Text

Submittal of Biennial Decommissioning Funding Status Report
	ML091820277
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	06/23/2009
From:	Keenan J; Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	LR-N09-00145
	Download: ML091820277 (102)
	v • d • e

PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236,, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 0 PSEG NuclearL.L. C.

10 CFR 50.75 LR-N09-00145 June 23, 2009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 NRC Docket No. 50-354

Subject:

Hope Creek Decommissioning Funding Report: Submittal of Hope Creek Site Specific SAFSTOR Estimate

References:

1) Letter from Jeffrie J. Keenan (PSEG Nuclear LLC) to USNRC, March 31, 2009, LR-N09-0074.

2) Letter from Jeffrie J. Keenan (PSEG Nuclear LLC) to USNRC, June 18, 2009, LR-N09-0139.

In Reference 1, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) submitted our biennial decommissioning funding status report. PSEG elected to employ the SAFSTOR method and reported our change in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1). In Reference 2, PSEG indicated that the SAFSTOR site specific estimate for Hope Creek was targeted for docketed submittal on June 23, 2009. Consistent with that targeted date, attached to this letter is the "Forty Year SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Analysis for Hope Creek". This cost analysis which employs the SAFSTOR option demonstrates an appropriate level of funding for Hope Creek. Associated operational and maintenance costs during the SAFSTOR period are considered within the estimate.

There are no additional commitments made in this letter. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 856-339-5429.

Sincerely, Manager - Licensing

Document Control Desk Page 2 LR-N09-0145 cc: R. Ennis, Project Manager - USNRC Robert E. Carlson, Chief, Financial Policy and Rulemaking Branch - USNRC Michael A. Dusaniwskyj, Financial Policy and Rulemaking Branch - USNRC NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Hope Creek

PSEG NUCLEAR LLC FORTY-YEAR SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS FOR-THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION JUNE23,2009

Table of Contents I. Sum m ary ................................................................................................................. 3 II. Methodology ............................... I....................................................................... 5 III. Tables ............................................................................................................. 6 Table 1: Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements ................................... 7 Table 2: Summary of-Cost Efficiency Adjustments .......................................... 8 Table 3: SAFSTOR vs. Non-SAFSTOR Summary of Costs ........................... I11 1....

Table 4: Schedule of Annual Expenditures ................................ I..................... 12 Table 5: Projected Annual Cash Flows and Fund Balances .............. 14 Table 6: Decommissioning Waste Summary .................................................... 15 Table 7: Detailed Cost Analysis ....................................................................... 16 IV. Appendices ........................................................................................................ 17 Appendix A: Time Line ........................................................................................ 18 Appendix B: December .2002 TLG Cost Analysis ........................................... 19

I. Summary This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station following the end of its current licensed operating period on April 11, 2026.1 This report relies in part on a December 2002 report by TLG Services entitled Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation ("TLG Report"), With updates .to account for the time value of money and a change in decommissioning method from DECON to a forty-year SAFSTOR. The TLG Report is included in its entirety in Appendix B to this report.

This report is based on two fundamental assumptions: (1) spent nuclear fuel ("SNF")

management costs will be borne by the United States Government; and (2) the Unit will be placed in a forty-year period of safe storage following end of license-in 2026.

While spent fuels management costs are discussed in this report and its appendices, those costs are contractually the responsibility of the Government of the United States, 2 and are therefore not considered a liability that must be funded by the Hope Creek Decommissioning Trust Fund. Hope Creek has an on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("ISFSI"), that is appropriately sized to receive all SNF generated from Hope Creek through its licensed life.

PSEG Nuclear considered the following three decommissioning options for Hope Creek:

DECON: The equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and site that contain radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminatedto a level that In the third quarter of 2009, PSEG Nuclear will be submitting an application for License Renewal that, if approved, would extend the operating period of Hope Creek for an additional 20 years. As

-that application has not yet been submitted or approved by the NRC, this report does not address license renewal.

See US Department of Energy Contract No..DE-CROI-83NE4441 1,.Hope Creek Generating Station No. 1 Unit Contract for Disposal of Spent Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Jun.

1983), as amended.

permits termination of the license after cessation of operations. Until 2008, this was the strategy that was to be used to decommission Hope Creek.

SAFSTOR: The facility is placed in a safe stable condition.and maintained in that state until it is subsequently decontaminated and dismantled to levels that permit license termination. During SAFSTOR, a facility is left intact, but the fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel and radioactive liquids have been drained from systems and components and then processed. Radioactive decay occurs during the SAFSTOR period, thus reducing the levels of radioactivity in and on the material and potentiallythe quantity of material that must be disposed of during decontamination and dismantlement. This is the method PSEG will use to decommission Hope Creek.

ENTOMB: involves encasing radioactive structures, systems, and components in a.structurally long-lived substance, such as concrete. The entombed structure is appropriately maintained, and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactivity decays to a level that permits termination of the license. Because most power reactors will have radionuclides in concentrations exceeding the limits for unrestricted use even after 100 years, this option will generally not be feasible and was not deemed to be viable for Hope Creek.

This report-assumes a forty-year period of safe storage ("SAFSTOR") after end of its current licensed operating period. PSEG Nuclear LLC, the Operator of Hope Creek, has chosen a forty year SAFSTOR period (approximately 7.6 half-lives of the radioactive isotope Cobalt 60) as a prudent measure to reduce overall radiation exposure to workers during the decommissioning period. An added benefit of the SAFSTOR method is that worker efficiency will be greater due to fewer radiological restrictions during performance of the work. However, economic benefits from gains in efficiency will be partially off-set by maintenance and security costs during the SAFSTOR period, and these costs have been explicitly addressed in this report.

-.-4.-

II. Methodology The TLG Report provided in Appendix B to this report provided the primary source of information related to costs associated with decommissioning Hope Creek. PSEG personnel used the information in that report to develop the estimate applicable to SAFSTOR described in this report.

Because costs were reported in the TLG Report in 2002 dollars, the first step in the process was to escalate the 2002 costs to 2008 dollars. This re-evaluation produced an increase adjustment of 16% for 2008 Labor & Equipment Costs over the 2002 TLG Report. The New Jersey labor rates from 2003 through 2008 as well as Construction Equipment Costs over the same time frame were used to develop the overall adjustment.

The SAFSTOR Decommissioning value was arrived at by taking the 2008 immediate decommissioning cost and adjusting itto reflect significantreduction in residual radioactivity thereby reducing/eliminating-the radiation hazards during the dismantling and demolition. This expected improvement will lead to a reduction in overall decommissioning cost, and that improvement is reflected in this study. Details of the adjustment factors used are provided in Table' 2.

Aside from the conversion from 2002 to 2008 dollars, two other significant changes were made to update the 2002 TLG Report to address the current forty-year SAFSTOR strategy for Hope Creek. The first change involved shifting the initial costs for preparing

-the plant for decommissioning from the start of the seven-year decommissioning and dismantlement period to prior to the start of the SAFSTOR period. These up-front costs are incurred in three years immediately following termination of operations. The second major change was adding a forty-year period of safe storage prior-to final decommissioning. A timeline of these .activities is shown in Appendix A to this report.

Detailed information showing cash flows, major events, and assumptions is contained in a one-page summary -in Table 5 of this report.

IH. Tables Table 1: Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements Cost2002$ Cost2008$ Percent of Work Category' (thousands) (thousands) Total Costs Decontamination 30,745 35,664 3.9%

Removal 192,120 222,859 24.5%

Packaging 16,049 18,617 2.0%

Transportation 6,008 6,969 0.8%

Waste Disposal 132,615 153,833 16.9%

Off-Site Waste Processing 53,630 62,211 6.8%

Program Management (incl.

Eng. and Security) 260,625 302,325 33.3%

Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 9,060 10,510 1.2%

ISFSI Related (including capital) 40,239 46,677 5.1%

Insurance and Regulatory Fees 7,148 8,292 0.9%

Energy 11,769 13,652 1.5%

Characterization and Licensing Surveys 13,937 16,167 1.8%

Misc. Equipment and Site Services 9,157 10,622 1.2%

Total 783,102 908,398 100.0%

License termination (10 CFR § 50.75 decommissioning activities) 4 790,991 Site Restoration (non- 50.75 activities) 117,407 3 Includes contingencies.

4 This total includes spent fuel management.

Table 2: Summary-of Cost Efficiency Adiustments SAFSTOR Adjustment Factors Cost Reduction Cost Adjustment Efficiency Contain. To Factor Decontam.

Factors SAFSTOR TLG TLG

-2002$ 2008$ 2008$

(thousands) (thousands) (thousands)

Decommissioning Non Contaminated 71% $ 399,653 $ 463,597 90% 0% $ 417,237

-Contaminated 29% $ 163,239 $ 189,357 0% 25% $ 142,018 Spent Fuel Mgmt 100% $ 50,144 $ 58,167 100% 0% $ 58,167 Other Fixed 100% $ .40,823 $ 47,355 100% 0% .$ 47,355 Sub-Total $ 653,859 $ 758;476 $ 664,777 Contingency $ 129,241 $ 149,920 $ 130,961 Total Hope Creek' $ 783,100 ý$ 908,396 $ 795,738 Individual line items are rounded so totals may varyslightly due to-round-off-error.

- 8--

Location: Hope Creek Generating Station Project: Decommissioning of Nuclear Plants After Safe Storage Decorhmissioning Cost For Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant After Forty Years of Safe Storage AnialYsis:

Bases of Cost =TLG Cost 2002 Plant Prep & Temp Service Rigging Construction Control & Tooling Security Staff (except Spent Fuel Mgt.)

Utility Staff (except Spent Fuel Mgt.)

Final Site Survey Based on the cost of items to be decontaminated (from TLG estimate), determined that Contaminated Factors represent approx. 29% of the total cost to decommission a Nuclear Plant. Therefore, Non - contamihated factors represent approx. 71% of the total cost; Cost Efficiency Factoirsi The 2002 TLG Estimate was based on single unit demolition basis for Hope Creek, and in our review We acknowledge an economy scale should be applied since Salem and Hope Creek will be done in tandem.

We will reference EPRI study ESC-4685 SIA 83-420 a Nuclear Power Construction study prepared by United & Construction Inc.

that supports multi unit construction has efficiency reduction (summarized below).

Multi Unit Efficiency Direct Craft Labor Station Reactor Type 1-2 1-3 Hope Creek BWR ]1%-22% 28%-36% Data Source EPRI p. 3-79 & 3-80 Cost Assimptions:

Hope Creek -

in consideration of the EPRI study, efficiency reduced the variable costs. Fixed cost elements (see base cost allocation above) remain constant on a per unit basis. The TLG cost was ieduced by 10% since this will be a mass demolition (non contaminated)

Vs. controlled demolition (contaminated)

The Spent Fuel will follow the same fact pattern and cash flow pattern as in the 2002 TLG Study for Hope Creek.

Since decommissionifig after 40 yrs Would be equivalent to normal demolition work in a Fossil Plant an additional allowance of i5% savings has been made to contaminated portion of the work only. (Working in a contaminated area can accouht for a loss of productivity of an additional 25% or 2 Man Hrs/Day). The breakdown Of unproductive time is listed below:

is based on field observations made at the nuclear sites.

Security: 0.5 MH 6.25%

Suit Up requirements (two times/day) 1 MH 12.5%

Clean up at the end of day 0.5 MH 6.3%

Total 2 MH 25.0%

The other factors affecting productivity in a containinated area physical restrictions congestion, height adjustment in work space (crawl space or 40ft. In the aiir), outage schedule (comprised time line) and ALARA (level of allowance radiation) & proximity of other oh going projects.

The cost assumptions correspond to present circumstances and to the present status & availability of technology.

Table 3: SAFSTOR vs. Non-SAFSTOR Summary of Costs 2008$

(millions)

Non SAFSTOR SAFSTOR Description TLG TLG (esc.) PSEG 2002 2008 2008 Site Specific Cost Lic. Termination 625.2 725.3 608.5 Spent Fuel Mgmt. 56.7 65.7 69.8 Site Restoration 101.2 117.4 117.4 Total (100% Share) 783.1 908.4 795.7 6

PSEG Share (w/Spent Fuel) 783.1 908.4 795.7.

Spent Fuel Costs (56.7) (6537) (69 .8)

PS share (w/o Spent Fuel) 726.4 842.7 72:5.9 Site Restoration (PSEG.Share) (101.2) (117.4) (117 .4)

PS share (w/o Site Restoration & Spent Fuel) 625.2 '725.3 60:8.5 6 The spent fuel management cost include an allocation from the contingency shown on table 2.

.11 1-

Table 4: Schedule of Annual Expenditures 2008$

(thousands)

O&M Security Equipment & During 7

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total SAFSTOR 2026 6,587 150 225 37 487 7,485 2027 33,842 3,905 1,085 868 3,688 .43,387 2028 9,863 1,751 922 1,014 4,886 18,436 2029 4,500 2030 4,500 2031 4,500

,2032 4,500 2033 4,500 2034 4;500 2035 4,500 2036 4,500 2037 4,500 2038 4,500 2039 4,500 2040 4,500 2041 4,500 2042 4,500 2043 4,500 2044 4,500 2045 4,500 2046 4,500 2047 4,500 2048 4,500 2049 4,500 2050 4,500 2051 4,500 2052 4,500

,2053 4,500 2054 4,500 2055 4,500

.2056 .4,500 2057 4,500 2058 4,500 2059 4,500 2060 -4,500 2061 4,500 2062 4,500 2063 4,500 2064 4,500 2065 4,500 2066 4,500 Includes total expenses including security and O&M for years.2026-2028 and 2069-2075. Values are rounded.

-12,-

O&M Security Equipment & During 7

Year Labor Materials Energy -Burial Other Total SAFSTOR 2067 4,500

'2068 4,500 2069 29,150 1,580 779 25 1,297 32,832 2070 29,045 9,580 731 18,494 7,813 65,663 2071 43,304 13,013 1,088 29,620 11,470 98,495 2072 106,793 '14,165 2,438 30,556 10,202 164,158 2073 84,654 10,588 2,680 22,243 11,154 131,326 2074 82,342 11,618 757 79 3,699 98,495 2075 43,978 18,619 411 .2,651 65,663 Total 469,558 84,971 11,113 102,937 .'57,347 725,938 180,000 Table 5: Projected Annual Cash Flows and Fund Balances Annual Expenditures DTF Fund Balance Year 2008S 2% Real Rate of Return SAFSTOR Notes (thousands) less expenditures Year 320,400 Balance as of May 31, 2009 2009 324,138 2009 from May 31, 2009 to December 2009.

2010 330,621 2011 337,233 2012 343,978 2013 350,857 2014 357,875 2015 365,032 2016 372,333 2017 379,779 Fund balances escalates at 2% per 2018 387,375 annum during remaiming period of 2019 395,122 operation I

2020 403,025 2021 411,085 2022 419,307 2023 427,693 2024 436,247 2025 444,972 2026 7,485 446,386 Expenses to put plant in SAFSTOR 2027 43,387 411,927 Condition, includes security and 2028 18,436 401,730 O&M.

2029 4,500 405,264 1 2030 4,500 408,870 2 2031 4,500 412,547, 3 2032 -4,500 416,298 4 2033 4,500 420,124 5 2034 4,500 424,026 6 2035 4,500 428,007 7 2036 4,500 432,067 8 2037 4,500 436,208 9 2038 4,500 440,433 10 2039 4,500 444,741 11 2040 4,500 449,136 12 2041 4,500 453,619 13 2042 4;500 458,191 14 2043 4,500 462,855 15 2044 4,500 467,612 16 2045 4,500 472,464 17 2046 4,500 477,414 18 2047 4,500 482,462 19 2048 4,500 487,611 20 2049 4,500 492,863 21 Annual Security and O&M cost

,2050 4,500 498,221 22 during SAFSTOR is $4.5MM.

