotal Period 4a ActivityCosts 372 21.423 10.109 7,839 26,205 35,504 394 37,198 139,044 138,927 217 268,913 68.420 2,754 584 433 17,122.520 251,718 4,387 Period 4a Additional Costs 4a.2.1 Retired Reactor Head 102 151 55 503 15 539 1,366 1,366 2,002 211,020 2.190 84 4a.2 Subtotal Period 4a Additional Costs 102 151 55 503 10 539 1,366 1,366 2,002 211.020 2,100 84 Period 4a Collateral Costs 4a.3.1 Process liquid waste 56 - 27 110 103 103 399 399 405 24,289 79 4a.3.2 Small tool allovunce - 263 - - 56 318 286 32 4a.3 Subtotal Period 4a Collateral Costs 56 263 27 110 103 158 717 685 32 405 24.289 79 Period 4a Perod-Dependent Costs 4a.4.1 Deawn supplies 80 28 108 108 4a.4.2 Insurance 613 87 700 700 4a.4.3 Property taxes 140 20 160 144 16 4a.4.4 Health phtysics supplies 1,805 637 2.441 2.441 4a.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 3,277 693 3.970 3,970 4a.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 83 31 272 114 499 499 4.386 87.730 160 4a.4.7 Plant energy budget - 1.758 372 2,130 2.130 4a.4.8" NRC Fees 916 129 1,045 1.045 4a.4.9 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 535 113 648 648 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon PowerPlant Document P01.1604-003,Rev. 0 DeommissiaioningCost Analysis Appendix D, Page9 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit I SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Sits LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial Volumes Burial / Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term,. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor oIndex Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingass Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Fast Cu. Fast Cu. Fast Cu. Fast Cu. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 4a Period-Dependent Costs (continued) 4:.4.10 SeoJrity Staff Cost 4.367 924 5,291 5,291 64,821 4a.4.1l DOC Staff Cost 16,057 3,398 19,456 19.456 198,294 4a.4.12 UtilityStaff Cost ... - - 21,827 4,619 26,446 26.446 -- - - 349,794 4a.4 Subtotal Period 4a Period-Dependent Costs 80 5,082 83 31 272 46,214 11,134 62.894 62.878 16 4,386 87,730 160 612,909 4a,0 TOTAL PERIOD 4a COST 508 26,869 10,370 8.034 26,205 36,382 46,623 49,029 204.021 203,756 265 268.913 75,213 2.754 584 433 17,445,560 254.056 617,381 PERIOD 40 - Site Decontamination Period 4 Direct Decommissioning Activities 4b.1.1 Remove spent fuel racks 432 47 136 34 - 659 - 580 1,888 1,888 2.621 222,759 962 Disposal of Plant Systems 4b.1.2.1 Capital Additions 85-2002 (clean) 155 33 187 - 187 - - 2,830 4b.1.2.2 Capotal Additions 85-2002 (contaminated) 310 3 28 234 - 165 741 741 - 2,266 - 92.043 5,363 4b.1.2.3 Chemical &Volume Control 851 46 97 646 351 588 2.579 2.579 6,267 1,420 373,180 14,546

40. 1.2.4 Chemical &Volume Control (Insulated) 308 16 15 65 129 173 705 705 - 627 513 68,999 5,086 4b. 1.2.5 Component Cooling Water 166 35 202 - 202 - - - 3,078 4b. 1.2.6 Component Cooling Water (RCA) 478 13 107 876 378 1.852 1.852 - 8,495 344,999 8,025 4b.1.2.7 Compressed Air 148 31 179 - 179 - - 2.744 4b.1.2.8 Compressed Air (Isolated) 1 6 - 6 - - 98 4b,1.2.9 Compressed Air(RCA Insulated) 22 0 1 10 10 45 45 102 4,130 380 4b.1.2.10 Compressed Air (RCA) 413 3 24 199 194 834 834 - 1.932 78,476 6,959 4b.1.2.11 Diesel Engine-Generator 152 32 184 - 184 - - 2,760 41.1.2.12 Diesel Engine-Generator (Insulated) 10 2 12 12 178 4b.1.2.13 Electrical (Clean) 1,809 383 2.192 2,192 - - 32,770 40.1.2.14 Eletricl (Contaminated) 442 7 65 532 283 1.329 1.329 - 5,155 2089365 7.636 4b.1 2.15 Electricl (Contuminated) - FHB 128 1 10 81 65 285 285 786 31,909 2.213 41.1.2.16 Elertricu (Decontaminated) 3.025 73 612 5.022 2,269 11.001 11,001 48,689 1.977.300 51.247 4b.1.2.17 Electrucl (Deoontaminated( - FHB 880 11 90 742 488 2,212 2.212 7.198 292,312 14,847 -

41.1.2.18 Fire Protection 311 11 93 761 292 1.466 1.466 7,373 299,432 5,298 4b.1.2.19 Fire Protection (RCA) 191 2 20 162 106 481 481 1,570 63.760 3.139 4b,1.2'20 Gaseous Radwoste 60 0 4 34 30 129 129 332 13.495 965 4b.1.2.21 HVAC(Clean Insulated) 24 5 29 - 29 - - 475 4b.1.2.22 HVAC (Clean) 304 64 368 - 368 - - 5,804 4b.1.2.23 HVAC (Contaminated Insulated) 229 4 37 304 154 729 729 - 2.950 119,809 3,471 40.1.2.24 HVAC (Contaminated) 1,018 21 185 1,521 723 3,469 3,469 14,745 598,821 15,667 4b.1.2.25 HVAC (Contuminated) - FHB 242 5 42 348 169 806 806 3,370 136,839 3,710 4b.1.2.26 Liquid Radwoste 538 38 49 268 316 374 1.584 1,584 20599 1,347 212.279 9,155 4b.1.2.27 Liquid Rodowaste(Insulated) 56 4 3 8 31 34 136 136 - 78 124 13,753 928 4b.1.2.28 Make-up Water 306 65 371 - 371 - - - 5,614 4b.1.2.29 Muake-upWater (Insulated) 28 6 34 - 34 - - 521 4b.1.2.30 Make-up Water (RCA Insulated) 34 .0 3 28 19 84 84 - 269 10.909 564 4b.1.2.31 Mske-up Water (RCA) 180 2 19 157 101 460 460 1,522 - 61.817 2,969 4b.1.2.32 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolant 87 3 6 38 19 47 200 200 371 77 21,534 1,558 4b.1.2.33 Nu'leur Steam Supply Sumpling 131 1 7 57 60 256 256 556 22,561 2,485 41b..2.34 Nuclear Steam Supply Sompling (Insulated 40 0 1 7 - 16 63 63 70 - 2,836 735 41.1.2.35 Residual Heat Removal 231 26 84 595 214 304 1,454 1,454 5,773 853 306.888 4,053 4b.1.2.36 Safety Injection 90 1 12 99 - 56 259 259 963 - 39.122 1,570 4b,1.2.37 Solely Injection (Insulated) 4 0 0 4 2 11 11 38 1,558 72 4b.1.2.38 Safety tnjnction(RCA Insulated) 32 1 4 36 20 93 93 - 345 14.018 533 41.1.2.39 Safety Injection (RCA) 270 5 39 320 172 807 807 3,107 126.161 4.433 4b.1.2.40 Service Cooling Water - 100 21 121 - 121 - - 1.856 41.1.2.41 Service Cooling Water (RCA) 23 0 3 26 14 67 67 - 253 10.286 384 4b.1.2.42 Spent Fuel Pit Cosling 63 8 32 238 61 102 505 505 -2,311 242 114,445 1.103 4b.1.2.43 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling - FHB 86 10 34 251 72 117 570 570 2,433 284 122,976 1,513 TLG Servieea, Ie.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 10 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial i Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Toiai Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activrit Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Coontlonenc Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 40 Disposal of Plant Systemo (continued) 4b.1.2 Totals 13.980 316 1,728 13,672 1.193 8,203 39,094 35.209 3,885 132.547 4,661 5.786,013 239,260 4b.1.3 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 3,354 18 13 101 15 1,215 4.714 4.714 - 880 58 44.530 25.817 Decontamination of Site Buildings 4b.1.4.1 *Reactor 1,371 1,504 345 341 426 1,365 2,190 7,541 7,541 4,128 17,997 1.944,651 46,746 4b.1.4.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 24 20 1 4 40 3 34 126 126 386 14 16,586 744 -