2051 4,500 503,685 23 2052 4,500 509,259 24 2053 4,500 514,944 25 2054 4,500 520,743 26 2055 4,500 526,658 27 2056 4,500 532,691 28 2057 4,500 538,845 29 2058 4,500 545,121 30 2059 4,500 551,524 31 2060 4,500 558,054 32

.2061 4,500 564,715 33 2062 4,500 571,510 34 2063 4,500 578,440 35 2064 4,500 585,509 36 2065 4,500 592,719 37 2066 4,500 600,073 38 2067 4,500 607,575 39 2068 4,500 615,226 40 2069 32,832 594,699 2070 65,663 540,930

.207 1 453,254 Costs during 7-year 98,495 2072 164,158 298,162 decommissioning period include 2073 131,326 172,799 security and O&M.

2074 98,495 77,761 2075 65,663 13,653 Table 6: Decommissioning Waste Summary Please see, Table 5.1, Decommissioning Waste Summary, in the TLG Report,.attached as Appendix B to this report.

-- 15.-

Table 7: Detailed Cost Analysis Please see Appendix C in the TLG Report, attached as Appendix B to this report.

-16,-

IV. Appendices A. Time Line B. December 2002 TLG Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A: Time Line 2029-Activity 2026 2027 2028 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 ShUtdown through Transition x x x Safe storage period x Decommissioning and Site Restoration x x x x x x x S18-

Appendix B: December 2002 TLG Cost Analysis

Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for the HOPE CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

.preparedfor PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC preparedby TLG Services, Inc.

Bridgewater, Connecticut A

'December 2002

g9 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation DocumentPO7-1425-002,*Rev.0 Decommissioniing Cost Analysis Page ii of xii APPROVALS D/az7Ve Project.Manager Wiffiam A. Cloutier, Jr. Date Project Engineer Albert A..Koehl Date Technical Manager

Geo*eyM' Grifltgth Date Quality-Assurance Manager cO0ay-oIYIIXY r K-

.TLG Services.-Inc. G sCopuyri-ght PSEG Nuclear1999/2000

i00 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-i 425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page iii of .xii TABLE OF CONTENTS.

SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMI ARY ....... ...........................................................

1. INTRODU CTION ..................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Objective of Study ................ !.............. ........................................................... 1

ýL2 Site Description ................................................. 1-1 1.3 Regulatory Guidance ............ ........................... ------ 1--2 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste PolicyAct................. *.. . . ......................... 1-4 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act ............. 1-6 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination .......................... 1ý6 1.6........

2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE .................................................... 2-1 2.1 Period 1-Preparations ........................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Engineering and Planning..; ......................................... 2-1 2.1.2. SiteiPreparations ................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Period 2- Decommi*sioning Operations ............................ _2-3 2.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration ................................... 2-7 2.4 Post Period 3- ISFSI Operations ...............................................

3. COST ESTIM ATE ................................................................................................... 3-1

.. 3.1 Basis of Estim ate........................... !............................................................. .3-1 3.2 Methodology ......................... .................... 3a 3.3 Financial Components of the Cost Model...,. .............................................. 3-3 3.3 1 Contingency ....... . . .... ......................... 3-3 Financial Risk ................................................

3.3.2 3.3.2~~~~ ..................... ;........................................ :.................... 3 3.4 Site-Specific Considerations .......................................................................... 3.7 3.4.1 Spent Fuel........... *. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -7 3.4.2 ReactorVessel and Internal Components .................... 3-8 3.4.3 Primary System Components ................................. 3-10 3.4.4 Main'Turbine and Condenser .................................................... 3-10 3.4.5 Transportation Methods ............................... 3-10 3.4.6 Low-LevelRadioactive WasteDisposal .............................................. 3-11 3.4.7 -Site Conditions Following Decommissioning ............... 311 3.5 Assumptions ................................................................................................. 3-12

-3.5.1 Estimating Basis .................................... 3-12

.3.5.2 .Labor Costs ......................................................................................... 3-13 3.5.3 DesignConditions ........................................................................... 3-13 r'PT,r,W~n£~. Inn-. CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating-Station Document.O 7-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page iv of xii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 3.5.4 General.......................................................................................... :3-14 3.6 Cost Estimate Summary ................................ .... 3-16

4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ........................................... .........

. .... ..... *........... 4-1 4.1 Schedule Estimate Assumptions .............................................................. .. 4-1 4.2 Project Schedule .............. 7......................... ............................................. 4-2

5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES............. . . ........................................ 5-1

6. RESULTS ........................................................................... .......

. 6-i.

.7. REFEREN CES ....................................... %................................................................ 7-1 TABLES Cost Sumuty...... ............ ................... ................. x.

3.1, Schedule ofAnnual.Expenditures by Period ............................. 3-17 5.1 Decommissioning Waste Summary .............................. . . .... 5-3 6.1 Summary of Decommissioning'Cost Elements .......................................... 6-4

'FIGURES 4.1 DecommissioningActivity Schedule .......... ..................... 4-3 4.2 Decommissioning Timeline .......................... . ........... 4-5 APPENDICES A. Unit Cost FactorDevelopment.... ....................... I................................... -. A-B. Unit Cost Factor Listing ............................... - B-1 C. Detailed Cost Analyses .......................................... ........I C-I "T'T;/'* .qorv*ir.o* "T*.o. Cowmright PSE0 Nuclear 199.9/2000

102 Hope Creeik.NuclearGeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 DecomrmissioningCost Analysis PagezY of xii REVISION LOG SNo. CRANo. Date It em Revised "

Reason for Revision 12-05-02 Original Issue T

TEG Services. Inn- PKq~f, NTIL,,1PZ,77'1%QQo/2flfl FTA~Servces.Inc.C.6vvripri.f

&"3 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document-P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis .Pagevi of xii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report presents the costs to promptly decommission (decontaminate and dismantle) the 'Hope Creek Nuclear .Generating Station (Hope Creek) following a scheduled cessation of plant operation. The analysis relies upon the site-specific, technical information developed for a previous evaluation prepared in 1995-96,

-updated to reflect current plant conditions and operating assumptions. The estimate is designed to provide PSEG Power, LLC with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of thenuclear station.

The estimate is ba:sed 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 estimate incorporates a cooling period of approximately five years for the :spent fuel that resides in the 1plant's storage pool when operations cease. Any residual fuel remaining in the pool after the five-year period will be relocated to an on-site, interim storage facility to .await the transfer to a DOE facility. The estimate al]oincludes :the.

dismantling of non-'essential structures and limited restoration of the site.

Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission .(NRC) provided general decommissioning guidance in the rule adopted on June .27, 1988.11] In this rule -the .NRC set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear 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, -

andENTOMB.

DECON is defined. as 'the alternative in w-hich the. equipment, structures, and portions of a facility -and site -containing -radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a.level that permits the property, to -be .released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation -of operations."[ 2 ]

U.S. Code of-Federal'Regulations, Title'1O,.Parts 30, 40,150, 51, 70.and72 ,General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," NuclearRegulatory Commission, Federa!'Register Volume 53,.Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.),.June 27,'.1988.

.2 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3.

Tnc. CopyrightlPSG.-'Nuclear1999/2000

104

.Rope Creek Nuclear7Generating Station 'Document P07-1425-002,.Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page-vii of xii 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-"13 ]

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."r4FWAs with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within .60.years.

The 60-year restriction 'has limited the practicality of the ENTOMB alternative .,at commercial reactors that generate significant amounts of long-lived radioactive.

material. As such, the NRC is currently re-evaluating this'option and the technical requirements and regulatory actions that would be necessary. for entombment to become a viable option.

in 1996, the NRC published revisions to -the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means, of enhancing efficiency and uniformity -in the decommissioning process. The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process -fromoperations to decommissioning. IRegulatory Guide 1.184, issued in -July 2000, further, describes the methods -and procedures that are acceptable to the INRC staff for implementing the.requirements of the 1996 revised rule that relate to the initial activities and the major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this anaTysis fo1low the general guidance and process described in-the amended regulations.

Methodolosv The.methodology used to develop the estimate described within this document follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelinesl5l'-developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute). This reference a Ibic.

4 Ibid. PageFR24023, Column.2.

!P.S. LaGuardia et aL, "Guidelines forProducing Commercial Nuclear Power-Plant

.Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIFLNESP-036,-May 1986.

TLG Seruices,.Inc- CopyrightPSEG.Nuclear.19/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating.Station DocumentP0741425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Pageviii of xii describes a unit factor method for determining decommissioning activity costs. The unit factors used in this analysis incorporate site-specific costs, and the latest available information on worker productivity in decommissioning.

The estimate also 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, Sh6reham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee,1Humboldt Bay-3, Oyster Creek, 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 decommis sioming 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. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting costs.

-Contingency Consistent with *industry practice, contingencies are applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs developed as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope, particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has :shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs 'are likely -to occur."[6 ] The cost elements in the estimate is 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 alpercentage contingency applied on a lTe-item basis. This contingency factor is anearly universal element in a-ll large-scale construction and demolition projects. It should be -notedthatcontingency, as used in this :estimate, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the remaining operating life of the station.

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

-throughout the program. Inclusion of contingency is necessary to prbvide assurance

that suffidient funding willbe available to accomplish the intended tasks.

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

W-17,* .OT-71flO.Q An' P Copvrimht PSEG*Nuclear 199912000

.10.6 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P0 7-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page ix of xii 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. With the passage of the 'Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act!' in 1980, and -its Amendments of 1985,17] the states becameultimately responsible for the disposition of radioactive waste generated within their own borders.

New Jersey is a member of the three-state Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, formed after South Carolina formally joined the Northeast Regional Compact. The Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Facility, located in South Carolina, is expected to be available-to PSEG Nuclear to support the decommissioning of Hope Creek. It is also assumed that PSEG Nuclear could access other disposal sites should it prove cost effective. As such, rate schedules for both the Barnwell and the Envirocare facility in Utah were use& to generate disposal costs.

.Hih-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"f8] in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. This legislation also created a Nuclear Waste Fund to cover the cost of the program, which is funded by the sale of electricity from nuclear reactors since 1993, and an estimated equivalent value for assemblies irradiated prior to 1983. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, along with the individual disposal contracts with 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. Operation of DOE's yet-to-be constructed geologic repository is currently scheduled for the year 2010, assuming that the licensing could. be completed expeditiously and a national transportation system established. The agency has no plans for :receiving spent fuel from commercial nuclear plant sites prior to this date and startup operations may be phased in, creating additional delays.

The *RC requires licensees to establish a program to manage and provide .funding for the caretaking of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site :until title of the fuel is transferred to the DOE. For estimating purposes, PSEG Nuclear h1as assumed that the high-level waste repository, or some interim storage facility, will be :fully

'Tow-Level RadioactiveWaste Policy.Amendments Actof 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1/15/86.

B "TNuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Rlidioactive.Management, 1982.'.

T77.r- TT.C4.QDT,~Pc~ APS17GNuclear .1999/2000 T7.e-Cozvvrisrht

107 Hope Creek.NuclearGeneratingStation Document PO 7-1425-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCostAnalysis Page xof -Xii operational by 2015. Interim storage of the fuel, until the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in an independent facility located on the Artificial Island site. This will allow PSEG Nuclear to proceed with decommissioning and terminate its operating licenses. in the shortest time possible.

The spent fuel storage facility, which is independently licensed and operated, will be sized to accommodate the inventory of spent fuel residing in the plant's storage pools at the cessation of operations, in addition to any operational inventory already in residence. When emptied, the station could be dismantled without maintaining the wet storage pools. Based upon this Scenario, and an anticipated rate of transfer, spent fuel is projected to.remain on site for approximately 20 years following the cessation of plant operations.

Site Restoration

.The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the isite 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 demolition once the license is terminated 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.is more efficient and less costly than if the process were deferred. Experience at shutdown generating stations has shown that plant facilities quickly degrade without maintenance,. adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public -and to the demolition work force. Consequently, this study assumes that :site structures will be removed to a nominal depth -ofthree feet below the local grade level wherever possible. The site will then be graded and stabilized.

Summary The DECON decommissioning -alternative involves the prompt removal .of the

.contaminated and activated plant components, includling structural materials, from the site following permanent shutdown. The facility operator may then have unrestricted use of -the site with no further requirement for a license. This study assumes that the remainder of the non-essential plant -systems and structures, not previously removed in support of license termination, are dismantled and the site restored.

The scenario analyzed for the purpose of generating the estimate :is described in Section 2. The assumptions are presented in Section 3,.along with scheduiles of annual expenditures. The major cost contributors -are identified in -Section 6, -with detailed VT.t ~ Ti-ti'. rn73'Wr-i-Crh.f ARM A77rf4orr.ý 1.0-9-919nnn

'HopeCreek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0

,Decommissioning Cost Analysis Pagexi of xii activity costs, waste volumes, and associated -manpower requirxements deliDeated in Appendix C. A cost summary is provided at the end of this section for the major cost components.

TW-Services. Inc. Copyright PSEG Nuclear .1999/2000

109 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station .Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Page xii of xii

COST

SUMMARY

(Thousands of 2002 Dollars)

Activity -Cost Decontamination 30,745 Removal 192,120 Packaging 16,049 Transportation 6,008 Waste Disposal 132,615 53,630; Off-siteWastei~rocessing Program Management (including. Enigineering and Security) .26b,625 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 9,060 ISFSI Related (including capital), 40,239 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 7,148 Energy 11,769 Characterization and Licensing.Surveys. *13,937 Mfisc. Equipment and.Site Services 9,157 Total ' 783,102 License Termination -2 681,889 Site Restoration 101,213 M1]Colunns nmay not add due to rounding.

21iIncludes spent fuel management expenditures.

"TT, rroqmrTices..Inc. CopyrightPSEGNuclear1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station -Document P0 7-1425-002,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section .1, PageJ of 7

1. ]INTRODUCTION

\

This decoxs._sioni-ig an.a.ysis j designed to ptovide PSEG Power with sufficient information to prepare the financial planning documents for decommissioning, as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission). I'tis not a detailed assessment, but a financial analysis prepared in advance of the engineering and planning that will be required to carry out .the decommissioning of the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Hope Creek).

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUD.Y The objectives of this study are to prepare comprehensive estimates of.the costs to decommission Hope Creek for the scenario outlined in Sectioný 2; to define a sequence of events, and project the volume of waste produced from the decontamination and dismantling activities.

For the purposes of this study, the shutdown date was taken as April li, 2026. This time frame, which reflects 40 years of operating life, -was used as an input for scheduling the decommissioning activities.

1-2 SITE DESCRIPTION Hope Creek is located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank of the Delaware'River in Lower Alloways -Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. 'The site is 15 -miles south of the Delaware'Memorial Bridge, 18 miles south of Wilmington, 'Delaware, 30 miles -southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 7Y miles southwest of Salem, New Jersey.

The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS),consists of a boiling water -reactor and a two-loop -recirculation system. The generating -unit has a rated core thermal power of 3,29.3 MWt (thermal) with a corresponding gross .electrical output of approximately 1,118 MWe and a net electrical output of .1,067 megawatts (electric).

The two-loop reactor recirculation. system contains two, vertical centrifugal pumps and 'is located within the "primary containment structure." This structure consists of the drywell, the suppression system, and interconnecting vent system. The drywell is a steel pressure-vessel in the shape of alight'bulb.

The pressure suppression chamber .is a torus-shaped steel pressure vessel

,located below and encircling-the drywelL MG.Seruices. Inc. GCopyrihtPSEGNuclear2.I99/2000 "

Hope Creek Nuclear-Generating Station Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section1J,_Page2 of 7 This chamber is connected to the drywell by eight equally spaced vent pipes.

These vent pipes are colnected to a common header within the suppression chamber. Eighty downcomers, connected to the header, terminate below the water level of the suppression pool. As a system, the drywell, suppression chamber, and interconnecting piping, acts to reduce the pressure increase in the event of a local process system piping failure.'

Heat produced in the reactor is converted -to electrical energy -by the'power conversion system. A turbine-generator system converts the thermal energy of steam produced in the reactor vessel into -mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The unit's turbine generator consists of a tandem compound, six-flow, non-reheat unit. It is comprised of one double-flow, high-pressure turbine and three double-flow, low-pressure turbines driving a direct-coupled generator at 1,800 rpm. The turbine is operated in a closed feedwater cycle, which condenses the steam; the condensate/-feed-water is* returned to the reactor recirculation system. Heat rejected in the main condenser is removed by the:

circulating water system.

The circulating water system-is designed to circulate the flow of water required to removed the heat load from the main condenser and other auxiliary equipment and to discharge it to the atmosphere through a natural draft cooling tower- Some heat may be rejected t6 the Delaware estuary froma the cold water side 6f the cooling tower in the form of blowdown.

-1.3 RE GUIATORY GUIDANCE The .-NRC provided initial decommissioning guidance in its rule "General Requirements ýfor Decommissioning Nuclear- Facilities," issued in June 1988.]* Thfis set forth -rule technical and Imiancial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear 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 INRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.-159, 'Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors,"1 2] which provided 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 andprovided guidance on the content and form of the -financial assurance mechanisms indicated in the rule

-amendments.

-* Annotated.references Ior citations in Sections 1-6 areprovideddin. Section 7.

MG Services. Inc. TLGSerice.

Is.Cor~vrixht-APFRC ATTmiep.my 1-R'V5?flflfl

.i12 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost.Analysis Section 2, Page 3 of 7 The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, amd ENTONV ,. It .aso pla~ced Jlmits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is .restrnctje.d i overall d3u.atnQ..t. 6Q years uxless it could be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public h2ealth 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 definition .of unrestricted release and 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-liv.ed radionuclides for , decay to permissible levels. However, .with recent rulemaking permitting the controlled Zrelease of a.site, the lNRC 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 NlRC is considering.

rulemaldng to alter the 60-year time for completing decommissioning and to clarify ,the use .of engineered barriers for reactor entombments. Pending completion of such rulemaking, entombment requests will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

In 1996, the NRC _published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants.[3] When the decommissioning regulations were adopted in 1988, it -was assumed that the majority of licensees -would decommission at the end of the operating license life. Since that time, .several licensees permanently and prematurely ceased operations without having submitted :a decommissioning plan. In addition, these licensees requested exemptions from certain operating requirements as being unnecessary once the reactor is defueled. Each case 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 new -amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decomuissioning.

"MG Rnrl 7i r e&In C. CopyrightPSEGNuclear 1999/2000

11 3 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning.CostAnalysis Section.1,-Page4 of .7 Ijnlder the revised regulations, liceisees would submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days after the decision to cease operations. Cert'fction would also be required once the fuel was permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Submittal of t hse.notice.s wopd 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 ýsubmitting notice of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee would be required to submit a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the lRC.,.The PSDAR -describes the planned decommissioning activities, the associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee would be required to submit an application to the NRC to terminate the license, along with a license termination plan (LTP).

1.3.1 Nuclear Waste P.olicy Act Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act[4] in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel from the commercial nuclear generating plants to the Department of Energy (DOE). Two permanent disposal facilities were envisioned, as well as an interim facility. To recover the cost of permanent spent fuel disposal, this legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which -money was to be :collected from the consumers of the electricity generated - by commercial nuclear power -plants. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, along with the individual disposal contracts with utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

After pursuing a national site selection process, the Act was amended in 1987 to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the only site to be evaluated for geologic disposal. of high-level waste. Also in 1987, the DOE announced a five-year -delay in the opening date for the repository, from 1998 to .2003. Two years'later, in 1989, an additional 7-year delay was announced, primarily due to problems in obtaining the .required permits from the -state of Nevada to perform the required characterization of the site.

Generators have responded to this impasse by initiating legal action and constructing supplemental storage as a means of maintaining necessary operating margins. In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffrmed the utility position that DOE had breached its contractual obligation. However, even with the August -2000 -ruling,[5] DOE's position .has -remained unchanged. The

-agency continues to -maintain that its delayed -performance -is TLG Services..Inc. T iCopyright PSEG.Nuclear1999/2000 -

114 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,. Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Pageý5 of 7 unavoidable because it does not have an operational repository and does not have authority to provide storage in the interim.

Consequently, DOE has. no plans to receive spent fuel -from commercial U.S. reactors before the year 2010.

The NRC requires licensees to establish a .program to manage and pirovide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor until title of the fuel is 'transferred to the Secretary of Energy in 10 CFR 50.54. (bb).E6] This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion. of certain high-level waste cost elements within the estimates, as described below.

For estimating purposes, IPSEG.Nuclear has assumed. that the.high-level waste repository, or some interim storage facility, will be fully operational by 2015. Intenim storage of the .fuel,.-itil the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in an independent facility located-on, the Artificial Island site. This will allow PSEG Nuclear to proceed with decommissioning and terminate its operating license in the shortest time possible.

Based upon the projected -capacity of the spent fuel .stora.ge pool, supplemental storage will be required before the current operating license expires so as to maintain full core off-load capability. Therefore, this analysis assumes that an on-site independent spent fuel storage installation .(ISFS1) will be constructed to support plant operation and will be available to support decommissioning The spent fuel storage facility, which is independently licensed and operated, will be sized to accommodate -the inventory of spent fuel.

residing in the plant's storage pool at the cessation of operations, in addition to any operational inventory already in residence. When emptied, the -station could be dismantled. without maintaining the wet storage pool. 'Based upon this scenario, and an anticipated rate of transfer, spent fuel is projected to remain on site for approximately 20 years following the cessation of plant operations.

Expenditures are -included in the analysis for the isolation and continued operation of the spent fuel pool throughout -the first five

.years of decommissioning. Expenses are also -included for -loading the spent fuel assemblies remaining in the storage pool after the cessation of plant operation into multi-purpose -canisters, for canister costs and overpacks, and for -the operation .of the .ISFSI through the year.2046,

-when all the fuelis expected-to betransferred.to the'DOE.

Irr 1-2 Q-4-- T- ^ Conyrig-ht PSEG-Nuclear.1999/2000

.Hope Creek _Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,.Rev. 0

.DecommissioningCostAnalysis Section.1, Page 6 of 7 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act Congress paýssed the "'pw.-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act" in 1980, declaring the states as being ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their o0wn borders. The federal law encouraged the formation of-regional groups or compacts to implement this objective safely, efficiently and econoincally, and set a target date of 1986. With little progress, the "Amendments Act" of 1985M7 extended the target, with specific milestones and stiff sanctions for non-compliance.

New Jersey is a member of the threestate.Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste .Management Compact, formed after South Carolina formally joined the Northeast Regiondl Compact. The .Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Facility, located in. Sgauth Carolina, is expected to be available to PSEG Nuclear to support the decommnuissioning of Hope Creek. It is also assumed that PSEG Nuclear could access other disposal sites should it prove cost-effective. As such, rate Schedules for both the Barnweli as -well as the Envirocare facility in Utah were used to generate disposal costs.

1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination In 1997, the NRC published -Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination,"t 8] amending Part 20 of Title '10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR §20). This subpart-provided Tadiological criteria 'for releasing a 'facility for unrestricted use. The regulation provides that the site could 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 nilli rem per year, and provided residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are As "Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The decommissioning estimate for Hope Creek assumes that the site will be remediated-to a residual level consistent with the NRC-prescribed level.

It should be noted that the N`RC 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'Hmit of 15 -mTilirem per year-is derived from criteria .established by the Comprehensive

'Environmental[Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA MG Servicesý Inc. CopyrightTPSEGNuclear 199.9/2000

116 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 7 of 7 or Superfund). An additional limit of 4 mirem per year, as -defined in 40 CFR Part 141.16, is applied to drnlking water.

On Q.ctober 9, 2002, the JC sigued an agree ment with the EPA on the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed -sites. The Memorandum -of UInderstanding (IO.LI),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 INRC and EPA consultation for certain sites when, at the time of license termination, (1) groundwater contaminati6n :exceeds EPA-permitted levels; (2) INRC contemplates restricted -release of the site; andlor (8) residual radioactive soil concentrations exceed levels defined.inthe MOU.

The IYIOU -does not impose any new requiremeants on NRC licensees and. Should reduce the involvement of EPA with NRC licensees who. axe 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 EPA. However, -if there are other hazardous materials on the site, EPA may be involved in -the cleanup..As such, -the possibility of dual regulation remains .for certain licensees.

-TIG.Services,Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nuclear. 1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating.Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 2, Page 1 of 8

2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE The following section describes the basic activities associated with the DE.CON decommissioning alternative. Although detailed procedures for each activity identified are not provided, and the actual sequence of work ýmay 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 decomnmissioning.

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 licenseefrom reactor operations e, power production,. to facility de-activation and closwre. During the first phase, notification is to be provided to the NRC certifying -the

permanent.cessation of operations and the remoya1 of fuel from-the reactor vessel. The licensee would then be 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 decomminssioning estimates developed for Hope Creek are also divided into phases or periods; however,

-demarcation of the phases is based upon -major milestones -within the project or significant changesin the projected expenditures.

2.1 PERIOD I- 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 hitended 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.

2.1.1 Engineering and Planping The PSDAR, requiredwithin 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 MG.Seruice&.1na CopyrightPSEG Nuzlear-1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document.PO7-1 425-002, Rev. 0

.Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 2 of 8 local hearing to be held in the vicinity of the reactor site. Ninety days 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. Ma*jo activities are defined as any activity that results in permanent removal of major radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure -ofthe containment, or results in dismantling components (for shipment) containing Greater-than-Class C waste (GTCC), as defined by 10 CER

§61. Major components are further defined as comprising the reactor vessel and internals, large bore reactor system piping,' and .other large

.components that are radioactive. The NRC includes the. fo]lowing aditional criteria *for use of the §50.59 process in decommissioning. The proposed activity must not:

o foreclose release of the site for possible untestricted rse, significantly increase decommissioning. costs,

, cause any significant environmental impact, or violate the terms of the-licensee's existing license.

Existiug 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 bounded by

previously evaluated environmental assess~nents 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, in conjunction with the development of the PSDAZR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, work packages and procedures must be assembled in .support of the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.

TLG Servicesý Inc. Copyright PSEG NVueZear 1999/2000

11.9 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document PO7-4425-002,Rev. 0 Decomminsioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page3 of 8 2.1.2 Site Preparations Following final plant shutdown, and in preparation for actual

.dcomissioning activities, the following activities are initiated:

Characterization of the site and surrounding environs. This includes radiation surveys of work areas, .major components (including the.

reactor vessel and its internals), sampling of internal piping contamination levels, and primary shield cores.

Isolation of the spent fuel storage pool and fuel handlitg systems, -

such that deconnmisioning operations -could commence on the balance of the plant. Decommissioning operations are scheduled aroun&the fuel handling area to the greatest extent-possible such that the overall project schedule is. opthnizecL The.fuel will be transferred to the DOE as it decays to the point -that it meets the heat load criteria of the containers and, as such, -it is assumed that the fuel pool will remain operational for a minimum -of five years following the cessation. of plant operations.

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

Development of )rocedures for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous effluent, processing of radwaste (including dry-active ýwaste, Tesams, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning), site security -and

emergency programs, and industrial safety.

2.2 PERIOD 2 - DECOMMISSIONING OPERATIONS Significant decommissioning activities in this phase.include:

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

-o Reconfiguration and modification of site structures andfacilities as needed to support decommissioning operations. This may include the upgrading of roads (on- and off-site) to facilitate .hauling and -transport. Building

'TLG Service&bm CopyrightPSEG Nucilear.1999/2000

i2~i Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decomrniissioning:CostAnalysis Section 2, Page 4 of 8 mo cations-may-be req.uired to fihe Reactor Building to facilitate access of large/heavy equipment. Modifications..may .llso be repquied to the pefe..g area of the Reactor Building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals =nd c0mpopent extr.ac 49p 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 ([ease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages.

Decontaiiination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimze) worker-exposure.

lRemoval of piping and components no longer essential to supprLt decormi. sioning operations.

Disconnection of the control blades from the drives on'the vessel lower head.

Blades are transferred to the spent fuelpool for packaging.

Transfer of the steam separator and dryer assemblies to the dryer-separator pool0 for segmentatioa Segmentation. will maximie 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, segmentation and packaging of the core shroud and.in-cbre guide tubes. Some of the material is expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements. As such, those segments will be packaged in a modifed fuel canister for geologic disposal. Interim storage can be in the .pool, as space permits, or in the.ISFSI.

Removal and segmentation of the remaining internals including the jet pump assemblies, fuel support castings and core plate assembly.

-Draining and decontamination of the reactor well and permanently sealing of the spent fuel transfer gate. Install shielded platform for segmentation of

.reactor vesseL Cutting operations are performed in-air using remotely operated equipment within a contamination control envelope, with the water level maintained just below-the cut to mini*ze-the worldngzarea dose rates.

TLG Service,%Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1.999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document.PO7-1425-002,.Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 5 of 8 Sections are transferred to the dryer-separator pool for packaging and interim storage.

aDisconnection of. the control rod drives and instrumnentation tubes froan reactor vessel lower head. The lower reactor head and vessel supporting structure will then be segmented.

e Removal of the reactor recirculation pumps. Exterior surfaces are decontaminated and openings covered. Components can serve as their own burial containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed-Demolition of the sacrificial shield activated concrete- by -controlled.

demolition.

At least two years prior .to the anticipated date of license termination, a LTP 'is required. Submitted -as a supplement to the Final Safety -Analysis R16pert.

(FSAR), or 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 decommnissioning, 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 linmitations as deemed appropriate by the Commnission. *The licensee may then commence with the final remediation of site facilities and services, including:

R Removal of remaining plant systems and associated components as they

-become nonessential to the decommissioning program or 'workerhealth and safety (e.g., waste collection and treatment systems, electrical -power and ventilation systems).

Removal of the steel'liners from the drywel[, disposing of -the activated and

contaminated sections as 'radioactive -waste. -Removal :of any activated!

contaminated concrete.

1Removal of the steel liners-from.the steam separator and dryer pool, reactor

'well, and spent-fuel storage pool.

Surveys ofthe decontaminated areas 6f.the containment structure.

Removal of the contaminated equipment and.material from the Turbine and R

Radwaste Buildings and any other contaniinated-facility. Use radiation.and MG Ser&icesý Inc. e'Copyrikht PSEG.Nuclear.1999/2000

-22 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section.2, Page 6 of 8 contamination control techniques until radiation surveys indicate that the, structures could be released for unrestricted access and conventional demolition. This activity may necessitate the dismantling and disposition of most of the systems and components (both clean and contaminated) located within these buildings. This activity will facilitate surface decontamination and subsequent verifcation surveys -required prior to Obtaining release for demolition.

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

Routingof material removed in the decontamination and dismantling to a central processing area. Material certified to be free of contamination would be 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, volunie 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 NUREG/CR-1575,

'uuti-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual" (MARSSIEVM.[9]

This document incorporhtes 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 verifiedi 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 license 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.

,TLG Servicesolne. CopyrightPSEG.Nuclear1999/2000

1 23 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document'P07- 42.5-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section,2,Page 7 of 8 2,3 PERIOD 3 - SITE RESTORATION Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities may begin. Efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verjfcation that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits may result in substantial damage to many of the structures, Althoiagh performed in a controlled -and safe manner, blasting, coring, drilling, scarification (surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially degrade

_power block structures, including the Reactor, Auxiliary, and Fuel Handling Buildings.,Verifing that subsurface radionucide concentrations meet NRC -site release requirements may 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 failues have been re~orded, or where it. isrequired 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 contanmination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already .mobilizedon 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 future workers. Abandonment creates. a breeding ground for vermin infestation and other biological hazards.

-This cost study presumes that non-essential structures-and site facilities will be 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, and 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.

Concrete rubble.produced by demolition -activities is processed to remove rebar and miscellaneous embedments.. The-processed materialis then.used on-site to backfill voids. Excess materials are trucked off-site for disposal as construction debris.