4b.1.4.3 Containment Penetration Area 237 140 23 28 120 299 357 1.204 1.204 1,164 1,197 148.244 6,147 4b.1.4.4 Fuel Handling 593 597 31 42 206 388 823 2.680 2.680 1.996 1,566 212,259 20,239 4b.1.4 Totals 2,225 2,261 401 415 792 2.055 3,404 11.552 11.552 7.674 20.775 2.321.740 73.876 4b.1 Subtotal Period 4b ActivityCosts 2,657 19.642 871 2,190 14,564 3,922 13,402 57,248 53,363 - 3,885 141.101 28,315 8.375,042 339.915 Period 4b Additional Costs 4b.2.1 ISFSI License Termination - 1,059 4 100 387 783 690 3,022 - 3,022 - - 6,237 748,923 15,272 1.280 4b.2.2 License Termination Surey Planning - - 669 283 952 952 -..- -. 6240 4b.2 Subtotal Period 4b Additional Costs 1.059 4 100 387 1.451 973 3.974 952 3,022 6,237 748,923 15,272 7,520 Period 4b Collateral Costs 4b.3.1 Process liquid saste 127 - 62 250 236 234 909 909 924 55.419 180 4b.3.2 Small tool allowance 397 84 481 481 4b.3.3 Decommissioning Equipment Disposition - - 121 107 686 100 220 1.234 1.234 6,000 397 303.726 88 4b.3 Subtotal Period 40 Collateral Costs 127 397 183 357 686 335 538 2,624 2,624 6,000 1,320 359.145 268 Period 4b Period-Dependent Costs 4b.4.1 Decon supplies 948 - - 334 1.282 1.282 4b.4.2 Insurance - 866 122 988 988 4b.4.3 Property taxes - 198 28 226 226 4b.4.4 Health physics supplies 2.445 - 863 3.309 3.309 4b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 4.592 - - 972 5.564 5.564 4b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 94 35 309 - 130 567 567 4.981 99,624 181 4b.4.7 Plant energy budget - 1,959 415 2.374 2.374 4b.4.0 NRC Fees 1,293 182 1,475 1,475 40.4.9 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 755 160 914 914 4b.4.10 Security Staff Cost 1.426 302 1.728 1.728 -. -22,534 4b.4.11 DOC Staff Cost 15,043 3,183 18.226 18,226 192,566 41.4.12 UtiibyStaff Cost 21.285 4,504 25,789 25,789 344,160 4b.4 Subtotal Period 4b Period-Dependent Costs 948 7,038 94 35 - 309 42.824 11,195 62.442 62.442 - - 4,981 99.624 181 559,260 4b.0 TOTALPERIOD 4b COST 3.731 28,136 1,152 2,682 15.250 4,953 44,275 26,108 126,288 119,381 3,022 3,885 147,101 40,854 9,582,733 355,637 566.780 PERIOD 4d -Delay before License Termination Period 4d Period-Dependent Costs 4d.4.1 Insurance - -

4d.4.2 Property taxes 106 15 121 121 4d.4.3 Health physicssupplies 92 33 125 125 4d.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 7 3 12 12 1055 2,103 4 4d.4.5 Plant energy budget 4d.4.6 NRC Fees 192 27 220 220 4d.4.7 UtilityStaff Cost 9-34 198 1,131 1,131 .- . 15.400 4d.4 Subtotal Period 4d Period-Dependent Costs 92 7 1,232 275 1.609 1,609 105 2,103 4 15,400 4d.0 TOTALPERIOD 4d COST 92 7 1.232 275 1.609 1,609 105 2,103 4 15,400 TLG Services, Ine.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01-1604.003, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix D, Page I) of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit I SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands sf2008 Dollars) i Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and I Doecon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Ac.Ivity Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continoenco Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Foot Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. - Manhours Mantrous I I InQ*x *C[]VI* I *A*rlntlOn notes MVWJVIW U-prion PERIOD 4e - License Termination Period 4e Direct Decommissioning Activities 4e,1.1 ORISE confirmatorysurvey 153 65 218 218 4e. 1.2 Terminate license 4e.1 Subtotal Period 4e Activity Costs 153 65 218 218 Period 4e AddirtionalCosts 4e.2.1 License Termination Survey 8.178 3,461 11,639 11.639 142,829 3,120 4e.2 Subtotal Period 4e Additional Costs 8.178 3.461 11,639 11.639 142,829 3.120 Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOC staff relocation expenses 1.395 295 1.690 1,690 4ae.3 Subtotal Period 4a Collateral Costs 1.395 295 1.690 1.690 Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 4e.4.1 Insurance 4e.4.2 Property taxes - 76 11 87 87 4e.4.3 Health physics supplies 919 - - - 324 1,243 1.243 4e.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 6 2 20 - 8 36 36 319 6.371 12 4e.4.5 Plant energy budget 200 42 243 243 4e.4.6 NRC Fees 532 75 607 607 4e.4.7 Security Staff Cost 298 63 361 361 4,714 4e.4.8 DOC Staff Cost 2--47 602 3.449 3.449 36,143 4A.4n9 UtilityStaff Cost - - - 2,525 534 3,059 3.059 -- - - 39,286 4e.4 Subtotal Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 919 6 2 20 6,478 1,660 9,085 9,085 319 6.371 12 80,143 4e.0 TOTALPERIOD 4e COST 919 6 2 20 16.203 5,482 22,632 22.632 319 6,371 142,841 83,263 PERIOD 4 TOTALS 4.239 56,016 11,530 10,719 41,455 41,362 108,334 80,894 354,549 347,378 3.022 4l150 416,013 116.491 2,754 584 433 27.036.770 752.537 1.282.823 PERIOD 5b - Site Restoration Period 51 Direct Decommissioning Activities Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings 5b.1.1.1 *Reactor 6,873 1,455 8,328 8,328 74,901 5b. 1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 273 58 331 331 3,572 5b.I.1.3 Containment Penetration Area 615 130 745 745 6,563 26 5 31 31 249 5b.1.1.4 Miscellaneous 5b.1t.,5 Turtine 3,274 693 3,966 3,966 38,602 Sb.1.6.6 Turbine Pedestal 1,212 256 1,468 1,468 11,300 51b.1.1.7 Fuel Haodling 1,689 357 2,046 2,046 16-750 Sb.1.1 Totals 13.961 2,955 16,916 16,916 151,936 Site Closeout Activities 2.753 4,587 5b.1.2 Grade &landscape site 2,272 - 481 2,753 -

5b.1.3 Final report to NRC 187 40 227 227 - - 1,560 5b.1 Subtotal Period 5b ActivityCosts 16.234 187 3,475 19,896 227 19,669 156,523 1.560 Period 5b Additional Costs 5b.2.1 Concrete Csushing 464 0 - 98 562 - 062 - - - - - 2,063 -

5b.2.2 ISFS1Demolition and Site Restoration 545 24 120 690 690 3,349 80 5b.2.3 Cofferdam Construictionand Teardors 438 - 93 530 690 830 - - - - - 4,004 -

5b.2 Subtotal Period 5b Additional Costs 1,447 24 311 1,782 1,093 - - - - - 9.416 80 TLG Services, Ine.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Documoent P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix D, Page12 of 24 Table D-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Oft-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Buoial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Ptoessittg Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feat Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhoturs Perod 5b Collateral Costs 5b.3.1 Small tool allowance 190 40 231 231 5b.3 Subtotal Period SbCollateral Costs 190 40 231 231 Period 5b Period-Depeodent Costs Sb.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Property taxes 207 29 236 236 5b.4.3 Heavy equiprent rental - ,420. - 1.359 7.778 7,778 5b.4.4 Plant energy budget 273 58 330 330 5b.4.5 Security Staff Cost 338 72 410 410 5,343 5b.4.6 DOC Staff Cost 6,581 1.393 7.974 7,974 81,211 5b.4.7 Utilty Staff Cost 1,713 362 2.075 2,075 27.783 5b.4 Subtotal Period 51 Period-Dependent Costs 6,420 9,111 3,272 18.803 18.803 114,337 5b.0 TOTALPERIOD 5b COST 24,290 0 9,322 7,099 40,711 227 690 39,795 165.939 115.977 PERIOD 5 TOTALS 24,290 0 - 9,322 7,099 40.711 227 690 39,795 165,939 115,977 TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSION 9,749 87,150 11,919 11,487 41,455 42,730 403,420 152.002 759,912 510,340 203,537 46,035 416,013 130.665 2,754 584 433 27,421,720 1,002,381 2,999,686 TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSIONWITH 25% CONTINGENCY: $759,912 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTAL NRC UCENSE TERMINATIONCOST IS 67.16% OR: $510,340 thousands of 2008 dollars SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENTCOST IS 26.78% OR: $203,537 thousands of 2008 dollars NON-NUCLEARDEMOLITIONCOST IS 6.06% OR: $46,035 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTAL LOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVEWASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDINGGTCC): 134,004 Cubic Feet TOTAL GREATERTHAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUMEGENERATED: 433 Cubic Feet TOTAL SCRAP METALREMOVED: 48,060 Tons TOTAL CRAFTLABOR REQUIREMENTS: 1,002,381 Man-hours End Notes:

n/a - indicates that this activity not charged as decommissioning expense.

a - indicates that this activity performed by decommissioning staff.