TLG Seruicesý.Inc- CopyrightPSEG Nuclear.1999/2000

12 4 HFiope Creek Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Analysis Station Generating DocumentSection 4, 2, PageBe P07-1425 8 of 8 2.4 POST PERIOD.3 -. ISFSI OPERATIONS The ISFSI will continue to operate under a separate and independent license (10 CFR §72) following the relocation of the spent fuel fron the plant's storage pools. Transfer of spent fuel to a DOE or interim facility will be exclusively from the ISFSI once the fuel pools have been emptied and the structures released for decommissioning. Assuaming initiation of the federal Waste Management System in 2015, transfer of spent fuel from Hope Creek is anticipated to continue through the year 2046. Any delay in the transfer process, for example, due to a delay in the scheduled opening of the geologic repository, a slower

acceptance rate, or a combination of a delayed start date and lower transfer rate, will result in a longer on-site residence time for the fuel discharge from the reactor,. and therefore additional caretaking expenses.

At the conc.!usion of tIhe spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI will be decommissioned. The Commission will terminate the §72 licenseý.if-Eit determines that thexremediation 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 currently -proposed design for the ISFSI is based upon the use of 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 and the license for the facility terminated, the -modules can be dismantled using conventional techniques for the demolition of reinforced concrete. The concrete storage pad is then removed, and the area graded and

landscaped to conform to the surrounding environment.

MfG Services, Inc. Copy rightPSEG Nuclear 1.999/2000

125 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page J of 17

3. COST ESTIMATE The cost estimate prepared for decommnissioning Hope Creek consider the unique features of the site, including the nuclear steam supply system, power generation systems, support services, site buildings, and ancillary facilities. The bases of the estimate, including the sources of informationrelied upon, the estimating methodology employed, site-specific considerations and other pertinent assumptions are desciibed in this section.

3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The current estimate was developed using the basic design -information originally generated for the decommissioning analysis prepared in 1995-96A'1.0 The information was reviewed for the current-estimate and.updated, as deemed necessary.. The site-specific considerations and assumptions used in the

previous estimate 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 MIETJHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop this cost estimate follows the basic approach originally presented- in the' AIFLNESP-036. study report, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant ,Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"["] .and the US 'DOE "Deco-mmissioning Handboolk"R 2 ] These documents present a unit factor method for estimating decommi*ssioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations. Unit factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch) were developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs were estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards,'and tons), developed fro ma plaunt drawings and inventory documents. Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of.components and structures.relied upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data,"

published by R.S. Means.J's]

This estimate reflects lessons learned from TLG's involvement -in the.

Shippingport Station.-Decomm sioning 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, Tr6jan, *Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point,

-Maine Yankee, Humboldt 'Bay-S, Oyster Creek, Connecticut Yankee, and San Onofre-1 nuclear units -has -provided additional -insightinto the process, 'the MG Serdices, Inc. GCopyrightPSEG Nuclear.1999/2000

-Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Docurent.P07-4425-O02, ev. 0

,DecommissioningCostAnaiygis Section -3,Page2 of 17 xeg*flatory aspects, and te6bctical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.

The unit factor method pr.ovides .a demonstrable.basi for establishing reliable cost estimates. The detail provided in the U*t 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.

Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment.

WI)Fs were.assigned to each unique set -of u-nit factors, commensurate with-the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments-.:

The ranges used forthe WiDFs are as follows:

Access Factor .10% to 20%

Respiratory Protection Factor 10% to 50%

Radiation]ALARA Factor-. 10% to 37%.

Protective Clothing Factor 10%to 30%

Work Break Factor 8.33%

. Productivity adjustable The factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunction with the AIFiNESP-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 -relied 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, admin*istration, field TLG Servica-z- Ine- CopyrightPSEG NueZear 1999/2000

12'7

-HopeCreek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section.3, Page 3 of .17 engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and Seuo.ity. This systematic akpp.a.h for assgnbling AdecGr.gi0issini.,g est ates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting costs.

3.3 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 comprisethe total cost to accomplish the project goal, L'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 TLG's DECCER cost model, contingency fu- MEs this r-ole. Contingency is .added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to devvelop 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.

3.3.1 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 AIFINESP-036 study. "'Contingencies" are defined in the.American Association of Cost Engineers "*Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook"[141 as "specific provision for unforeseeable .elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous experience 'relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur-" The cost elements in this estimate are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; t]erefore; consistent with industry :practice, a contingency factor has been applied.

ýIn the AIFNESP-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 shouldobenoted that contingency, .as used in this estimate, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decomnmissioning over the remaining operating life.of the station.

The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is

not a "safety factor issue?' Safety factors provide additional security

.and address situations that may -never occur. Contingency funds are Copyright.SEG Nuclear..1999/2000

Creek Nuclear Generating Station

,Uope Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 128 Decomrmissiooning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 4 of.17 expected to be f6Ely expended throughout the program. They also provide assurance that sufficient fanding is available to accomplish the intended tasks. An estimate without contingency, or from which

.contingency has been removed, could disrupt the orderly progression of events and jeopardize a successful conclusion to the decommissioning process.

'For example', the most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a commercial nuclear station -will be the disposition of the reactor vessel and internal components, which have become highly radioactive after a lifetime of exposure to radiation produced:in the core. The disposition of these highly radioactive components forms the basis for the. critical path (schedule) for decommissioning operations. Cost and schedule are inter-dependent and. any -deviation

'in schedule has a significant impact on cost for performing a -specific activity.

Disposition of the .reactor vessel internals involves the underwater cutting of complex components that are highly radioactive. Costs are based upon optimum segmentation, handling, and packaging scenarios. The schedule is primarily dependent upon the turnaround time for the heavily shielded shipping casks, including preparation, loading, and decontamination of the containers for transport. The

-number of casks requireddis a function of the pieces generated in the segmentation activity, a value calculated on optimum performance .of the tooling employed in cutting the various subassemblies. The risk and uncertainties associated with this task are that the expected optimization may not be .achievedc, resulting in delays and additional.

program costs. For this reason, contingency must be included :to mitigate -the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with the operation of highly specialized tooling, field conditions, and water clarity.

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. can :range 'from .0% -to

'75%, depending on the degree of difficulty.judged to be appropriate-.

'TrTf-.*o*.*,p* Inc- Copyright'PSEGNuclear:1999/2000

129 Evpe Creek Nuclear Generating Station -Document P07-i425002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 8, P _g. 5 of 17 from TLG'S actual &ecomaissioijng experience. The contingency valuies -usedin th~is stud agrp as fogllows~:

Deconta atiwon 50%

Contaminated Component Removal 25%

Contaminated Component Packagiug 10%

Contaminated Component-Transport 15%

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25%

Reactor-Segmentation 75%

NSSS ComponentIRe.oval 25%

Reactor Waste Packaging 25%

Reactor Waste Transport 25%

Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50%

GTCC.Dispasal 15%

Non-Radioactive :Component Removal 15%

Heavy Equipment-and Tooling 15%

Supplies 25%

Engineering 15%

Energy 15%

Characterization and Termination Surveys 30%

Construction '15%

Taxes .and.Fees 10%

Insurance 10%

Staffing 15%

The overall contingency, when applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis, results in an average value of

.19.8%..-

3.3.2 hinancial-Eisk 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, -butnot 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 "f'aancial risk?" Included 'within

-the category of-finanialriskare:

TEO Rpericem Inc. ICopyright.PSEGNucZear 1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation .Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section .8,-Page6 of 17 Transition activities =ad costs: ancillary expenses associated with eliminating 50% to 80% of the site labor force shortly after the cessation of .plan~t operations, added cost for worker separation packages throughout the aecoxamxissioning 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.

-Changes in the- project wori scope from the baseline estimate,

-involving the discovery of unexpected levels of contaminarnts, contamination in places not previously exopected, contaminated, soil previously undiscovered (either radioactive or hazardous mater.al contamination), variations in plant inventory or configuration not indicated. by the as-built drawings.

R Regulatory changes, e.g., affecting -worker health and safety, site.

release criteria, waste.transportation, and disposal.

Policy decisions altering national commitments, e.g., in the -ability.

to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or in the timetable for such.

- Pricing changes for -basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial. Some of these inputs may vary slightly, e.g. -10% to 420%; burial couldvary from -50% to +200% or more.

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 decommnissioning estimate's being too high is alow probability, and the chances that the estimate is too low is a much 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 finandial

-risk since there .is insuf5icient historical data from which to -project future liabilities. Consequently, it is recommended that the areas of TEG.Service-S Inc. CopgyrightPSEGNuclear1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0' Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 3, Page 7 oft 7 uncertainty or risk be revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimate.

3.4 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.

3.4.1 Spent Fuel The cost to dispose of the spent fuel -generated from plant operations is not reflected within the -estimate to decommission Hope Creek. lUltimate disposition of the spent fuel is within:the province of the DOE's :W.-aste Management System, -as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As such, the disposal cost is financed by a .nill/kVVhr 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 reactor 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 wi'thin the estimate, as described herein.

The total inventory of assemblies that will need to .be handled during decommissioning is based upon several assumptions. The pickup of commercial fuel is assumed to begin in the year 2015 and -vdllproceed on an oldest.fuel first basis. The rate at which the fuel is-removed from the commercial sites is based upon an annual capacity at the geologic repository of 3,000 metric tons. A delay in the startup of the repository, or a decrease in.the rate of acceptance rate, will correspondingly prolong the transfer process and extend the duration that the fuel remains at the site.

For estimating purposes, spent fuel will be removed from the Hope Creek

ýsite during, -and ýfollowing decommissioning, -with -the transfer -complete by the end of year 2046. Built to support continuing plant operations, an ISFSI will be available to support decommissioning, i.e., the fuel residing in the pool following the cessation of plant operations couldbe relocated to the ISFSI :so -that decommissioning can _proceed on the Reactor

-Building. The assemblies will be relocated to the ISFSI during the :frst

.five years following:final shutdown. Costs are included for the purchase TLG Service--,'Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nudlear.-1999/2000.

132 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station -DocumentIP0 7-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 8, Page 8 of 17 of the 25 canisters and overpacks required to empty the pool '(an additional five will be used to package the GTCC).

Operation and maintenance costs for the ISFSI are included within the estimates and address the cost for staffing the facility, security, insurance, and licensing fees. Costs are also provided for the fmal disposition of the facility once the transfer is complete.

ISFSI Design Considerations A multi-purpose (storage and transport) dry shielded storage canister with a vertical, reinforced concrete storage silo is used as a basis for the.

cost analyses. Approximately 50% of the silos 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-releaselimi-ts. Approximately -10%

of the concrete and steel is assumed to be removed from the overpacksl*for controlled disposal. The cost of the -disposition of this material, as well as the demolition of the.ISFSI facility, is included in the estimate.

3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The NSSS (reactor vessel and reactor recirculation system ,components) wil be decontaminated using chemical agents prior to the start.of cutting operations- A decontamination Ifactor (average xeduction) of 10 is presumed.

Thereactor pressure vessel and internal components 'are segmented for disposal in Fhielded, reusable transportation casks.Segmentation will be performed in the dryer-separator pool, where a turntable and remote cutter are installed. -The vessel will be 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 well.

Transpoftation cask -'specifications and transportation regulations Will dictate segmentation and packaging methodology.

The dismantling of the-reactor internals will :generate radioactive waste

.considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal, i.e., GTCC.Although'the material is not classified -as .tigh-level waste, DOE'has indicated it will accept title to this waste for disposal -at the future 'high-level waste repositoryJ'15] :However, the :DOE has not 'been :forthcoming with an acceptance :criteria or disposition schedudle for 'this -material, and numerous questions remain as 'to the 'ultimate 'disposal cost and 'waste form :requirements. As such, Ifor 'purposes of this study, the GTCC has

.TLG.Service&Inc. Copyright.PSEGNuclear.1999/2000

'33 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning.CostAnalysis Section ,.-Page 9 of 17 been.packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. It.is not anticipated. thlat.DOE wa1d accept this waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel.

Therefore, until such time as the DOE is ready to accept GTCC waste, it is reasonable to assume that this material would remain in storage at Hope Creek.

Intact disposal of the -.reactor vessel and internal components could provide savings in cost andworker 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. However, -the 'location of the Trojan 'Nuclear Plant on.: ,the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis .since:

- the reactor package could be secured to the transport ve.hiclB-for the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted during transport,

there were no man-made or natural terrain features between the

-plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and

-etransport speeds were very low, limited by the overland transport ve-hicleand .thexiver 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 aria site proved-favorable in demonstrating compliance With land disposal regulations.

It is not.known Whether this ,Option will'be available when Hope Creek 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, as a bounding condition, the study -assumes 'the reactor -vessel will have to be segmented.

.TLG Servicesý.Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

Hope Creeh Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 3, Page10 of 17 3.4.3 Primarv System Com-ponents Reactor recirculation 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 shipped by shielded van. The reactor recirculation pumps and motors are lifted

-out intact, packaged, and transported for processing or disposal.

3.4.4 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine will be dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. The turbine rotors and shafts will be removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings will be removed from their anchors by controilleademolitopn The ma. ,e~ondDeser w.il.l aso be disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material-will then be prepared. for transportation to .an off-site recycling facility where it will be. surveyed and designated for decontamination, volume reduction, or conventional disposal or controlled disposaL Componentswill be packaged and readied for transportin accordance -with the intended disposition.

3.4.5 Transportation Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than

-the highly activated reactor vessel and internal components will qualify

-as LSA-I, I[ or.[I or Surface Contaminated Object; SCO-I or _l, as described in Title 49 of the -Code of Federal Regulations.[1'6 The contaminated material will be packaged in Industrial-Packages (IP '1,.1, or7Il) 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 '§71, as Type B. It is conceivable that the reactor, due to .its l*nited speciric activity, could qualify as LSA II or I11. However, the -high radiation _levels on the ýouter 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.

Themaximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible was based upon the license limits of the available shielded transport casks.

TLG Servicesý Inc. GCopyright,-PSEGNuclear 1.999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document.P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 A35 DeconnissioningCost Analysis Section 3,.Page I1 of 7 The segmentation scheme -for the vessel and internal segments ýare designed to meet these limits.

The transpor of large intact components, e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components, will be by a combination of tru.ck, barge, and/or multi-wheeled transporter.

The low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal will be sent to one of two currently available burial facilities. Transportation costs are based upon the mileage to either the Envirocare facility.in Clive, Utah, or the Barnwell facility in South Carolina. Memphiis, Tennessee will be used as the destination for off-site _processing Transportation

.. costs are estimated using published tariffs from .Tri-State Motor Transit.[17 1 3.4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste'Disposal To the greatest extent practical, metallic mateiial generated in the decontamination and dismantling processes will be treated to reduce the total volume requiring controlled disposal The treated.material, meeting the regulatory and/or site release criterion, will be released as scrap,.

requiring no flirther cost consideration. Conditioning and recovery of the waste stream will be performed off site at a licensed processing center.

Material requiring controlled disposal willbe packaged and transported to one of two currently available burial facilities. Very low-level radioactive material, e.g., structural steel and contaminated concrete, will be sent to Envirocare. More highly contaminated and activated material will be sent to Barnwell. Disposal fees are based upon current charges for operating waste with surcharges added for the highly

activated components, e.g., generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel.

3.4.7 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC will terminate (or amend) the.site licenses 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.

Building codes and -environmental regulations will dictate -the-next step in the decommissioning process, as well as .PSEG Nuclear's own future

-.TLG.,§ervice,%Inc. Copyright 'PSEGNuclear.9 3/2000

'3*6 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0

.Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 8, Page 12 of 17 plans for the site, e.g., the electrical switchyard will remainin support of the electrical transassimon.and distribution -system.

The large underground tunnels between the cooling water, intake, Turbine Building, and cooling tower- will be isolated, sealed, and abandoned in place. Site utility and service piping are abandoned in place. Electrical .manholes are backfifed with suitable earthen material and abandoned. Asphalt surfaces in the immediate vicinity 'of site buildings are broken up and the material used for backfill on site, if needed. The *site access road willremain.

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

Structures will be removed. to a nominal depth of three feet below grade..