0 - indicates that this value is less than 0.5 but is non-zero.

a cell containing" -" indicates a zero value TnG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 13 sf24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Ofif-rte LLRW NRC Spent F uel sit. Processed BurilalVOlUmes Burial I Utilityan Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Close C GTCC Proesseld Craft Contra=torI IActioity Ca~ *st Cast Osts Casts Costs Cases Cases Cantinesneo Costs Coste Casts Costs Cu.PFeet Cu.Feet Co.Feet Co.Feet CuoFeat Wt..iLs. Manhours ManhoarsI B Inlay A*l* N*q*ri*inn notes AcbWtVDescription Cost Cast Costs Cost. at. Costs Costs Cost. Cu. Feet Cu Feet C.. Feet Cu. Feel Cu. Feet VVt. Lb.. M.nhour. Vituth.ur.

PERIOD Ia -Shutdown through Transition Period ta DirectDecornomissioningActivities l:a.1.1 SAFSTORsite characterizationsurvey 414 179 593 593 I .1.2 Prepare preliminarydecommissioning cost 67 14 81 61 556 la.1.3 Notificationof Cessation ofOperations a 1 s.4 Rsmose fuel &source"aterial nia 1a.1.5 Notificationof Permanent Defueling la.1.6 Dettivte plantsystems &process waste 22 125 125 855 fa.1.7 Prepare and submitPSDAR 103 la.1.8 Review plant dwgs &spe1s. 67 14 81 ait 556 ta.f.9 Pet.onm detailed tad survey la.1.10 Estimate by-productinventory 51 ft 62 62 428 la.1.11 Entdproduct descripbion 51 11 62 62 428 fa.1.t2 Detaiftd by-product inventory 77 17 94 94 641 ta.1.13 Define major work sequence 51 11 62 62 428 la1.1t4 Perform SER and EA 159 34 193 193 1,326 alt 5 Perform Site-Specific Cost Study 256 55 312 312 2,138 ActivitySpecifications la:1.16tI Prepare plant and factibes ftr SAFSTOR 252 55 307 307 2,104 214 46 260 260 1,782 ta.1.16.2 Plant systems

-- 160 35 195 195 1,334 la.1.16.3 Plant structures and buildings la.1.16.4 Waste management 103 22 125 125 855 22 125 125 855 f:.f.116.5 FPasityand site domnocy 103 831 180 1.010 1,010 6.930 la.1.16 Total Detailed WorkProcedures ial1.17.l Plant systems 61 13 74 74 506 lo.1.17.2 Facilitycloseout &dormancy 62 13 75 75 513 la.1.17 Total 122 26 149 149 1,019 laZ1.18 Pmcurevacuum dryingsystem 5 1 6 6 43 1ail1 Drain/de-energize non-cont, systems a

1a.1.20 Drain& dry NSSS la.I.21 Drain/de-energize contaminated systems la.1.22 Deconsecure contaminated systems ta.1 Subtotal Period ta ActivityCosts 2,254 577 2,830 2,830 15,347 Period ta Collateral Costs 1:a.3.1 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer 1,649 357 2,006 2,006 ta.3 Subtotal Period la Cotateral Costs 1.649 367 2,006 2,006 Period ia Peiod-Dependent Costs a1.4.1 .su.nnce 172 1.367 1.367 la.4.2 Property taxes 101 15 115 1 15 la.4.3 Health physics supplies 486 175 661 661 la.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 490 106 596 596

- 11 4 38 - 16 70 70 610 12,190 22 1a.4.5 Disposal of DAWgenerated la.4.6 Plant energy budget 1,330 2 87 1,617 1,617 -

ia.4.7 NRC ISFSI Fees -- 191 - 191 - 191 la.4.8 NRC Fees 471 68 539 539 -

l.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 1,258 181 1,439 - 1.439 la.4.1g Spent Fuel Pool O&M 735 159 894 894 1a.4.11 ISFSI - Operating Costs 141 30 171 171 la.4.12 Spent Fuel StoragelCaptal Equipment 4,385 948 5,333 5.333 la.4.13 ISFSI - Fixed Costs 286 62 348 348 TLG Services, Inc.

M.N.t Corsyos Paer.. PNow Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Daecommissieoning Cost Anlyei. Appendhix D, Page 14 of 24 Table D3-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Sit. LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Class A Burial Class B Volumes Class C GTCC Burial I Procnesed Craft t-.

Contractor jAnboo Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Tess. Management Restoration Volume Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Cost. Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbsi M;ntourn Manhorn I'd ex Period la Period-Dependent Costs continued) la.4.14 Security Staff Cost 10,231 2,212 12,443 12,443 157,471 5,707 32,110 32.110 - - 423,400 1a.4.15 UtilityStaff Cost . . .. 26,403 4 38 46.726 10,139 57,894 49.518 8.376 610 12,190 22 580,871 10.4 Subtotal Period la Period-Dependent Costs 976 11 11 4 38 50,629 11.072 62,730 52.348 10,382 610 12,190 22 596.218 l1.0 TOTALPERIOD la COST 976 PERIOD l b -SAFSTOR Limited DECON Activities Period lb Direct Decommissioning Activities Decontamination of Site Buildings 1,501 1.081 2.582 2,251 331 - 26,111 lb.1.1.1 *Reactor lb.1.1.2 Auxiliary 1,010 728 1,738 1.516 223 17,740 1b.1.1.3 Capital Addions 85-2004 296 213 509 444 65 5,109 500 3,917 1b01.1.4 Containment Penetration Area 226 163 388 339 414 989 863 127 9,816 1b.1.1.5 Fuel Handling 575 3,608 2,599 6,207 5,411 796 62,693 1b.1.1 Totals 3.608 2,599 6,207 5,411 796 62,693 1b.1 Subtotal Period I b ActivityCosts Period 1b Collateral Costs 1b.3.1 Decon equipment 935 - - - 202 1,137 1.137 1b.3.2 Process liquid wste 180 - 82 331 312 325 1,230 1,230 1,223 73,380 238 Sb.3,3 0m011 tool allouwance - 69 15 8-4 84 1b.3.4 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer - 252 54 307 - 307 1b.3 Subtotal Perod 1 b Colateral Costs 1,115 69 82 331 312 252 597 2,758 2.452 307 1,223 73.380 238 Period 1b Perod-sependentCosts 1b.4.1 Dec0- supplies 1,467 529 1,996 1,996 1b.4.2 Insurance 301 43 345 345 Ib.4,3 Property taxes 25 4 29 29 1b.4.4 Halth physics supplies 406 146 552 552 Ib.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 123 - - 27 150 150

- 16 6 - 54 - 23 100 100 874 17,477 32 1 b4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 1 b.4.7 Plant energy budget 335 72 408 408 11,4.8 NRC ISFSI Fees 48 - 48 - 48

-- 110 17 136 136 -

lb.4.9 NRC Fees -

lb.4.10 Emergency Planning Fees 187 27 214 - 214 1b.4.11 Spent Funl Pool O&M 185 40 225 225 lb.4.12 ISFSI - Operating Costs 36 8 43 43 1b.4.13 Spent Fuel Storage/Capital Equipment 962 208 1,170 1,170 1b.4.14 ISFSI- Fixed Costs 72 16 88 - 8 1b.4.15 Securty Staff Cost 2.579 557 3,136 3,136 - 39,691 6,655 1,439 8,093 8,093 - 106,720 1b.4.16 UtilityStaff Cost 1,467 529 16 6 54 11,504 3,156 16,733 14,945 1,788 874 17,477 32 146,411 1b.4 Subtotal Period 11,Period-Dependent Costs 6,189 599 99 337 366 11,756 6,352 25,698 22,807 2,095 796 2,097 90,856 62,963 146,411 lb.0 TOTALPERIODlb COST PERIOD Ic - Preparations for SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 1c DirectDeconarnssioning Activities 1c.1.1 Prepare support equipment for storage 431 93 524 524 3,000 1e.1.2 Install containment pressure equal, lines 42 9 51 51 700 733 317 1,050 1,050 12,834