Concrete rubble generated from demolition activities. will be processed and made. available as clean filL The site will be graded .following the removal of non-essential structures to conform to the adjacent landscape, and vegetation will be established to-inhibit erosion. This degree of site restoration will constitute comnpliance with the CAFRA document dated July 9, 1976.

3.5 ASSUiMPTIONS The following- are the major assumptions made in the development of the estimate for decomnmissioniing the site. Decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with the current-regulations that are assumed to be in place at the time of decommissioning, including the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA), which ismandatory under current New Jersey-State:Regulations.

3.5.1 Estimating Basis The study follows the principles of ALA.RA 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 sdhedule.

?MG-Rervices. Inc. TCopyrightPSEG Nuclear199912000

Hope Nuclear Generating Station ireek Document P0 7-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnaZysis Section 3, Page 13 of 17 3.5.2 Labor Costs The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismn,=tle the nuclear units will be acquiredthrough standard site contracting practices. The current cost of labor at-the sitedis used as an estimating basis. Costs for site administration, operations, construction, and maintenance personnel are based upon average salary information provided by.PSEG Nuclear.

PSEG Nuclear, as the licensee, Will oversee the decommissioning operations and provide site security, radiological controls, and overall site administration. PSEG Nuclear will provide contract management of the decommissioning labor force and :subcontractors. Engineering services for preparing the activity specifications, work procedures, activation, and.

structural analyses, are provided y PSEG Nuclear personnel.

The costs associated for the transition of the operating organization to decommissioning, e.g., separation packages, retraining, severance, and incentives are not included in this estimate and are considered to be ongoing operating expenses.

3.5.3 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., cesium-,137, strontium-90, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major NSSS componentsto- 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.t' 8 1 Actual )estimates are derived from the curie/gram values in NEJREG/CR-3474 and adjusted for the- different -mass of Hope Creek components, projected operating life,

and different periods -of 'decay.. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from NUREG/CR-0130r'93 and NUREG/CR-0672.]o.and

bencbmarked-to thelong-lived values from NUREG/CR-3474.

The disposal cost for the control blades :removedfromthe vessel with the

ýfinal core load is included within the estimate. Disposition of any blades stored in the pools from operations is -considered an operating expense and thereforemnot accounted forin the estimates.

MG Servicesý Inc. Copyright PSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

I1S38 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 8, Page 14 of 17 Activation of the Reactox Building structure is confined to the sacrificial shield t esttse.

a% More .eXenpise aCtivatio .(at v.ery 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'fac4ity rather than reuse the material as fil on site or

.send it to a landfill. The ultimate disposition of the material removed from the Reactor Building will depend upon the :site release criteria selected and the designated end use for the site.

3.5.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses will be cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by-PSEG Nuclear. and its subcontractors. The -wa-ehousesmraybe dismantled as they become surplus to the decommissioning program,.-The plant's operating staff -will perform the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period:

Drain and collect fuel oils, lubricating oils, and transformer oils for recycle and/or sale..

.*P Excess acid, caustic, and all chemicals listed (at shutdown) in the New Jersey 'Right to -Know Repore' will]be removed and the storage container returned to the-vendor. It is assumed-that these chemicals will have some value; therefore, the cost for their removal will be compensated through their subsequent salek.

Scrap and Salvage The -existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only. PSEG Nuclear -will ma-ke economically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following final

.plant shutdown. However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in this estimate 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 re.moved 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 estimate TLOr.*,P.*iem Inc. CopyrightPSEGNuclear 1999/2000

139

.Hope Creek-Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 8,.Page 15 of 17 does not -attempt to quantify the value that PSEG Nuclear may realize based.upon those efforts.

It is assumed, for purposes -of this estimate, 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 estimate do not include the additional cost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnace read? conditions. For example, the recovery of copper from electrical cabling from- a facility currently being decommissioned has required the removal and disposition of the PCB-contaminated insulation, an added expense. With a volatile market, the potential profit margin in scrap recovery is highly speculative, regardless of the ability tb free release this. material. This assumption is an implicit recognition. of scrap value in the disposal of clean metallic waste at no .additiona c-ost to the project.

Furniture, tools, 'mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other such items of personal property owned by PSEG Nuclear- will be removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning -project.

Disposition may include relocation to other' generating facilities. Spare parts will also be 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. for the cost of energy consumption 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 lbased upon current operating premiums. Reductions .in 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.".

The NRC's financial protection 'requirements are 'based on various

'reactor (and spent fuel) configurations.

qT .t,--Q- ;ýOc Int., CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

1ut)

Hope Creek* Nuclear Generating Station .Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 'Section 3, Page 16 of 17 Property Taxes Property tax payments will cease upon shutdown. of each u.-at, 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.

3.6 COST ESTIMALTE SUIMMARY The costs projected for the decommissioning of H3ope Creek are provided in Table 3.1. Decommissiong costs .,are :reported in the year of p*roected expenditure; however, the -values are -provided in thousands of .2002 doll"ars.

Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure.

The annual expenditures are based upon the detailed activity costs repored in Appendix C, along with the schedule discussed in Section 4.

_'PT I2' ""p nj.C >pyright uiar99920 prghPE *PSEG.Nuele~a~r19-9912000

TABLE 3A.

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES BY PERIOD (Thousands, 2002 Dollars)

Period 2 Period 3 Period 4. Peilod S Period, 1 *Decommissioning Site Dry Fiiel ISFSI p Year Preparations Operations Restoration Storage

Decomnmissioning Totals 2026 88,285 88,ý85 2027 55,590 30,4i0 86,000 136,734 2028 135,734 2029 .99,099. 99;099 2030 81)387 81,337 Tel.

2031 89,928 89;028 J4,*

2032. 98,728 98,728 2033 19,599" 24,792 44,391

2034 49,179 49,179 2035 b8,804 105 38,910i 2036 500 500

2037 499 499 2038 499 499 2039 499 499 2040 500 500 2041 499 499 2042 499 499 2048 499 499 2044 500 500 0 2045 499 499 2046. 14,090 2,429 16,519 "0

0b 93,874 554j835 112,775 19,188 2,429 783,102 CIO Operating ahd decommissioning costs for the ISFSI are shared with the Salem Stationi IM4

'--4'

1IA2 Uope Creek Nuzclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page 1.of 5

4. SCBTEDLLE ESTIMATE The schedule for the decommission=ng scenario consicdered i" this study follows the sequence presented in the AITFNESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints. In addition, the scheduling.has been revised to reflect the .required cooling period for the spent fuel.

. A schedule or sequence of activities is presented in Figure 4.1. The schedule reflects the prompt decommissioning alternative :and the start date consistent with a:

scheduled shutdown in 2026. The sequence assumes that fuel will be~removed from the' spent fuel pool within the frst five years. The key activities listed in- the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the Appendix C cost table, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others -for

.convenience. The schedule was prepar.ed usjng the icrosoft Project 2000" computer scfhware.1 1 1 4.1 -.SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule was generated using a precedence network and associated software. Activity durations are based upon the actual. man-hour .estimates calculated for each area. The schedule was assembled by. sequencing the -work

areas, considering work -crew availability and 'material access/egress. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedule:

'The Reactor Building will continue to serve as the spent fuel storage/

transfer facility, until such time -that all .spent fuel has been removed from site. The Reactor Building is expected to operate for approximately five years after the cessation of operations.

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

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.

Multiple crews work parallel activities to the :ma-mum extent .possible, consistent with: optimum efficiency; adequate access for cutting, removal TLG-Services, Inc. Copyright.PSEG.Nuciear .1999/2000.

-1 Hope Creek NuclearGeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002, Rev2 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis .Section 4, Page 2of5.

and laydown .sp~ace; =,d the st4igen*t safety me.asures necessary .diq-ing demolition of heavy components and structures,.

For plant systems removal, the systems .with the longest rem-oval dusratons in areas on the critical path are considered to deteremie the duration of the activity.

4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in Appendix C -are based upon the durations developed in .the schedule for the decommissioning of EHope Creek 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 critica- -path duration for each period :is used as the basis for determining the period--dependent costs.

The project timeline is shown in this section as Figure 4.2. Mfilestone dates are based on a 40-year plant operating life from the issuance of the operating license, a five-year wet storage period for the last core discharge, and continued operation of theIISFSI until DOE can complete the.transfer.

.MG-Services,Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

144 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station DocumnentP07-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommnissioning Cost Analysis Sectitn 4,.page 3 of 5 FIGUERE 4.1 DE CO-MISSIONING ACTIVITY SCH-EDULE

Task Name TP '2~ 13

'26 1,27 12 '3 32 ' IM '35mm toý Name n0pe Creek schedule

r.:. . ____

4 Period la - Shutdown through transition Certficate of permanent cessation of operations submitted

Fuel storage pool operations Dy f*el storage operations Reconfigure plant .1.

.- repare aciity specifications.

... ie t - .'* o*....;. ..

-Perform site characterization I~J PSDAR. submitted Written'certificate of-permanent removal of fuel submitted

Site specific decom issioning cost estimate submitted

DOC~staffroobflized

Period lb -Decommissioning preparations

Fuel storage pool operations

]eonfigure R plant (continued)

SDry fuel storage operations El P*repare detailed workprocedures Decýn],S SS .......

eco*S* ...... '-..........

Isolate.spent fuel pool Period 2a -large component removal Fuel storage pool operations FDryfuel storage operations Preparation for reactor vessel removal Rteactor vessel & internals Rem i large NSSS components disposition

NIon-essential systems lZJj Main tubn~eerator Main condenser "License termination !lan submitted :4: :

e~~o*~2*_b - econamination (wet fuel)

.Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations Milestone -4MM Smrytask Critical Path Task ýPerformed During Period TLG Services,.Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nudlear1999/2000

I4~

flope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4 Page 4 of 5 TIGIRE 4.1 (continued)

Task Name '26 2 '28 I '29 1 o30

,1'31 J'32 1 33 1'4' W35 Remove systeme.not supporting wet fuel storage * , 'I-I Decon build~ings not supporting wet fuel storage License termination pla. approved Fulstorage pool available for do immsonmng Period.2c - Decontamination following wet fuel.storage Dry fuel storage operations Remove remaiping systems Decon wet fuel storage =rea - .1 P*eioc2e Plant license term ination D....dAi st*rag. operations El Final Site Survey NR.C review &;approval Part 50 license terminated Period 3b - Site restoration Dry fuel storage operations Buildfing demolitions, back:l1 and landscaping Milesione Summarytask COr5l Path Task Performed Durig perioD TTLi R*erv~ire&, Inr_ Coxvri-ht PSEG NVucear 1999/2000

Hope Creek NuclearGeneratingStation DocumentP07-g425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 4, Page5 of 5 FI1GURE 4.2 ADECOMVUSSIONING TIAMIXNE (not to scale)

Shutdovwn 0411112026 la lb 2a2b .2c 2e Stbrongha sb 112,1m 15.9. 18.7.m 29.3m 1 11.6=1 9.1m 27.5m l3L9n 4126 -4127 .20/27 05/29 10/31 091-32 07133 10/35 _.0146 Preparations TDecommissioning Operafions Site IS*-- Operaftons

.lestorafion Wet Fuel Storage Dry Fuel Storage Tnc. -CopyrightPSEGNucZear.1999/2000

14.7 Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation .Document PO07-1425-002, *Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 1 of S

5. RADIOACTIVE WAST-ES The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of al. radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of the NRC license(s). This currently requires the remediation of all-radioactive material at the site in excess ýof applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Eriergy ActJ221 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, 10 CFIR §71 defines radioactive material and 10 CFR §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 §173-178. Shiap.-pg comtane-rs a.e required:to be Industrial Packages (IP-I, IP-M2 or IP-3). For-this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used-for the disposal of piping, small comp6nents, and concrete. Largei 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 Appendix C and.summanrized in Table 5.1. The quantified waste -volume summary shown in this table is consistent with §61 classifications. The volumes are calculated based on the exterior dimensions for containerized material..The volumes are calculated on the displaced v6lume of components serving as their own waste containers.,.

The reactor vessel andiinternals are categorized as-large quantity shipments and, accordingly, will be shippedin xeusable, shielded truck-casks with disposable-liners. In calculating disposal costs, the'burial fees are applied against'the liner volume and 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 ýperiod during which the decomnmisioning is accomplished, due -to the presence of long-lived' radionuclides.

'While'the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as ' 3 7 Cs will still control

-the disposition requirements.

-TLCY Services.Inc. Copyright PSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station DocumentP07-1425-002,.Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Setiqn 5,.Page 2 of 8 The-waste materJ generated in the deront=mi xation and ýdima.tling of Hope Creek wfll primarily be generated du g .Peid 2. Mat[rial considered pete a*ly contaminated when removed from the radiologically controlled area W. be sent t processing facilities for codtng and dposal at a unt cost -.$2.00 per .p.oad-Reavily. contaminated components and activated materials will be routed for controlled disposal. The disposal volumes reported in the table reflects -the savings resulting from reprocessing and recycling.

For purposes of constructing the estimate, the rate schedule for the Barnwell fadility was used as a proxy for the higher activity waste. This schedule was. used to estimate the -disposal fees for the majority of plant components and activated concrete deemed unsuitable for~rocessing or-recovery. An average disposal rate of $41,5 per .cubic foot

-was used, with additional surcharges for activity, close rate andlor handling -added,. as appropriate for the particular package.

The remaining-volume.of contaminated metallic and concrete debris will be disposed of at the Envirocare.facility. This includes lower activity material such .as miscellaneous steel, metal.siding,'scaffolding and structural steel. A rate of $298 per cubic.foot was used for containerized waste, $70 per cubic foot for disposal of DAW, and approximately $20 per cubicfoot for bulk material, e.g.,. concrete.

.TLG Services..Inc. CopvriLhtPSEG Nuclear 199.9/2000

1I49 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 5, Page 3of 3 TABJ-Z 511 inCO1\u2ssWONTG W"ATIF -SUMDIARIY Waste Volume Weight Class1 (cubic -feet) (pounds)

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Barnwel], South Carolina (contaminated/activated metailic waste and c6-ncrete)

A 1.07679 B 20,945 3,230,562 C 918 64,020.

Envirocare, Utah (miscellaneous steel, contaminated/activated concrete)

ContainexizedlDAW A 48,467 4,386,491 7Bulk A 49,513 2,656,402.

Geologc Repository (Greater-than Class C)

.,*....>. , '851:*,..*

8ka 166,199.

Total 2 228,374 19,831,866 Processed Waste (Off-Site) 233,125 Scrap Metal 224,718,000 1 Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55

2 Columns may not add due to rounding.

.fPTr_ CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1.999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page.1 of 4

6. RESULTS

Costswere developed to decommission Eope Creek following a scheduled cessation of plant operations. The analysis relied upon the site-specific, technical information developed for -a previous analysis prepared in 1995-96,. then -updated to. reflect current plant conditions and operating assumptions. While not an engineering study, the estimate does provide PSEG Nuclear with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations as they .pertain to the eventual decommissioning -of the nuclear station.

The estimate described in this report is 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 decQma-ssio_.rg scenario assumes continued operation. of the plant's spent fuel pool for approximately five years following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of the assemblies. An ISFSI will be used to safeguard the spent..fuel, once :sufficiently cooled, until such time that the DOE can complete the transfer of the assemblies to its repository.

The scenario also includes the costs for the dismantling of non-essential structures and limited restoration of the site.

The cost projected to promptly decommission Hope Creek is estimated to :be $783.1 n11*on. The majority of this cost (approximately 87.1%) is associated with-the

,physical decontamination andl dismantling of the nuclear unit and caretaking of the

._spent fuel, so that the license could be terminated. The xemaining 12.9% is for the demolition of the.remaining .structures and limited restoration of the site.