1. .1.3 Interim survey prior to dormancy 1,1.4 Secure buiding accesses lc,1.5 Prepare & submit interim report 30 6 36 36 249 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 15 of 24 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-SoRe LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utlity and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Proesosed Craft Contractor IAdrd Cost Cost cost. Costs Costs Costs Costs Contngnency Costs Costs Costs Cost. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Maahours Msnhsura I n dex Q==:ý on r; ion lc.1 Subtotal Period ic ActivityCosts 472 - 763 425 1,661 1,661 16,534 249 Period ic Adititonal Costs lc.2.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 6,272 1.356 7,627 7,627 Sc.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management 590 128 718 718 lc.2.3 MixedWaste Management 912 197 1,109 1.109 1c.2 Subtotal Period c AdditionalCosts 7,773 1,680 9,454 9.454 Period lc Collateral Costs lc.3.1 Process liquidwoste 208 - 95 383 361 376 1,422 1.422 1.414 84,861 276 lc.3.2 Strall tool allowance - - 1 5 5 Ic.3.3 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer - - - 252 54 307 - 307 208 5 95 383 361 252 431 1,734 1,428 307 1.414 84.861 276 lc.3 Subtotal Period lc Collateral Costs Period is Period-Dependent Costs Ic.4.1 Insurance 301 43 345 345 Property taxes 25 4 29 29 lc.4.2 198 71 270 270 lC.4.3 Hoolthphysics supplies 1 c.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 123 27 150 150 Disposal of OAWgenerated 10 - 4 18 18 154 3.073 6 lc.4.5 c4.6 C Plant energy budget 335 72 408 408 lc.4.7 NRC ISFSI Fees 48 - 48 48 1c.4.6 NRC Fees 119 17 136 136 ic.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 187 27 214 - 214 Io l10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 185 40 225 225

- - 36 8 43 43 1lc4.11 ISFSI- Opersting Cost lc.4.12 Spent Fuel StorageiCapital Equipment 957 207 1,164 1,164 lc.4.13 ISFSI- Fixed Costs 72 16 88 - 88 2,579 557 3,136 3,136 39,691 l.4.14 Sscurity Staff Cost 6,655 1,439 8,093 8,093 106,720 lc.4.15 UtilityStaff Cost 1c.4 Subtotal Pedod 1c Period-Dependent Costs 322 3 1 10 11,500 2.532 14,367 12.584 1.783 154 3.073 6 146,411 lc.0 TOTAL PERIOD ICCOST 208 799 98 304 - 370 20,288 5,069 27.216 25,126 2,090 - - 1,568 - - - 87,933 15.815 146,661 6,397 2,373 208 725 774 82,673 22,493 115.644 100,282 14,566 796 4,274 190,980 79,801 889,290 PERIOD ITOTALS PERIOD2a -SAFSTOR Dormancy with Wet Spent Fuel Storage Period 2a Direct Decomnmissioning Activities 2`.1.1 Quarterly Inspection 2a.1.2 Semkannual environmentalsurvey 2o.1.3 Prepare reports 2o.1.4 Bituminous roof replacement 36 8 44 44 2o.1.5 Maintenance supplies 1,341 483 1,825 1,825 2a.1 Subtotal Period 2a Actiuy Costs 1.378 491 1,869 1,869 Period 2a Collateral Costs 2o.3.1 Spent Fuel Capital and Transfer 11,535 2,494 14,029 14,029 21.3 Subtotal Period 2a Collateral Costs 11,535 2,494 14,029' 14,029 Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs 2a.4.1 lnsuranco 4,703 678 5.381 5.381 2o.4.2 Property taxes 1,076 155 1,231 1,231 2a.4.3 Health physics supplies 1.254 434 1.637 1,637 2o.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 83 31 273 117 504 504 4,453 88,054 160 2a.4.5 Plant energy budget - 2,838 613 3,452 3,452 2a.4.6 NRC ISFSI Fees 2.034 - 2,034 2,034 2a.4.7 NRC Fees 1,907 275 2.182 2,182 TLG Services, Ine.

Dinablo Canyon Power Plant Doaeument P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page16 of24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed BurialVolumes Burial Utilityand Astivity Decon Reaoval Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Pocessed Craft Contrastor Index Atiei Dascripno Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingencs Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Foat Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhoure Manhoors Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs (continued) 2a.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 4,275 616 4,891 4.891 2a.4.9 Spent Fuel Transfer - Pool or ISFSI to DOE 4,967 1,074 6,041 6,041 2a.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 7,840 1,695 9,535 9.535 2a.4. 1 ISFS6- Operating Costs -,5-14 325 1,829 1.829 2a.4.12 Spent Fuel StoragelCapital Equipment 52,049 11.251 63,301 63,301 2a.4.13 ISFSI- Fixed Costs 3,057 661 3.718 3,718 2a.4.14 Security Staff Cost 77,844 16,827 94.672 94,672 1.185.193 2a.4.15 UtilityStaff Cost 57,486 12.427 69,913 69.913 879.157 2o.4 Subtotal Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs 1,204 83 31 273 221.582 47,148 270.320 270,320 4,403 88,054 160 2,064,350 2a.0 TOTALPERIOD2a COST 1,204 83 31 273 234.495 50.133 286,21t 286,218 4,403 88,054 160 2,064,350 PERIOD 21 - SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fuel Storage Period 2b Direct DecommissioningActivities 2b.1.1 Quarterly Inspection 2b.1.2 Seon-annual environmentalsurvey 21.1.3 Prepare reports 2, 1.4 Bituminous not replacement - 48 10 5 - SO - - - - - -

21. 1.5 Maintenance supplies 1.779 641 2,420 2,420 - - - - - -

2b.1 Subtotal Period2b ActivityCosts 1.827 651 2,478 2,4708 Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 2b.4.1 Insurance 5,438 784 6.221 6.221 2b.4.2 Property taxes - 1,427 206 1,633 1,633 21.4.3 Heaothphysics supplies 1,339 - - - 482 1,821 1.821 2b.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 102 38 337 - 144 622 622 5,438 108,754 198 2b.4.5 Plant energy budget 1,882 407 2,288 2,288 2b.4.6 NRC ISFSIFees 2,697 - 2,697 2,697 2b.4.7 NRC Fees 2,529 364 2,893 2,893 2b.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 5,270 760 6,030 6,030 2b.4.9 Spent FuelTranster - Pool or ISFSIto DOE 6,333 1,369 7,702 7,702 2b.4.10 ISFSI- Operating Costs 1,994 431 2,425 2,425 2b.4.11 ISFS - FioodCosts 4,054 876 4,930 4,930 2b.4.12 Security Staff Cost 54,202 11.717 65,918 65,918 796,886 2b.4.13 UtilityStaff Cost 30.143 6,516 36,659 36,659 472,229 2b.4 Subtotal Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 1.339 102 38 337 115,968 24.056 141.839 141.839 5,438 108,754 198 1.269,114 2b.0 TOTALPERIOD 2b COST 1.339 102 30 337 117,795 24,707 144,318 144,318 5,438 108,754 198 1.269,114 PERIOD2c - SAFSTOR Dormancy without Spent Fuel Storage Period 2c Direct DecommissioningActivities 2c.1.1 QuarterlyInspection 2c.1.2 Semi-annual environmentalsurvey 2c.1.3 Prepare reports 2c.1.4 Bituminousroof replacement - - - - - - 3 1 4 4 2c.1.5 Maintenance supplies - - - - - - 114 41 156 156 2c.1 Subtotal Period 2c Actvity Costs - - - - - - 117 42 159 159 Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 lnsuornce - 334 48 382 382 2c.4.2 Property taxes - - 92 13 105 105 2c.4.3 Health physics supplies 78 28 106 106 2,.4.4 Disposal at DAWgenerated 6 2 21 9 38 30 336 6,728 12 2c.4.5 Plant energy budget 121 26 147 147 2c.4.6 NRCFees 155 22 178 178 2c.4.7 UtilityStaff Cost 441 95 537 537 7,589 TLG Serices, lee.