The primary cost contributors, -identified in Table 6.1, 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 .and the duration of -the program. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that 'PSEG 'Nuclear will oversee the "decommissioning -program, managing the decommissioning labor force and the associated subcontractors. The size and composition of the -management organization varies -with the decommissioning phase and associated site activities. However, -once the operating license has been terminated, the staff is -substantially reduced for thLe conventional demolition and restoration of the site,- and the'long-term care of the spent fuel-As described in this -report, the spent fuel ,pool will :remain operational -for

approximately:fveyears following-the cessation of plant operation. .The'pool will be TLG Serivicesý Inc. CopyrightPSEG.Nuclear1.999/2000

-HopeCreek Nuclear Generating Station Document PO7-1425-002, -Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page2 of 4 isolated and an independent spent fuel 'iland created. Tibs will allow decommissioning operations to proceed in and axoUnd the Reactor uiding. Q ey.

the five.year period, the spent .fuel will be packaged into transportable steel canisters for loading into a DOE-provided transport cask. Thie c sters wl b.e stored in concrete overpacks -atthe :ISFSI until DOE is able to receive them. Dry storage of-the fuel under a separate -license provides additional flexibility in'the event .DOE is not able to :meet the .current timetable for completing the transfer of assemblies to an off-site -facility and minimizes the associated caretaldng expenses incurred by PSEG Nuclear.'

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, miters, resins and dry-active:waste. As described in Section 5, disposal of the lower level material, 'including concrete and structural steel, will be at the Envirocare facility. The ,more highly radioactive 'material will be sent .to..the Barnwell facility, with the -exception of selected reactor vessel components. Highly activated components, requiring additional isolation from the environment, are packaged for geologic disposal. The cost of ge6logic.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 fiaterial requiring controlled disposal through. such techniques .and processes as survey and, sorting, decontamination and volume reduction. The material that cannot be

-unconditionally released -will be packag6d. for controlled disposal at one of the currently operating facilities.. The costs identified for processing are all-inclusive, incorporating the ultimate disposition of the.material.

Removal costs reflect the labor-intensive-nature of the decommissioning process and"*

the management controls requiredto ensure a safe and successful program.

Decontamination and packaging costs also have a large labor component that is

'based upon prevailing union. --wages. Non-radiological demolition is a -natural extension of the decommissioning process. The methods employ~d in-decontamination and dismantling are generally destructive and indciscrinate in inflicting collateral -damage. 'With a work force mobilized ýto .support decommissioning operations, non-radiological demolition can be an ýintegrated activity and a logical expansion of the work being -performed in. the process of terminating the operating license. Prompt demolition reduces future liabilities and could be ýmore .cost-effective than deferral, due 'to the ultimate -deterioration of facilities (and therefore the-working conditions).

MG Services, Inc. CopyrightP-SEG NuclearJ1999/2000

152 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-I425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 8 of 4 The reported cost for transport includes the tariffs and surcharges associated with moving large components and/or overweight shielded casks oversd, as well-as the general expense, -e.g., labor and fuel, of transporting material to the -destinations identified in this report. For purposes of this estimate, material will be primarily

'moved overland by truck.

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

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 spedified 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 need to be confirmed and will add to the expense. of surveying the facilities alone.

The remaining costs include allocations for heavy equipment and temporary services, and other expenses Isuch 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.-

.MG Services, Inc. Copyrikght PSEG-Nuclear1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Doc4ment P07-1425-002, Rev, 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis. . Section 6, Page 4 of 4 SUA MARY OF DECOMSSIODING COST ELEENTS Cost 2002$ Percent of Work, Category (thousands) Total Costs

.Decontamination .30,745.4 *3.9 Removal 192,120.4 '24.5 Packaging. 16,049.0 2.0 Transportation 6,008.1 0.8 132,61&.Q WasteDisposal Off-site Waste Processing 53,629.8 6.8.

Program Management (including Engineering and Security) 260,624.7 33.3 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 9,060.3 1.2 ISFSI Related (including capital) 40,238.9 5:.1 Insurance-an.d Regulatory Fees 7,147.7 0.9.

Energy 11,768.5 1L5 Characterization and.Licenseig Surveys 13,936.8 Misc. Equipment and Site.Services 9,156&8 1.2 Total 783,101;6 100.0 Note: Columns maynot add cdueto rounding TT,r Req*rvices. Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

Ijope Creek NuclearGeneratingStaztion Document P07-1425-002,Rtev.4* 4 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 7, PageIof

7. REYE NCES J... U.S. code of Fedperal Regulations, Title 10, Parts $0, 40, 50, 51, 70 gad 72, "General Requireements for Deco no 'ong Nuclear Fadilities," Nuclear Regulatory Com ssion, Federal Register Volume 53, Number -123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988.

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory .Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds-for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," August 1990.

. 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.

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

5. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Connecticut -Yankee Atomic .Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Power Company -v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for .the Federal. Circuit decision, Docket No. .99-5138, -5139, -5140, August 31, 2000.

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

January 2002 Edition.

7- "Low-Level RadioactiveWasteIPoicy Amendments Act of 19853" Public Law 99-240, Januar '15, 1986.

8. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, 'TRadiological

-Criteria for License Termination,"'Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 139 -(p 39058 et seq.), July 21, 1997.

9. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site investigation Manual (NLARSSNIM),"

NUTREG/CR-1575, EPA.402--R-97-016,.December 1997.

10. '..Decommissioning Cost -Estimate -for the Hope Creek :Nuclear Generating Station," Document No. P07-1180-004, TLG Services, Inc., September 1996.

11. T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines .for Producing 'Commercial :Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

TTrdR-es. Inc. 'CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

Hope Creek NucZear Generating Station DocumeniPO7-M-25-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7, Page2 of.2

7. IRFERJZFNCE$

12. W.J. Maxion and T.S. LaGuardia, 'Decon ssioning Handbook," U.S.

Department of Energy, DOEFEVL11028-1, November 1980.

13. "Building Construction Cost -Data 2002," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.,

Kingston, Massachusetts.

14. Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New Y-ork, New York, 1984.

15. !"Strategyfor Management and Disposal of Greater-Tha=-Class C Low-Level Radioactive WA-ste," Federal -Register Volt*ie 60., Nu=b-er 48 ($ ia424_et seq.), March,1995.

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

27. Tn-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce..

Commission:(ICC), Docket'No..MC-109397 and Supplements, 2000.

18. J.C. Evans et al, "'Long-Lived *Aitivation -Products in 'Reactor Materials" NUREG/CR-3474, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear R.eguatory Commission. August 1984.

19. 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.

20. H.D_ oalk, et al., "Technology, Safety~and Costs of Decomnissioning a Reference

: Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0672 and -addenda, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 1980.

21. 'Tficrosoft Project 2000,"IMicrosoft Corporation, Redmond, W-A, 1997.

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

. TLG.Services, -Inc. SCopyright PSEG Nuclear,.1999/2000

..Hove Creek Yuclear Generating Station DocismentPO7-1425-OO2~,Rev. 0 Decomrmissioning CostAnalysis Ap~pendixA -PageI of 4 4 QPJ UNI.T COOST FACTOR DFV EM T CopyrightPSEG _Nudlear 1999/2000 TLG Semices, .-Inc.

Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation DocumentPO7-1425-002,RIev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 4ppendixAP4,age 2 of 4 IJM-T COST FACTOR. _DVB~LQLV1fiENT.

Fx~aple: Unit Factor for Rem-ova4 of Contam=ated Heat Exchanger < 3,000 lbs.

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

2. CALCULATIONS Act. Activity " Activity Critic-a ID Description ZD-Qration D~uxation a Remove insulation 60 (b)

b. Mount pipe cutters 60 60

.Install contamination controls 20 (b) d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines 60 60 e Cap openings 20 (30 f Rig for removal 30 30 g Unibolt from-mounts 30 30.

h Remove contamination-controls 15 '15 i Remove, wrapinlplastiq, send to the waste processing area 60 60 Totals (Activity/Critical) 355 255 Duration adju:stment(s):

+ Respiratory protection adjustment :(50% of critical auration) 128

+ RadiationIALARA adjustment (37.08% of critical duration) 95 Adjusted work duration 478

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

+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) '52 Total work durationnfin 673 min

- Total cluration = 11.217Ir****

,rT.f'-Rprziirp_ý, Inc. .CopyrightPSEG Nuclear-1999/2000

158 RHope Creeh Nuclear Generating Station Document P071425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning cost Analys*s Appendix.4, Page 3 of 4 AUPENADW]A

-((cQntiA1qg)

.3. LABOIRXI4QTI QD Crew .Nuber JDu.xation iate Cost (hr) ($Ibr)

Laborers 3..00 11.217 40.61 1,366.57 Craftsmen 2.00 11.217 56.29 1,262.81-Foreman .1-00 11-217 60.17 674.93 General Foreman 0.25 11w=27 67.66 189.74 Fire Watch .0.05 11.21'7 40.61 22.78

'Health Physics Techbiciad 1-00. -11:217 45.90 514.86 Total labor cost $4,031.69

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

-Gas torch consumables 1 @ $4.57/h x 1 hr {1} $4.57 "Blottiagpaper 50 @ $0.47 .s'qt {2} $23.50

-Plastic sheets/bags 50 @ $0.12/sq ft {3} $6.00

Subtotal c'stof equipment ancmateials

$34.07...-

Overhead & sales tax on equipment andmaterials @ 16.00 % $5.45 Total costs, equipment & material $39.52 TOTAL COST.:

Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pounds: -$4,071.21 Total labor cost: $4,031.69 Total equipment/material costs: $39.52 Total craft labor man-hours required per unit: 81-884 IrT.r-qP7-r;inPj:- T)7.e .CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 199912000

2f~9 hbope Creek NuclcarGeneratingStation D~oczumerntPO7,J25-OO2 ~Rev. 0 Decomm zSSoning CoatAnaiysis Ap- em-dix A~ Pag 4 of 4 5.NOTW$ ANDRE %2 0 -Work &'di~cutdt factorp were developed i-a cmnjunction With the AL7 (now NE)ITpwogra-m io -dag.4arpjze n w cle W- .o~

Is 3 d ar d-'ate(I V'o lue 1, a--ter 5 of th*e, iei for 'PrOduCinig

.Con iardC Nuclear Power Piý,nt Deco nissiong Cost Estimates,"

A *h *,-036, .May 1986.

-Refereýices for equipment & consumables costs:

1. R.S. Mens (2002) Division 01590, Section 400-6360 pg 24

2. McM* ster-G.i Ea. 106 pg 17178

3. R.S. Means (2002) Division 01540, Section I80'-0200 pg 17.

o iterid -and .-- nsumalble ..osts wre'" adjted usýg the-m.egional indiies for W ngton, Delaware.

I Se.icsI. ... .Cpyrgh PSE Nula *..92

Rev. 0 D~or-wimentJ'O7-,l42ý5-OO2, Pf~7Zof

.HopeCreek lNuclear GeneratinzgStation AppendixA Pffg coam.an'iQningCostAnlysis IM,,IT QOST.R-CTORLISTINGOnly).

(JE--OO: Power -BlockStruct-res 2~.Cj 1999/2000 CopyrightPSEGNuclear

.TLG Services, Inc.

161 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Doc;um.entPO.7-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix .B Page.2 of 7 APPEN DIX B (IT COSTwer A-oOR 8 -L-ueI OEW&

(Power.Block Structures -Only)

Unit Cost Factor C-os-t/Unit($)

Removal of cleaninstrument and sampling tubing, $/lineax foot 0.46 Removal of clean pipe 0..25.to.2 inches dim.eter, $/Qinearfoot 4.80 Removal of clean pipe >2 to .4inches diameter, $/Iine.r foot 6.93 Removal of clean pipe >4-to 8 inches diameter, $linear foot 13:70 Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $liineax foot .26.29 Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/in'ear foot 34.03 Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 50.70 Removal of clean-pipe >36 inches diameter, $i.inear foot 59.60*

Removal of clean valves >2 to 4 inches 91.18 Removal of clean valves >4 to 8 inches 136.96 Removal of:clean valves >8 to 14 inches .262.88 Removal of clean valves >14 to 20 inches 340.30 Removal of-clean valves'>20 to 36 inches 501.04 Removal of clean valves >36 -nches -595.95 Removal of -clean -pipefittfingsl>2 to 4 in 101.25 Removal of clean-pipe fittings >4-to 8.in 160.64 Removal of clean pipe fitings >8to 14 in 262.88 Removal of clean pipe.fittings >14 to 20 340.30 Removal of clean pipe fittings >20 to 36

501.04 Removal of clean pipe hangers for-smallbore piping 28.12 Removal of clean pipe hangers for large bore piping 103.45 Removal of clean pumps, <300 pound " " 227.86 Removal oftclean pumps, -300-1000 pound 640.33 Removal of clean pumps, 1000-10,000pound 2;542.96 Removal of clean pumps, >10,000 pound 4,906.95 J3 TLG Services,.Inc. GCopyright PSEGiNuclear 199912000

162 Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Documrent P0 7-4.425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Appendix#*, Page 3 of 7 A-PPENDIM B.

(continued)

Unit "CostFactor Cost!Un it($)

Removal of clean pump motors, 300-1000 pound 271.14 Removal of clean pump motors, 1000-10,O000pound 1,061.82 Removal of clean pump motors, >10,000 pound 2,389.10 Removal of clean turbine-driven pumps> :10,000 pouqnds 6,577.0 Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound 1,363M81 Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pouwqa 3.,4I7.62 Removal of clean feedwater.heater/deaerator. 9,646.-7 Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater 19,849.3.1

,Removal of clean tanks, <300 gallons _293.47 Removal of clean tanks, 300-3000 gallons 931.33 Removal of clean tanks, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area 7.81 Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound 1.26.22.

Removal of clean electrical equipment, 800-1000 pound -441.45 Removal of clean electricalequipment, 1000-10,000 pount.d 882.90 Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,112.91 Removal of clean electrical transformers < 30 tons 1,467.39 Removal of clean electrical transformers > 30 tons 4,225.80 Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, <100 kW 1,498.81 Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, 100 kWto 1MW 3,345.43 Removal of clean standby diesel-generator,.>1MW 6,925.72

.Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 11.66

'Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/Iinear foot ..5.08 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound 126.22 Removal of clean-mechanica equipment, 300-1000.pound 441.45 Removal of clean mechahical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 882.90 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000. pound 2,112.91

Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound 126.22

_TLG Services, Inc. Copyright'PSEG-Nuclear.1999/2000

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Document P07-1425-002,Ret. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis _Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 441.45 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, -1000-10,000 pound 882.90 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound *2,112.91 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound - 0.48

'Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling t-bingI$ne.ar foot. 1.42 Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to -2 inches diameter, $Iine=r foot 18.49 Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter;,$?near foot 32.88 Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $tlineax foot 52.70 Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $[linearfoot Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot* 103.92 Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/lineax foot 125.17 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 174.16 Removal of contaminatedvalves >2 to 4inches409.23 *206.34 Removal of contaminated valves >4 to 8 inches491.64 Removal of contaminated valves >8 to 14 inches "16 Removal of contaminated valves>84 to 20 inches 1,004.93

Removal of contaminated valves >20ýto 36 inches 1,279.12

'Removal of contaminated valves >36 inches 1,707.42 2,029.16 Removal of contaminated pipe fittings >2 to 4 inches Removal of contaminated pipe fittings> 4 to 8 inches 222.48 Removal of contaminated pipe fittings > 8 to 14 inches 562.42 Removal of contaminated pipe fittings > 14 to.2 inches 1,004.93 1,279.12 Removal of contaminated pipe fittings >20 to 36Winches 1,707,42 Removal of contaminated pipe hangers for smallibore piping 96.90 Removal of contaminated pipe hangers for large bore piping 317.71 Removal of contaminated pumps, -<300 pound 872.56 Removal of contaminatedpumps, 300-1000 pound 2,038.66 Removal of contaminated pumps, 1000-10,000 pound 6.,721.04 TLG Services,'Inc. Copyright-PSEGNuclear.1999/2000

16.4 Hope Creek Nitclear Generating Station Document P0741425-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix J% Page 5-of 7 APPF2DIXXB (continued)

Unit Cost.Factor CostfUnit($)

Removal of contaminated pumps, >10,000 pound 16,369.44 Removal of contaminated pump motors, 300-1000 pound 856.70 Removal of contaminated pump motors, 1000-10,000 pound 2,726.06 IRemoval of contaminated-pumpmotors, >10,OO0pound . 6,120.2.3 18,918.88 Removal of contaninated turbine-driven pumps < 10,000 pounds Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound 4,071.21 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound 11,752.21 Removal of contaminated. feedwater heater / deaerator 2827760.26 Removal of contaminated moisture separator Ireheater 63,002.71 Removal of contaminated tanks, <300 gallons 1,448.59 Removal of contaminated tanks, >300 gallons, $/square foot 28.80 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound. 684.21 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-4000 pound 1,664.73 IRemoval of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,204.54 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment;>10,000 pound 6,299.81

..Removal of electrical transformers < 30 tons 5,079.02 Removal of electrical transformers >-30 tons 12,470.88 Removal of standby diesel-generator, < 100 -kW 4,387.47 Removal of standby diesel-generator, 100 kW to -1MW 9,471.87 Removal of standby diesel-generator, >1 MW 20,474.76 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $Iinear foot 32.93 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot 14.92 Removal of contaminated mechanical -equipment, <300 pound 761.89 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,841.14 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound .3,538.42

,TLG Services, Inc. CopyrightPSEGNuclear 1999/2000

11~

Hope Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation Document P07-l1425-O02,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendi,,B, Page 6 Qf .7 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 6,299.81 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound 761.89 Removal of contaminated EVAC equipment, 300-1000 .powad 1,841.14 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment,' 1000-10,000 pound 3,538.42 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 6,'299.81 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pouna *3.0-3 Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard .72.7' Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard 204.33 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete wt#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 211.46 Removal of clean'heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubicyard .267.46 316.55

'Removal. of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard' 1,897.58 Removal of dean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubicyard Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 626.97 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubicyard 75.24 Removal of clean solid masonryblock wall $/cubic yard 75.24 Placement of concrete for below-gradevoids, $/cubic yard 99.90 Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot 141.76 Backfill of below grade voids, $/cubic.yard 17.31 Excavation of clean material, $cubic.yard 3.05 Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot 1.34 RRemoval of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot 2:15 Removal of Ga]bestos panels, $/squiare foot -2.19 Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot 12-54 Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot 7.42 Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot 8.15.

Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot 73.38 Removal of clean overhead cranes/monorails < 10 ton capacity, each 623-14 Removal of contaminated overhead cranes/monorails <10 ton capacity, es. 1,734.71 TLG Services,Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nuclear 1999/2000

r1 6 Hope Creek-NuclearGeneratingStation DocuynrentP07-1425-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appgndix B, Page 7 of 7 APPENDIXB (continue4d)

Unit Cost Factor costfunit($)

Removal of clean overhead cranes/monorails >10-50 ton capacity, each .1,495-51 Removal of contaminated overhead cranes/monorails,>10-50 ton capacity, 4,162.61 each Removal of polar cranes > 50 ton caipacity, each 6,286.50 26,41128 Removal of gantry cranes> 50 ton capacdity, each Removal of clean structural.steel,;$/pound 0.35 Removal of clean steel fl66+/- g:taftig, $/square foot 3.119 Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot . 9.69 Removal of clean free-standing steel liner, $/square.foot 33.75 Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 5.85 Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steelliner, $/square foot 39.31 Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, S/square foot 13.73 Placement of scaffolding in contasminated areas, $/square foot 22.10 Removal of chain link fencing, $/Iinearbfoot 2.10 Removal of asphalt pavement, $/square foot. .1-05 Core dril]ing 2 to 4 inch diameter, linear.foot 354.68.

-TLG Services, Inc. CopyrightPSEG Nudlear1999/2000

3167 Hope Creek N~clearGenerating Station Document P07-1425-002,Rev. 0 DecnraiPssioning Cost A.*aysis Appendz C, Page J of12

/

APPNJDIX C.

I)TAiL-MLD1 CQPT -ANAIYXSES

.TLG Services,Inc. Copyright PSEG.Nu-lear-1999/2000

HopE CREERK NucumAR 6mENRATING STATION TABLE 0 .I .1 2JEtAILED COST MAiiA4SIS (Tousands if 213 b.olgLox) flaooval t -Pmoo...d Bual. Volomo; Burial Utirtyond

. t bacon Off-Sltt U.RW NRC Sphtnt Ful I Iesttoottlons Voolume' Class A . Cl2ts 9 Class C GTCC Weight Ct Contractor

.ottolty Tramnport Prmc...fotg CtspotI Other Totf. ToI., . Q1TRer. Manapeman*t Packagr2o . Co.As Costs- ,. CdosL " , Costs Cu. Feent Ca Pel Cu. F OaFP.0 CU. C:. Foe Lbnhoau

1.0 Ma-hou1

ltd.X A.Ulty 00scrioLlon cost Cost CMots. -oCats Coas . Costs costs Caont,,eo 603 is. ltdoss6a- lo..vT 2'ooldt; ..

96.it 109 103 .

o, ; . . * * *

.6 Pop, .ttpr

. tmtooarD~oooAat,4p

.Faf lt dalhtooo m radswlotba" ~ o t

.3EH t ~

y-asoItat t no stsat vio 146.

316 31.

I64 160 696 361to. ..

4.600

73. . 11* . 4 ,4" 3.000

. Is7 it 84 70.

a 78 . 4 .. 14, 1.304 t U.ttte Tmi" mPlano

16. PAP-a ubofo * - 147 93 019 ISO 629-,

260 8,100

- 22

z8 ad 5.000 60

96g 420 4120

-.- . ., 414

.o* 600 41 .. . . .

4,920 33 as 4.167 304 46 -902 -36*

. 10 0; .43 .43-a .

1:1.13 W.tbo u~t aop .-t -. *'018 79 630I; 199 *~,

14 .1'ocfo 4 aottoO oti o~o~oy S 474 .11 d a4

.I Ta-l t~ppooototootals "6O LODO 117 1, 134 '67 . 07 . 1.720 o34 4 3UD 8 r.

146 t*l ;68 .

117.- is 194 104 -. . 3.610 2 94 263 101 .131 98 .062 66 66 .. ; 4.600

-36 goo so 10. 79 39 , -

,118 467 #.g d,68 es6 3129 Votoot4opos io - 2.400

,, .176s . 29 201 391 0 * *

& M.P a- or t,804 949 3,960 *.3.6,60 C '

S P'h~otooo~rep. . 1.460 1s -117 7111 .

1.20 e351 Malin .W.~ onpu i7atsao - .202 I9.I 72gIoCoýnt Chto4Ea~6tota/tt . L4.002

90 Is1 103 ADD, * -

11.007orm Q kcalaihist& woainertar 18 O SotatbWo 3'adodio~t LHothba * . ,99 1.499 11.497 l, . . .

B SbWW~ts PactodtatAdatttooot Coasts otod lo 7.trld-Dape&odo bCost 719 7j9.18.. . . .

.4.1~~~~~~o lortno . 63 .6

.. .11 67 On. .

I4.a Pcaaaltpy.ose. ua 462

.4.4 Wsqtotocoo 903 . 52 . 40i )lO2 . .

it Be at6.1. 74i 14.931 184 Ol

.4.9 blapOosadaDAWtenilrcid . -14

.4.0 7too rjybuod n Man ~ ..

~Piso~tol ~ ~ ~ ~

1,046 .341 1,893 . b3,3 . . . . .

.4.7

.4.0

~ ~

~ ~6o~a~be~id~p . . P00.

2 o

4 3

49 tin:Fst .

97 .

40

.37 .

aucleal-o998OOO Oapyrigrt PSEM 21000,7.20.

q1 daa fj asuppq V

Document P07-109-O02, Rew.0 Top. C-h-m.NOO t, Goistoieg Sotarfl.

No.-eioost-if Cost Annoiaoy~ 4~n~,Pg f16.

~TABLE .C HOPE CREEK, NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

- E*AILED C.,OST ANALYSISoo

~(Thousmmdsof20G2flollos) spoonotFel ite Fmcs005""0'Ma 0, M-fa .u~Ioto C,otl muvtyon Ccritoo-o 2VT0-Btt. LLO6Y .O tim : Mattagdoioot - hoostratlo9 Voluma Cri;. A CbosoB9" Cb, 61CC Weight U;. ToO.

I #'iv Deoco" kertitval Pickaginf Transport Pronosoln 1bopono QOther Total Total ý 42i 421 -- . - , .-

7 ! " 0* 40 la4.9 1=03 Tre n 042 and V.9-1 Coot. 148 Lose1- '06 - . .

Pl.4o0.6 .... -

-- i4.10 spenthl -9 Bi1 1 22 9806 00 -

j-. L.iz L1AO 21eco,tL tLff " a 77 7 2 -

0 3oA.12 D.7 F- Ss.0 O&l Co 1 .322 . .4.2..49- "5 ,2

. ' - 1,150 172 1,32 a -, 446,497 Il.422 0o o- Sts*r o 66,004. . .- -

.. . ".29. 4.394. 368,4 748 14 104 501.741 2,.4.4 Ut ,-lyStfoC*t. 1 "02 1,288 q.,419 404 0,903 , . . ..

LeA 6.Poiollop.o8o . 02; 6,t,1o6lPo.6o

.91 .1 1 5, 1t 02 , 2 Z682 ,'53 Lea 2e.O O PE0IOO OS ein ,j , 82 PER0fl Thf~o~.ootgopooat-oh 2)0.WttdWo,2tPfoo*4- 40 4.733

.ad 03 8907 057 .

25.3.3 pin "wa o as~o . 04 04

.11 - - 4300 Mi.13.2 24SDoo~ioloFeh.73 44 $so Sao odeitiol 202 65M 3 29 i 5.. 1,00 so is 16 Lis020 lb.LL4 Roooo gho1ohfdiogo 15.12.5 RDMoslem ~&lWe rummOaodoo 75 76 22,04 11 94 04 04 . . - -

140 aL.L3. Loioo 12 12 11 . 2 15..3. R-aolpsteoy nu0.oooo . .300

.. . . 30 40 : 206 2605<* 1.200 A "- 101-so is 101 1,200 Wk3 2 my3c0.i..0ol 11 28 04 Mt 0 . .

15.1.2.71Sdbosoott~td Wd .d 4,207 16.1.L-12T~o6,to &oodooo 60" 146. 20 00 Sa 1ei 030 16lea

- 7.

~2,000~

2.130 lb.LLS Mo1.booopoeso &oohoct-~ 229t 106 2516 . .32 25..L2A4 ltanwasto building .

6,730.2 200 30 226 000 -22 7 151.1 I ooIsootco046o . -

20,20 8,49 ,49 . . 28730.

Ahl5l Tendl 9e607 601 09.b..ut. - 9 23.L0ss0 35.1.2 ,D*..i4

,620 BIG01 3.477 6,214 . - 0 15.1o,6o034 eb~osI~olo4 6,Ado0~

I. 930 odo

?odo&IhAdtitionalCool

. 604 7.1 1 i29 L18. 6,000 9,6000 -

2521 Spenko63Ptoto465Mlaiooar .

. Bo xol to lbao2 Sa~teeeeCh-s -o m 107 .. 817 917 -. . - .-

lid -. . 427.134 07 A-2. P - qwj.-"Ott 2526 ~ oooO~,,,

6 9~oe ' 24 22 . ,17 . .424 2

6,310

.4 0,132 236-26,42 Ih25. P-p BeadO o0,p,.o 012 0- 22 - Al 437.254 97 047 0,001 0,081 . - . ,42 -

o3Cot 788 912 224. 9223 - 0137 45.3 2StotolP.&4odlb Cotteio dlb2pid-floefutn1oto

-2 - . .. ... 27 .i7..

I Daoua.pip12e 1 oe-muoo 62* 004 604 . . .- '

lb.4.~ .230.""

4 Bulth,I10.00 pple 6i 300 2.0 122 20 lea 19-217d Uoov-n`r.A-v~ouoteorjoowzoQo

,qm ,Mm Tm wq - , q ! -qm m IM im um At' n mm 'm - m

am=66~vT66lt mm =____

,116666own tosigCos. Analytic 170 TABLE c

- ~~ ~ ~ ~ . H P b-D1 iPwww7,16rMARA DETAILED1 COST ANALYSIS

-T~tV1irA'6'7- a'6'A+'in,,

CTbbus;Aoodof2O6lflolliors) poocoand 6onI'M"oIono BuaIitysand 066.63. 6.1867 NRC - potpntzol Silo..

CI.. a ;C... B CA.. C GTCC Weight1 . 06666 ConMt66r Tnoaptot P-obaalng Dl.p~al Other Tot1.1 Told! 1.1. Tom6. Moacgo-.t Raatooatin V-1-,0-Dweainf 66ool Packagn4 Cssba Coa1. CU. Pant Cu. Peat1 Co Poat C. Feet Cos.Feot Lb.. M.Mhaoý M.nitno C.all. Cost . Costs 160,66 ý Co3to Coot~. 62.66 Can~n an . C-oa.i coosla 1.674 66

' / . -* - ,

'1.6-

-. 7 . * . , .4 ' . 26 . ,. . ,,725 96 tj

1.-61* .~1 166' .,666 *- .

66RCFada Mos Di ce at.a *. 17 2 18 66 Is "

1,607 161 1.1v8 - / 1,166 - -

476 - i 1 41 a41 ll 6o 466 466 I SpetIIOLOI PoolaThaO&MOpaan ot -

406 11 5667 .46 6 62.

662* 611to? 16 is .06 : : 2 -. :

ga?-2,219

- - ,- 84 82-b COStee 6*14,446 6,s 16,612 16,612 -

2IOTAL0O . 7,772 69 67,463 63 464 -"7 19,646 . 6l 27.488 6,705 1783 . *S8ao 1,768 266 . 8 6,642 26 . 444,67 1,66s 21g6,82 6,264 ,117 61 64 6,164 36,49,046 6,677 467,664 A6,66B1 3 liDY r Slr6.O&M Coasltmoo 6,66 6676 1,184 - . 466,670 1.442 MA6,N6o 246 228 .- 6,018 78,106 62,66 . 1,674 80,086 I . I.1 t fa

t. L,94 17a

- 164 - 146,664 4,636

.8 i. 67 to 6e6 1,267 i2,67 -

-ldno.l Syatek Piota & 2r141, !26 16327. ,01 . . . 166,360 1,666 paoom &Mtn 46 is 16 2 66 A t6ie ,1, Loss14 1,66 o

W.. 63 6,666 . 141,063 7,193

.47-4 . . 069 664 1,814 J1B4 69 CMM&Nit 66ocln 630 166 . 866

, 1

,610 676 6,6ss 61 Bi -. 465,663 38.348 1.466 714 68.36 6,636 1,66 - 1,606

4. 616 983 6,61 6 2.466 1.16,9626 6,316 . . 1,429,660 36,646

.69 4,671 t,708 476 - 69,083- 6 . 6,664 14,606 64,664: SL32 104 16,6d3 4,781 il6.6M,141 16 79,666 6ag 7,279 7,709 1,810 .-6 62.789 449 16,696 "o' 6g41 69,64$

Mold biai~ecr 2T"27,660 11,6311 . .3 0,4,266

60. 167 65462 8 3,52 " - 1,917 12,667 162,07 482 67,666 6,46 . 4128

" 119, 666 146 6.666 . 6,681 1,0161,66 1, 12,261 M 62,667 - .

1

21. , ".t t,46t i ,* 5,212

.1 Mowa a~ngWatoo (DA) 199 A is bag -184 "- . ,06

, . I.7" -68t O 10 66i . -

01tlo~tovf Water-2,OA(DA)

C.2 - t. 46. 0 . *- ". .

.3 212aog ýWat., Add Wei..j [M)(

.6Cloalo~g WE onoalooDO)

- -1.646,666,76

,676 1%28 6161 16.67

-.6. dondsote(AD) I,776 " .1 76 . 6,661. 1,8

" 61,937 6,044 169,5"64 16,686 a8 66 386 861 , . 84 %,854 ,96.4

.7 Cundnsiamt. Dissineol-~nPrmsa(AI 664 7649 1,622 -98,46i 3.532 d 146 481 " 'IRS 1,064 i ,i4 7.863 174 18 %q667 - t 221 .