Diablo CanyonPower Plant Docuaenet P01.1604-003, Rev. 0 DeeommissioningCost Analysis Appendix D, Page 17 of 24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-She LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Sit. Prcessed Burial Volumes Burial I Utilit osd Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volumi ClGss A Class B Closs C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Desci ption Cost Cost Costs Costs CosCosot Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Faet CU.Feet Cu. Feet CU. Feet Cs. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhousr Manhours 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Penod-Dependent Costs - 78 6 2 - 21 1,143 242 1.492 1,492 - - 336 - - - 6,728 12 7,589 2c.0 TOTALPERIOD 2c COST 78 6 2 21 1,261 284 1,652 1,652 336 6.728 12 7,589 2,620 191 71 - 631 353.550 75.124 432.188 1,652 430,536 10,177 203.536 371 3,341,053 PERIOD2 TOTALS PERIOD 3a - Reactivate Site Following SAFSTORDormancy Period 3a Direct Decommissioning Activities 67 14 81 81 - - 556 3a.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 236 51 287 287 1,967 3s.1.2 Revie plant dwgs &specs.

3:11.3 Pertorm detailed rod survey 428 3a.1.4 End product description 51 11 62 62 67 14 81 51 556 3:.1.5 Detailed by-product inventory 384 83 468 468 3,207 3a.1.6 Defint major morksequence S159 34 193 193 1,326 3a.1.7 Perform SER and EA 3A.1.8 Perform Site-Specific Cost Study 256 55 312 312 2,138 210 45 255 255 1,751 30.1.9 Peparp/submit License Termination Plan 3a.1.10 Receive NRC approval of termination plan ActivitySpecifications 3:.1.111.1 Re-activate plant &temporary facilities 378 82 459 414 46 3.151 214 46 260 234 26 1.782 3a.1.t 1.2 Plant systems 364 78 443 443 3,036 3e.1.11.3 Reactor intrinals 333 72 405 405 2,779 3a.1.11.4 Reactor ceseel 126 6 31 31 214 3:.1.11.5 Biclogicealshield 3o.1.11.6 Steam generators 160 35 195 195 1,334 82 18 100 50 50 684 3a.1.11.7 Reinforced concrete 3o.1.11.8 Mein Turbine 21 4 25 - 25 171 21 4 25 - 25 171 3a.1.11.9 Mair Condensers 3a.1.11.10 Plant structures &buildings 160 35 195 97 97 1.334 236 51 287 287 1,967 3a.1.11.I1 Waste management 3a.1.1 1.12 Facifity&site closeout 48 10 56 28 28 385 3a.1.11 Total S 2,039 441 2.480 2,183 297 17.009 Planning &Site Preparations 123 27 150 150 1,028 3a.1.12 Prepare dismantling sequence 3a.1.13 Plant prep. &temp. svces 2,700 584 3,284 3,284 72 16 87 87 599

3. 1.14 Design materclean-up system 3a.1.1S5 RigginglCont.Ccntr Envlpsltooling/etc. 2,100 454 2,554 2,554 63 14 77 77 526 3a.1.1s Procure casksrliners &containers 8,527 1,843 10,370 10,073 297 31,088 3a.1 Subtotal Period 3a ActivityCosts Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 3a.4.1 Insurance 367 53 420 420 3a.4.2 Property taxes 101 15 115 115 3a.4.3 Health physics supplies 403 145 548 548 3a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 490 106 598 598 30 - 13 5S 55 481 9,613 18 3:.4.5 Disposal of DAWgenerated 3 3a.4.R Plant energy budget 1,330 287 1,617 1.617 3a.4.7 NRC Fee, 214 31 245 245 396 86 482 482 6,257 3a.4.8 Secoitty Steff Cost

- 12,270 2,652 14,922 14,922 - 200,229 3a.4.9 UtilityStaff Cost 30 14,678 3,388 19,001 19,001 481 9.613 18 206,486 3a.4 Subtotal Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 297 481 9,613 18 237,573 3a.. TOTALPERIOD3. COST 893 9 3 30 23,205 5,231 29,371 29,074 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo CanyonPower Plant Document P01-1604-003,Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page18 of24 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumnes Burial I Utilitysd Actvity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Proesassig Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Tern. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Pracessed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cast Costs Costs . Costs Costs Costs Continency Costs Costs Cost Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhouor Manhours PERIOD3b -Decommissioning Preparations Period 3b Direct DecommissioningActivities DetailedWork Procedures 3b.1.1.1 Plant systems 243 52 295 266 30 2,024 128 28 156 156 1.069 3b.1.1.2 Reactor intemals 577 69 15 84 21 63 31.1.1.3 Remaining buildings 51 11 62 62 428 3b.1.1.4 CRD coling assembly 51 11 62 62 428 3b.1.1.5 CRD housings & ICItubes 51 11 62 62 428 3b.1.l.S lncore instrumentation 186 40 226 226 1,552 3b.1.1.7 Reactor vessel 62 13 75 37 37 513 3b.1.1.9 Facilitycloseout 23 5 28 28 192 3b.1.1.9 Missile shields 513 3b.1.1.10 Biological shield 62 13 75 75 236 51 287 287 1.967 3b.1.1.11 Steam generatars 51 11 62 31 31 428 3b.1.1.12 Reifotedconreto 8- 17 97 - 97 667 3b.1.1.13 Main Turbine 80 17 97 - 97 667 3b.1.1.14 Main Condensers 140 30 170 153 17 1,167 3b.1.1.15 Auxiliarybuilding 1,167 3b.1.1.16 Reactor building 140 30 170 153 17 1.653 357 2,010 1,620 390 13,787 3b.1.1 Total 1,653 357 2,010 1.620 - 390 13.787 3b.1 Subtotal Period 3b ActivityCosts Period 31 AdditionalCosts 3b.2.1 Site Characterization 1,845 841 2,786 2,788 10.690 4,024 2.7886 2786 10.690 4,024 3b.2 Subtotal Period 31 AdditionalCosts 1.945 841 Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Decon equipment 935 - 202 1,137 1.137 3b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 1,395 302 1,697 1,697 3b*3.3 Pipe cutting equipment - 1,000 - 216 1,216 1.216 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs 935 1.000 1,395 720 4.050 4,050 Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 29 10 39 39 3b.4.2 Insurance 221 32 253 253 51 7 58 58 3b.4.3 Property taxes 218 79 297 297 3b.4.4 Health physics supplies 246 53 299 299 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 5 16 - 7 30 30 5.315 10 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 266 667 144 811 811 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 107 15 123 123 199 43 241 241 3.137 38.4.9 Securty Staff Cost 3,458 747 4.205 4,205 42,874 3b.4.10 DOC Staff Cost

- 6.152 1.330 7,482 7.482 - 100.389 3b.4.11 UtilityStaff Cost 5 16 10,854 2,468 13,837 13,837 266 5,315 10 146.400 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 29 464 964 1,464 5 390 266 5,315 10,700 164,211 3b.0 TOTALPERIOD3b COST 16 15,847 4,386 22,684 22,294 964 2,356 14 46 39,052 9,617 52,055 91,368 687 746 14,927 10,717 401.785 PERIOD3 TOTALS TLG Services, Ins.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Doueoant P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Decomamissiosing Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 19 of24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 7

SAI STOI1 Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 flollsers) 0ff-Sits LLRW NRC Speot Foet Sits Prouessed Bsrist Vuolumes Bonist8 Utilityand AItoty Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processiog Dispo.sa Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Coot Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contigonoy Costs Costs Costs Coots Cu. Feel Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhoues I'll ex PERIOD 4a - Large Component Removal Period 4a Direct DecommissioningActivities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 4sa.1..1 Reactor Coolant Piping 66 259 40 32 60 690 415 1,562 1,562 214 1,927 256,781 5.614 4a.t.1.2 Pressurizer Quench Tank 7 26 6 5 9 97 53 204 204 33 296 36.557 596 4a.l.t.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps &Motors 26 101 44 121 1,358 576 2,225 2,225 - - 5,388 - 871.200 3,760 4a.1.1.4 Pressunoer 8 59 454 295 - 620 380 1,817 1.817 - 2.460 269,821 1.782 1,125 4a.1.t.5 Steam Generators 85 3.846 1.858 1,884 2.974 5.768 4.1843 21,260 21.260 37.344 22.887 3.128,906 20,508 4a.1.1.6 Retired Steam Generator Units - - 1.858 1.886 2.974 5,768 3.396 15.882 15,882 37,344 22.887 3,128.906 10.800 1.125 4a.1.1.7 CROMstlCIs/SesrvceStructure Removal 35 90 221 29 39 202 177 792 792 419 3.362 83.603 2,134 4e.1.1.8 Reactor Vessel Internals 78 2.023 3.805 563 - 3,362 203 6.284 16.319 16,319 - 2.241 376 584 351.463 24.250 1,102 4a.1.1.9 Vossel &Intenals GTCCDisposal - - - 8.952 - 1I,35 10,887 10.887 433 85,510 -

4a.1.1.10 Reactor Vessel 86 3.952 1.361 633 - 8,565 203 11,266 26,065 26.065 - 6,481 2,379 - 964,972 24.250 1,102 4s.1.1 Totals 390 10.357 9,648 5,449 6.057 35.381 406 29,326 97,015 97.015 75,354 67.929 2.754 584 433 9.177,718 93.695 4,454 Removal oaMajor Equipment 4a.1.2 Main Turbine/Generator - 470 153 113 925 - - 416 2,077 2,077 8,096 - - - 364.306 8.312 4a.1.3 Main Condensers - 1,370 145 107 875 727 3,223 3,223 7,657 - - - 344,574 24,147 Cascading Costs from Clean BuildingDemolition 4:.1.4.1 Reactor 1,208 261 1,469 1.469 73.127 4a.1.4.2 Auxiliary 652 141 793 793 7.054 4a.1.4.3 Containment Penetration Area 66 14 80 80 704 4a.1.4.4 Radmaste Storage 82 18 99 80 918 4a.1.4.5 Fuel Handling 175 38 213 213 1.748 4a.1.4 Totals 2.183 472 2.655 2,655 23.550 Disposal of Plant Systems 4a.1.5.1 AuxiliarySteam 128 3 31 252 108 522 522 2,440 99.082 2.123 4a.1.5,2 AuxiliarySteam (RCA) 109 2 14 118 68 312 312 1,146 46.536 1.820 4a.1.5.3 Condensate System 1,031 62 546 4.477 1,466 7,582 7,582 43,400 1,762.487 17,105 4sa1.5.4 Condensate System (Insulated) 388 21 181 1,481 502 2.573 2.573 14,362 583,235 6.634 40.1.5.5 Containment Spray 183 10 84 688 234 1,198 1.198 6,667 270,737 3,135 4a.1.5.6 Extraction Steam &Heater Drip 40.1.5.7 FeedmotenSystem 391 93 16 13 137 112 1,126 919 416 258.

2,086 1,395 2.086 1,395 - - ~ 10,916 8,996 - -

443,294 361,684 6.490 1,645 30 167 - 167 - - 2.547 4a.1.5.8 Fesdwator System (Insulated) 137 - - -

4a.1.5.9 Feedwater System (RCAInsulated) 93 3 24 197 82 398 398 - 1,907 77,448 1,601 4a.1.5.10 Feedwater System (RCA) 4 0 1 70 4 20 20 100 4.076 76 4..1.5.11 NSSS Sampling 15 4 4 . 5 34 58 230 230 148 137 17,622 2.155 4a.1.5.12 NSSS Sampling (Insulated) 34 1 0 5 14 54 54 - 21 1,798 643 4:.1.5.13 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 16 -- 4 20 20 - 309 40.1.5.14 Nitrogen &Hydrogen (lnsulotod) 4a.1.5.15 Nitrogon&Hydrogen FRCAInsulated) 1 4

0 0

2 0

2 1

8 8 - - ~ 17 17 - -

705 16 72 4a.1.5.16 Nitrogen &Hydrogen (RCA) 81 - 0 4 34 38 158 150 330 13,400 1,362 4a.1.5.17 OilyWoter Separator &TB Sump 24 1 5 41 19 88 89 -S 402 16.329 394 153 - - 33 186 186 - - 2,779 4a.1.5.18 Saitmater System 40.1.5.19 Turbine Son:m Supply 1,240 81 714 5.855 1.878 9,768 9,768 - 56,760 2.305,038 20,783 4a.7.5.20 Turbine Steoa Supply (RCA) 685 23 191 1,567 630 3,095 3,095 15,189 616,829 11,698 4a.1:5.21 Turbine and Generator 119 4 39 318 121 601 601 3,082 125,162 2,001 4o.t.5.22 Turbine and Generator (Insulatsed) 44 1 7 58 - 30 140 140 S - 565 22,940 696 4a.1.5 Totals 5,075 245 2,093 17,158 40 5,995 30,606 30.231 375 166.336 158 6,768,403 86,082 4.t1.6 Scaffoldingin suppor of decommissioning - 4,178 26 19 149 22 1,553 5,946 5.946 - 1,300 86 65,704 34,066 4a.1 Subtotal Petod 4a ActivityCosts 390 23,632 10,217 7.781 25.164 35.442 406 38.489 141.521 1417147 375 258.742 68,173 2.754 584 433 16,720,780 269.852 4,454 TLG Services, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Docusnent P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Deeomaisoioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 20 of24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 1

SAI STOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousnseds of 2008 Doilsars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial Volumes _ Burial I Utility and Aotcety Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Teom. Management Restorstion Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingoocy Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feat Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Moehours Manhourss ex

-1diAn IPeriod 4a AdditionalCosts 4a.2.1 Retired Reactor Head 102 151 55 503 1i 55D 1,377 1,377 2.002 211,020 2.100 84 4a.2 Subtotal Period 4a AdditionalCosts 102 151 55 503 15 5S0 1,377 1.377 2.002 211.020 2.100 84 Period 4a Collateral Costs 4s.3.1 Process liquidwaste 57 - 28 111 " 105 106 406 406 4 410 24.593 80 4a.3.2 Smal tool allowance - 283 61 344 309 - 34 - - -

4o.3 Subtotal Period4a Collateral Costs 57 283 28 111 105 168 750 716 34 410 24,593 80 Period 4a Period-Dependent Costs 4e.4.1 Dsonr supplies 79 - 29 108 108 4:.4.2 Irsurance 610 88 698 698 - 16 - - -

4a4.3 Propertytaxes 140 20 160 144 4a.4.4 Heath physics supplies 1,588 680 2,568 2.568 4a.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 3,258 704 3,962 3.962 4a.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 89 33 294 - 126 543 543 4,747 94,947 173 4a.4.7 Plant energy budget - 1,748 378 2,126 2.126 4a.4.8 NRCFees 624 90 713 713 4a.4.9 Liquid Radwaste Processing EquipmentlServices 532 115 646 646 4a.4.10 SecurtyStaff Cost 6.076 1,313 7,389 7.389 - 80,179 0

4a.4.11 DOCStaff Cost 16,188 3,499 19.688 19.688 199.114 4a.4.12 UtilityStaff Cost 22,742 4,916 27,658 27,658 360,714 89 16 - 4,747 94.947 173 650,007 4a.4 Subtotal Penod 4a Period-Dependent Costs 79 5,146 33 294 48,658 11.958 66,258 66,242 4a.0 TOTALPERIOD4a COST 526 29,163 10.485 7,981 25,164 36,344 49,080 51.165 209,907 209,482 425 258,742 75,332 2,754 584 433 17,051,340 272.204 654,545 PERIOD45- Site Decontamination Period 4b Direct DecommissioningActivities 4b.1.1 Remove spent fuel rocks 432 47 136 34 659 592 1,901 1,901 2,621 222,759 962 Disposal ot Plant Systems 4b.1.2.1 BuildingServices (Non-Power Block) 6 1 7 7 107 4b.1.2.2 CapIal Additions 85-2002 (Clean) 382 83 464 464 7.035 4b.1.2.3 CapitaI Addibons 86-2002 (contarrdnated) 338 5 40 331 - 202 916 916 - 3,206 - 130,192 5,628 4b.1.2.4 Chemical & Volume Control 731 40 83 547 312 518 2.230 2.230 5,298 1,263 320.521 12,471 4b.1.2.5 Chemioal & Volume Control (Insulated) 283 15 14 62 117 163 653 653 - 604 464 63,950 4,681 4b.1.2.6 Component CoolingWater 161 35 196 196 - - - 2,984 4b.1.2.7 Component CoolingWater (RCA) 462 13 107 877 381 1,940 1,840 - 8,505 345,395 7,753 4b.1.2.8 Compressed Air 100 22 122 122 - 1,881 4b.1.2.9 Compreossd Air (Insulated) 1 6 - 6 S

- 99 5

4b.1.2.10 Comnprssed Air (RCAInsulated) 23 0 1 11 11 46 46 4,393 387 4b.1.2.11 Compressod Air (RCA) 411 3 26 212 200 852 852 - 2,055 83,461 6.991 4b.1.2.12 Di:ssl Engine-Generator 116 25 141 141 - - 2,089 4b.1.2.13 Diesel Engine-Generator (Insulated) 3 1 3 3 48 4b.1.2.14 Electrical(Clean) 2.645 572 3.217 3.217 - 47,918 4b.1.2.15 Electrical (Contarmnated) 251 4 31 256 153 694 694 - 2,478 100,651 4,336' 4b.1.2.16 Electrical (Contaminated)- FHB 77 1 6 48 39 171 171 463 18,804 1.330 4b.1.2.17 Electrical (RCA) 1,691 30 256 2,103 1,124 5,204 5,204 20,389 828,008 28,569 4b.1.2.18 Electrical(RCA)-FHB 521 6 53 434 294 1,309 1,309 4,211 171,029 8.801 4b.1.2.19 Fire Protection 293 10 91 750 289 1,433 1,433 7.268 295,145 4,992 4b.1.2.20 Fire Protection (RCA) 203 3 27 222 127 583 583 2,153 87,426 3.365 4b.1.2.21 Gaseous Radwaste 92 1 11 86 54 244 244 837 34.009 1,529 4b.1.2.22 HVAC(Clean Insulated) 34 7 41 41 - - 9662 41.1.2.23 HVAC(Clean) 356 77 433 433 - - 6,878 4b.1.2.24 HVAC(Contnminated Insulated) 172 3 26 210 113 524 524 - 2,038 82.759 2,603 4b.1.2.25 HVAC(ContamInated) 766 15 130 1,065 536 2,512 2,512 10.324 419.267 11.785 4b.1.2.26 HVAC(Contaminated) - FHB 171 3 27 225 117 544 544 2,182 88.616 2,617 4b.1.2.27 LiquidRadwoste 310 22 36 218 175 233 995 995 2,117 787 145,111 6,344 TLG Servires, Ia.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 Denomnissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page21 of24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-ite LLRW NRC Spent Fuel site Processed Burial Volumes Burial/ Utility end Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Teem. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor index Activitn Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Coets Costs Costs Coneesency Coets Coets Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fmst Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 4b Disposal of Plant Systems (continued) 4b.1.2.28 Liquid Readwaste(Insulated) 29 2 1 4 15 17 69 69 40 61 6,847 481 4b.1.2.29 Lube Oil Distribution&Purification 211 5 42 342 - - 160 759 759 -63 3,315 134,627 3,487 4b.1.2.30 Make-up Water 208 45 253 - 253 - - - 3.794 40.1.2.31 Make-upwarter (Insulated) 4 25 25 - - - 376 20 0 3 24 15 68 68 - 237 9,606 423 40.1.2.32 Mske-up Watrer(RCAInsulated) 25 4b.1.2.33 Make-up Water (RCA) 126 2 17 138 79 363 363 - 1,340 54,432 2,103 0 1 - - 19 4b.1.2.34 Mechanical Department Equipment 4b.1.2.35 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolant 89 3 6 39 19 '49 205 205 377 77 21,764 1,602 N uclear Stee m Supply Sampling O 1 8 - - 7 30 30 74 3,017 227 4b.1.2.36 14 O 0 3a 3 13 13 32 1.293 97 4b.1.2.37 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling(Insuiated 6 -

211 25 83 591 209 300 1.419 1,419 5.726 831 303.129 3,705 41.1.2.38 Residual Heat Removal 1 12 99 - 56 256 256 960 - 39.005 1.530 4b.1.2.39 Safety Injection 88 40.1.2.40 Safety njecfion (Insulated) 4 0 0 4 2 10 10 38 1,545 62 4 35 19 90 90 342 13,901 495 41.1.2.41 Safety Injecton (RCAInsulated) 30 1 4b.1.2.42 Safety Injection (RCA) 250 5 39 168 779 779 3,081 125,112 4,084 118 25 143 - 143 - - - 2,186 4b.1.2.43 Service CoolingWater 4b.1.2.44 Service CoolingWater (RCA) 29 1 4 35 19 88 88 - 342 13,881 478 4b.1.2.45 Sewer System Expansion 40 9 49 - 49 - - 746 9 33 241 62 106 514 514 2.339 245 115,793 1,123 40.1.2.46 Spent Fuel Pd Cooling - 64 4b.1.2.47 Spent Fuei Pit Coolag - FHB - 87 10 35 255 72 122 581 581 2,474 287 124,819 1.529 12,253 237 1,244 9.795 981 6,584 31,094 25,992 5,101 94,955 4,015 4.187,504 211.427 4b.1.2 Totals 4b.1.3 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 6,267 39 29 223 32 - 2,329 8,919 8,919 - 1,949 129 98,676 51,099 Decontamination of Site Buildings 426 1,365 2.237 7,588 7,588 4,128 17,997 1,944,618 46,746 4b.1.4.1 *Reactor 1,371 1,504 345 341 4.428 4,428 2.251 4.824 498.290 23,409 4b.1.4.2 Aucitbary 986 474 89 87 232 1.204 1,379 17 30 261 366 1,103 1,103 288 1,042 99,807 6,779 4b.1.4.3 Capital Addfones 85-2004 307 105 19 1,212 1,164 1.197 148.207 6,147 41.1.4.4 Containment Penetration Area 237 140 23 28 120 299 364 1,212 268 268 75 521 47,028 616 40.1.4.5 Radwaste Storage 5 39 9 8 8 130 69 593 597 31 42 206 388 840 2,698 2,698 1,996 1,566 212,259 20,239 40.1.4.6 Fuel Handling 1,021 3.647 5,255 17,297 17:297 9,903 27,146 2.950,208 103,935 4b.1.4 Totals 3,473 2,860 518 521 14,761 59,211 54,109 5,101 106.807 33,911 7.459,147 367,424 4b.1 Subtotal Period 4b ActivityCosts 3,905 21,427 931 1,828 11,039 5.320 Period 40 AdditionalCosts 387 783 705 3,037 - 3.037 6,237 748,9?3 15,272 1,280 40.2.1 ISFSI License Termination 1,059 4 100

- 958 - - 6240 4b.2.2 License Termination Survey Planning 669 289 958 -

40.2 Subtotal Period 40 AdditionalCosts 1,059 4 100 387 1,451 994 3,995 958 3.037 6,237 748,923 15,272 7,520 Period 40 Collateral Costs 253 965 965 - 976 58,549 190 -

4b.3.1 Process liquid waste 134 - 66 264 249 -

4b.3.2 Small tool elowance 426 - - . - 92 518 518 Decommissioning Equipment Disposition - 121 107 686 100 225 1,239 1.239 6,000 397 303,726 88 4b.3.3 134 426 187 371 686 349 - 570 2,723 2,723 6,000 1,373 362,275 278 4b.3 Subtotal Period 40 Collateral Costs Period 4b Period-Dependent Costs 40.4.1 Decor supplies 1.574 567 2,141 2,141 4b.4.2 Insurance 933 135 1,068 1,068 4b.4.3 Property taxes 214 31 244 244 40.4.4 Health physics supplies 2,725 982 3,706 3,706 4b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 4,951 1,070 6,021 6.021 4b.4.6 Dispoes o1DAWgenarated 103 38 339 - 145 625 625 5,461 - 09,214 1599 4b.4.7 Plant energy budget - 2,112 457 2,569 2,569 4b.4.8 NRC Fees 954 138 1,092 1,092 4b.4.9 Liquid Radweste Processing Equipment/Services 814 176 990 990 9.,300 2,010 11,310 11,310 138.036 4b.4.10 Security Staff Cost 40.4.11 DOC Staff Cost 24,151 5,221 29,371 29,371 295,949 TLG Serviaes, Ine.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01.1604-003,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 22 of 24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC SpentFuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial / Utility an I Aetivity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Teem. Management Restoration Volumo Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Indcex Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contlesenc Costs s Casts costs Costs Cu. Pest Ca.Pe Ca.Peet C.Peas Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours

- 295 t8 413 4,0 - - 51,2 Period 4b Peoiod-Dependent Costs (continued) 4b.4.12 UtilityStaff Cost . . . ..- 32,975 7,128 40,103 40,103 - -199 521,223 4b.4 Subtotal Period 4b Period-Dependent Costs 1,574 7,676 103 38 339 71,452 18,058 99.239 99,239 - - - 5,461 105.214 955,207 4b.0 TOTALPERIOD 4b COST 5,613 30.587 1,224 2,338 11,725 6.394 72,904 34,383 165,167 157,029 3,037 5,101 112,807 46,982 8.679,558 383.173 962,727 PERIOD4e - License Termination Period 4e Direct Decommissioning Activities 4e.1.1 ORISE confirmatory suroey 153 66 219 219 4e.1.2 Terminate license 40.1 Subtotal Period 4e ActivityCosts 153 66 219 219 Period 4e AdditionalCosts 4e.2.1 License Termination Survey 11,808 5,105 16,913 16.913 209,457 3,120 4e.2 Subtotal Perod 4e AdditionalCosts 11.808 5,105 16,913 16,913 209,457 3.120 Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOCstaff relocation expenses 1,395 302 1,697 1,697 4a.3 Subtotal Period 4e Collateral Costs 1,395 302 1,697 1,697 Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 4e.4.1 Insurance 4e.4.2 Property taxes - 76 11 87 67 4o.4.3 Health physics supplies 1,240 - - - 447 1,687 1,687 4e.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 7 2 22 - 9 40 40 351 7.025 13 4e.4.5 Plant energy budget - 200 43 244 244 4e.4.6 NRC Fees 355 51 406 406 4e.4.7 Security Staff Cost 1,306 262 1,589 1,589 18.857 4e.4.8 DOCStaff Cost 4.840 1,046 5,187 5.887 57.357 4e.4.9 UtilityStaff Cost . . .. 5,213 1,127 6,340 6,340 -- - - 74,643 4e.4 Subtotal Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 1,240 7 2 22 11i991 3,017 16,279 16.279 351 7.025 13 150,857 4e.0 TOTALPERIOD4e COST 1,240 7 2 - 22 25,347 8,490 35,107 35.107 351 - - - 7,025 209.470 153.977 PERIOD4 TOTALS 6,139 60,990 11,716 10,321 36.889 42.759 147,330 94,038 410.181 401,618 3,037 5,526 371,549 122.665 2,754 584 433 25,737,920 864.847 1,771.249 PERIOD51b- SitcRestoration Period 5b Direct Decommissioning Activities Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings 5b.1.1.1 oReactor 6,873 1.486 8,359 8,359 74,901 5b.1.1.2 Adninsistration 960 209 1,168 1,168 10,358 5b. 11.3 Auxiliary 5,977 1,292 7.269 7,269 64.471 5b. .1.4 Capital Additions 85-2004 3,915 846 4,7t1 4,761 47,403 Sb.1.t.5 Chemical Storage 4 1 5 5 46 5b.1.1.6 Chlorination 8 2 10 10 99 218 1,226 1,226 12.071 5b..1 .7 CirculatingWater Tunnels 1,00' 357 77 435 435 3.785 5b.1.1.t Cold Machine Shop 5b.t1,t9 Communication 4 1 5 5 44 Sb.1..t10 Condensate PolishinglTechnicalSupport 763 165 927 927 9.300 615 133 748 748 - ,565 5b.1.t.11 Containment Penetration Area 5b.1.1.12 Discharge Structure 854 185 1,039 1,039 8.317 5b.t.1.13 FabricatiaonShop 107 23 131 131 1,223 5b.1.1.14 Fire Pump Hoos. 5 1 5 5 55 5b.1.t.1 5 -aardous Waste Storage Facility 35 8 42 42 430 Sb.t.t,1s Intake Structure 4,8a8 1,052 5,920 5.920 46,364 5b.1.1.17 Maintenance Shop 330 71 401 401 3.444 TLG Sereices, Inc.

DiabloCanyon Power Plant Document P01.1604-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 23 sf24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial IUtility and Actioity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor tndex Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs I Costs Cetinene Cents Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Fmst Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhouns Period 5b Deornition of Remaining Site Buildings(continued) 5b.1.1.18 MiscellaneousStructures 57 12 69 69 673 5b.1.1.19 NPO Permanent Warehouse 1,221 264 1,484 1,484 14,093 5b.1.1.20 Ponds 2 0 2 2 24 0 1 -1 - 14 5b.1.1.21 Portable Fire Pump & Fuel Caol 1

- 9 2 11 - 11 - 108 5b.1.1.22 Pretreatment 5b.1.1.23 Radwssta Storage 1,595 345 1,940 1,940 17,854 9 52 52 662 5b.1.1.24 Radmaste Storage Facility(Additional) 42 5b.1.1.25 RotorWarehouse 742 160 902 902 9,938 5b.1.1.26 Security 303 65 368 368 3,944 5b.1.1.27 Security Buildings (Additional) 46 10 56 56 722 5b.1.1.29 Simulaton 370 8S 450 450 4,191 821 177 998 998 8,888 5b.1.1.29 Steam Generator Storage Facility 1 3 3 28 5b.1.t.30 Telephone Terminal 2 5b.1.1.31 Turbine 4,940 1,068 6,007 6,007 57,743 5b.1.1.32 Turbine Pedestal 1,212 262 1,474 1.474 11,300 30 7 37 37 367 5b.1.1.33 Vehicle Maintenance 5b.t.1.34 Waste Water Holding&Treatment Facility 20 4 25 25 238 5b.1.1.35 Fuet Handling 1,689 365 2,054 2.054 16,750 5b.1.1 Totals 39,784 8,600 48,384 48.384 436,410 Site Closeout Activities 5b.1.2 Remove Rubble 1,470 318 1,787 1.787 8,191 5b.t,3 Grade & landscape site 2,272 - 491 2,763 - 2,763 4.587 5b.t.4 Final reportto NRC 80 17 97 97 - 1667 5b.1 Subtotal Peltod 5b ActivityCosts 43,526 80 9,426 53,032 97 52.934 449.187 667 Period 5b AdditionalCosts 5b.2.1 Concrete Crushing 8.467 7 - 1.832 10.307 - 10.307 37,68 -

5b.2.2 ISFSIDemolitionand Site Restoration 545 24 123 692 692 - 3,349 80 5b.2.3 Breakuater Demolitionand Removal 33.893 12,211 46.104 - 46.104 128,379 46.649 5b.2.4 Cofferdam Constructon and Teardeon 438 - - i5 532 - 532 4,004 5b.2 Subtotal Period 5DAdditionalCosts 43.344 7 24 14.261 57.636 692 56.944 173.418 46,729 Period 5b Collateral Costs 5b.3.1 Smalotool allowance 801 173 974 974 5b.3 Subtotal Penod lb Collateral Costs 801 173 974 974 Period 5b Perinod-DependentCosts 5h.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Pnrperty taxes 207 30 236 236 5b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 6,420 1,388 7,807 7.807 5b.4.4 Plant energy budget 273 59 331 331 -

5b.4.5 Secunty Staff Cost 3,553 768 4.321 4,321 51,291 12.616 2.727 15,343 15,343 145.326 5b.4.6 DOCStaff Cost 5b.4.7 UtilityStaff Cost 5,679 1,228 6,906 6,906 83,349 5b.4 Subtotal Period 5b Period-Dependent Costs 6,420 22.327 6.199 34,945 34.945 279.966 5b.0 TOTALPERIOD 5b COST 94,090 22.430 30,059 146,587 97 692 145,797 622,605 327.362 PERIOD5 TOTALS 94,090 22,430 30.059 146.987 97 692 145,797 - 622,605 327,362 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Po.- Pl..t Doctuoent P01-1604-003, Rev. 0 D-.oon-iooio-irg Cost Anoysfyio Appendix D, Page24 of 24 Table D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate

.(Thousanasds of 2008 Dollars)

Off-Sito LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility ood Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Teom. Managemnot Restoration Volumo Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor A hifty Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feot Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Foot Wt.. Lbs. Manhours Manhours led ex TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSION 13,500 162,429 12,129 11,130 36.889 44.211 645,036 231,331 1,156,654 555,017 448,831 152,806 371,549 137,862 2,754 584 433 26,147,370 1,578,341 6.730,738 TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSIONWITH2S% CONTINGENCY: $1.156,654 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALNRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 47.98% OR: $555,017 thousands of 2008 dollars SPENTFUEL MANAGEMENTCOST IS 38.8% OR: $448,831 thousands of 2008 dollars NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITIONCOST IS 13.21% OR: $152.806 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALLOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVEWASTEVOLUMEBURIED (EXCLUDINGGTCC): 141,201 Cubic Feet "OTALGREATERTHANCLASS C RADWASTEVOLUMEGENERATED: 433 Cubic Feet OTAL SCRAP METALREMOVED: 76.674 Tons "OTALCRAFTLABOR REQUIREMENTS: 1,578.341 Man-hours End Notes:

hai - indicates that this activitynot charged as decommissioning expense.

a - indicates Sealthis activity perfored by decommissioning staff.

0 - indicates that this value is loss than 0.5 but is non-zro.

a cell containing -" indicates a zero,value TLG Ser-ices, Ine.