36,371

.6 andoa.Poobtor o 960 ad 16 662 1,012 687 1 .176

,1b 6 6 76 1.46e 6,646 1,014 -

19 6 B1 444'. 170 1,461

.ad C.Oadear Itonol (C03 - 4a6 1,6- 5,666 664 -

166log 616 sib "6 "..

. -1 *

.11 Oanwsuonk skio.ophoe Cootnol (as) -- .262 16 - 9 . 4 "3".7.8 61

.12 CoollnrTooaer(C8) 4,366 4,61.5 6.662 276756 . a. 24 846.6b 42.7,604 22,496 14,466 (M8 i6 364 1,76 I' 1616 ý746 4741 7,041 96,766 4,76-

.16 9.1nn67o.Rtosim - 1,102 S 761 76 644 . 6,60 606

.14 nPa.o,ke.(AS)7 649 466 7,*,4 6,864 3,986 1,616 . 662,799 11 17,646 mt, wastd (CC a48 8si a1 17 791-16s 6, 6 6 , . 768 64 I.16 ouiot -l 66

6 1i66 i16

6 .

25 Al Clanenair Sool09 (OD) 41 0 1. t1 I'm 6,?74 104s k16 ill :'" 6s3

.16 altod stoAm6614o666 CV (C2,CpO 1 - t4 . I2 6 "67 646 1 6 6i 0

66- 3..

16 61 o .t a 6

as 1066s 680 9 266

'19 uu6kDqitn(S1.) - 2 A , . 6 . 6 - 41 6 "16,61*

4.06 LkakfltiTajtEqulinnnl68?1) 416 oi 06 Oftoot i4o~o(

iCsyra h3 P.SEG.Nunant-8t2'6578900

Docummrt P07-U145-002, Rein 0 ioj. c~etqk~ioslo Ooore'olbo2 statwin

-bl APowodi f Pag g. f 13j fc !Z~jf Cs 171

~TABLEiIO ROPEYtREEIr NUCLEA GENERAT~ING STATPION bETAILRIJ COST ANALYSIS Cflxousaide of 2002 Dollirs)

.' -3m i - 16 la0

.L4. , 8,0 SoofD3 6 'a S

. 3 31 31

9,0 " --

152 2.LCMSlisooo.G*lOa, .a 0 0 ' 0 803893 8002 69 1 0.283 ,, 4,467 0,034 , 162,467 10,s59 3ý.2.4.04 R6.lSoomoCAB 820 .39 20 19 1 4.641 " pin

,790 4,079 - 065,924 3,7/84 16,761 2&.L4.3.5 M* bho A** "o" 709 71 20 " ,168. 1,78 0m 4,641 0 ." * - ,6 2g.L4.28 Lo'lx.ooT10 ]OflC*

O

9 1 1

6 * . , .'4 290. ,;

300 1,101

.. , ... a0' 1.- .20 *>. 03 .* .233 2..3.4.2O os o-".,- %l, %5 17.202 IlooIfot4g f pCM 0 4 1 112 40 22s .3 7.14.29 2* 28 - 7.

2.1.4420 2soPoo.o-d 00..- 2 57,0 5%611 07 70 4.000 2405 L 8.011 6,011. .293 2,14.L32 So.oty & T-b.o Aost82 Cooling (EG? 1no In 1,3120 6.235 Sapli [ {Q 182 20403 .6 1 .0 66 so 0 07 49 49i "30 so - to 103 191 "- 614 2-1.=2 & 0at-.C*1osg( 47 13.15 al 0 -9 170 70 2.l.4.1 Ssýbo 106" MM 118 . 777 717 ,406' , .119 2.1-L34 T i0uoGe 0 (C01 toba Oil 107 4 8 492 10,120 270 1.13 1.6180 ,.377 0" 88,105 WA1,SS2T=boh S. .ZS W (CA) 602 29 19 .237 401 14.823 10,194 9,711 .*5.1682 64.769 09802 74,116 7.,809 3,312*.66 273,607 2.1.4 Tob-o s, 13.401 711 g00 40 2 i* ",23*2110 1,10i 10 - -13.10 40,is4 2,1,2 S'*Icamioldh oopmof.=oiD,, g i,06 2" 222 449 03,016 142,018 I 41.00 - 039 102,077 . 74,63 4.732 01 . , '7.213,104 4.0,81i 2.93i 28,1 S9 et1 -o2 OCo 690 20,a4 6bpi 2,490 20",12 44,013

-8.21 O .".o ,-4 -, 27 1,684 887 ,.

. 0 467" (1 46 . ".- -368 2*S.3 Ab.1 .

.9.o=oo A.do"'" 0 - 21, 1-2'-1 401. .6 Go 401 416 406 29.0.1 OtO2,O pih.,d.kd.flD.poo4odCtO. .

2.4.1 o.3 0,. .- 127 .. 04. 84.

X.oo 1..

0 no - z 2i 0- ....

2a.4.2 1. -1 . ... :

' "" "72 8,972 2.37 8 .87 15*.55 2.310

. 48 "" -9 0 ,071 1.071 ". $ 96,400 20.40S 1 . n000060 19 172" 00

." . 18 a ,S , :"

2.4.8. D~psol, offlA

=S oboos d - - 07- ,40 - -do 21420 SO 2 ..33 2,76 *

2.4.7 PL-498 P oTol*oe wpbo. . ..

"'.40' 2 64 ' ,5. . ...

N4. NRCPos-, ... . .

.94P. 62 61 07 ' . . . . 7. ' . -.

2 z. -2.. . .. . . .. . . . .

. 070' 41.300 ...

C1da ..

lSCR&Owmp1o.SLff - - *. 2:26

.S ,. 223 .60 1, 4 180- 4-.

03

-. 1."6" 29.12 29.18 -~S -a O-'o .

. . . . . . 6 -0,423

" :41,6m 0,250 47.915 47.1096 30.4 .S uouty ST.fc t ,110 9,4409 . 183.,6518 ,310 740,834

" 7 5,200 170 48 609 80,012 8,6709 80682a 83,710 2.4 Sol alPo peod-foo.P-AieC-2x.o4 A133 4s9 100,377 64,344 6.135 919 . 7.451.21i 463,206 743,T67

$10 200934 9,77 2.596 26"1256 4,601 51,36i 422860 210,048 108,090 290 TOTAýLOIO62. COST

. PR0G o 19S3:

Th,. , .G&,o*eio * ,. ...

- . _M,- .- ,-

I ~ ~~~~ .o

... ... .jpo0C

.85 . - -.

mmromsno ao pm oo ao= ME am OEoIR TABL11C' lil CIREEK NtJCLEAR WtNEI9ATING STATION 7o2.m0 V~oluert CI-o A, Class 13 Class C 2CC Weight dm0 Obootor 0 ~~~~C.At Oo b00e" Coosl MeOlialoosilItiler PCoot o, mesaIoTotal..

a. . Cob ~ oCosts- ~ t

~ noot L.Trm M

0800 nn*.

Oe8o.Oon

. no~ , ot oat dFo COel UFo CemFont Lbs Mootroi Msnh-.m 0 60 4210 4,0 L371 0,e0g S1ppl2 (BF) * ,822 1A 274 1.90 I2 Co*rol UoDrl Hy101 020,20069 08,8 248 80 7 110 807 .* 410 0,8 .

.2 -s 2 ,I4t 188,188 8.024 207 n.o - .

I .3 4 04 .204 204 418 00 4.980 1.185

.3 4o -Ioti0 .0 ,(e2 0" N

- to .217

- 20 103 84 0 649, . . s28 44. .. 44,3300 0,99

.4 ,PCs0taom*F.) 141 8k N N III ps 850 `00 ".

1,,90 0 . 0,0"8 120,701 4,412

'Rich Prfo Co C . Injoin (13) 120 le1 89 10 .0. %80 .491 W0 44,880 27.888 11o rsW.. 1 189, 110.~ o pa8o N(BS .. 9 so88. 28 - .

844 03,7,6 goo .4,700! . 1 786 . - 70,389 12,836 7 2CiOc9 :(F.FCJ - 208 8884 is I 08 - 2.400 Boo 0,010 .0,019 0,771 - -

8 Nottor =,i0il aaP, Colng (02) 132 8 1to I ,104 ,- .

t3210 2 at 276 124 -1569 . 009. 100 8180 09,440

,9 "sodzon re Waololn l nu1 D(Bb)* . 49 97 It,

. 70 070 1,004 .2,3041 084 1,214 117,0S0 10.340 10 R..doi ar Clofop dO3) - 040 S0a. 27 i

. .71I S499 449 408 10 - i7032 2,146 11 RedetinlW.trrTmAfm(N) a '. 41 01 0 . I . 82 . 0 .

80,40D

. 10*0*0 MOST 493108.08 9s0q0,1 12 ,kildom ltdeR ov{ O) 1,180 1,178 1t0 .. 42 800 4,787 799 41 " 10" """ .99 ve0" " . 9204 -

01 8Lnb1 o4I o oi&Coo - . 41 0 1 1,902,001 112,770 17,100 80,041 sit

.02* - 07 0 94

X.I29,997 lood s1 4249 . _7 a is 8 at. 08,0 ... 171,001 2 1 .. 1 . 110 is1 1.319 . O-, 2 80,078 14.310 1dinn, 499 . '41 87 . too .62

1 I17, 200,1010:

q., ad. .- 0.270 , V.7SGB -. 4,589 oil ItOBO . 81 ISO Ild0 Big.Roil2 4 Turb nla 1,000,920

.0,85,1078 o,. 6,1230,7 2ob O tos ,

1 . 8 ... 8 18 . 8 .0 19 . 288, 12,ooeooo*~ oro~416 1.1,776m 289 80 *7,800 .,*0.0 " 0.808. - . 4,08 "1.10-

q. [poenoi8 enf 1.8 ,30.01 00 0 818.. 1,* :.BG .. i70 4 7oot 67b 6e7-D0*he* tizbo 781 2.0

'.oo ',8 0.1m0 00,211 0,0

,0 8,08 11 8 I sbtd a §b mr N.

8 7,20 1,87760 - l8,144 82,82 . 4092 . , 17120 ,010 -

-8oapotaIoee0d bAot800ne' Coa - 074 1007 117 I 2b . ,

458 i,790 2,080 . .

ppO 018 S1 1,14 . 8.04 8,8,7 4 .* - 1,-

&4 ,ot '00 88. 7 - .-42 -3" .

9pnoo.8It~q o

.8,000 2,008-.- -

SAO c48 - 7 H.elth T&YA. souIppli* - *8.'- ' 710.0 444 S20,2 . 444 0,016 .

Oloo.eoolqup-iooott C~*

SomtuolrOIowoeOA 4

,. ,00-1,070 "I "-* - 9,o080 08" DIhp..ml urDAW lert6mo1 .

""eO~. ' 0 .

08 log 17 .47 2 - *0 8,40 a0/i 0,70189 - 1 0,118 10,149 . . . ..

OoltoliP~oHodltCl 3 ,2 Do. 400 8,"1 2,48 - .

plutatt., 0 'igyW16 .,'0 71 1,,2 778 *4*77M b*/ ,

19 4 S6 9~*709 u F..1.

00Peo~odDpnodoot NR .Cool p.o.pnlt**a ;18o .?30 98.4489 20,400 zs£.i ~ 142.808 2,0 .0 0 IS001T~o0oo4a~oCs

.G .8 Go 00 . Got 00 2 0ta4,.bpooiiooood'l-oa 3

4 00 Fue Dry~80aoo&.~l

~op11-.S~ff &. ,fg ,~

tog ad0

.28ag I

8201 11,8 as 08 A2821 0

9,794 410 3, 213 i.2018.

0 Sapmmitystkloml 10,84 8,081 79,408 73,406 8 Ut 281,; Etoiol . . .

.8",9 10,770 120,7128 980,402 20.070..6, ,0 S tato1 ooTollPri.AD.flpqodn.21Oo i,882 .7.000 1og 47 8o08 7.083,870 461,O83 1,107.3214 80,889 198,77A 160,408 21,270 87..1,28 18120 1,8054 0Mn7 00,180 0 k128 1,178 7,428 21%644. 88.944 TOTALPE0100 2ibCOST 1~

.. in.0

-.. owmnt omnr-1d12Y-O0k, Rn..

D.P. DrANkfUdooGnrnrouingfStation .'b C; -9. 7fJz PnnoozntZ000001f CostAnatysts .Appendt.

.* 173

... ,..C T At L E C'.

riblp CREEKNiuCLEAIR GENERATING STATION

. DETAILED COST ANALYSIS (Thousands of 2002 Do~llrs) ii * ~ ~~Off- slie -LLRW *H C pe tF e r m ed Bur iaVo um es GT=

Bu rialt W.Igh

-t , ad n~tctr craftR~ Mamhours

-y l FeatXase;CssBoC~ass C Ad..ty N....

cost Removei

.Cast Packaing~

Costs.. clots .1 ,mc.psln Trarmport Costs Costs " Costs

. Disposal 1her Total Cohvlnge.-y Total Cost" UJ. T.n

coal. Costs C-1.* Cu.louma Pnvm.,~s~rtoti Feet Cu. Cu.Feet Cm.Foat Cu.F&6t Lbs. Manhotas In- AcdW" 0.=dpo D':-fl"'.'=.dPo. 25. o o Plln...g -... ...

as ta.1 . e ME se.1 s . L ia .. - o,201 1,821 2.1.1 eon-a spoo Ewhl-17 187.

mf asinop onlo~otlsytoma.

1,00 IL41 Aamiolsbiod. S- 7 s -. -

,02 8- -G- -

2-.1+/-2 AýplSk Bu loo AC(G , O) * ,2727 -. "

28 s1e 215 .446- ,

2 1 201.1.3 AAU,Yo2 ilonetg-J.0 - - ISO 3 011 - -- 90 3nJ.1+/-4 AwffiatyStem Gtattatsns (FA) 44 . - -" 5.830 3, 2 4 242 112 650 "6 1 1 IL n.og*S o pEG .E11 -

- 8455 BA37 1 104,933 2 s.U . B0 &c 4 p&E uip wonastaDfaihsW (HG) 2 sn7 1460 i4s so 162 a10i 3,127 13,160 13,102 - 761

-12 - 2 12rL. c.lem~n) %vast* (1Mf) 20 1.1+/-_0 C 4.Iw r (GE)

(,420 . r "22 32 "4 2,744 125 2,7- -

25 7.140

-4,371 1072 6 40 40 - - 732 21..110 0 b*o Room & W1hi't (GE) usWA . 34 3a 1,9

". '" "52 0" 810 - -14 2.1-.11 Dia*o'~lity (HD) 1"N 13.6'3

. S0 1,878" *,rei 4.22 -

1-2.212 Denhlonol4ed nlo nE n* (h ) . 7s0 044

" . 6,7 .: . 7- 1.032 1-.L1S DindAxoSuln&Emnot(G ] 4 "- " -.

.1.". 1. 3.,18 Glss 4 os. St... &Troo . (a) .0.5+/-1 120 - . ..

11 41;-

87 87 1,018

2.1.*1j Doonemn Water -R." . 20 672 4,082 06- ." 17,812 1L0.517 i 10 24.820 10,202 11 0,297 A8,87 - - - -71 2o.1A2.1 23st0nn1.11CA 1.018 11 - 14 m2 118 870 5,241 0,241 . - 10,006 .. ., . - 43,910 2.1.2.9 -- bisl.RCA(Clem-) 9s21: i 023 2,0I asV . as so 41 231 .. .. e. 7,131 1,689 20.1-2.20 29 - -9 .6-. .,604 U 231 -48 50 no.1+/-2 1 El-shstto jo(.C .0.407- 18.580 2n.1.922 Fire sstsioo- RCA(EC7 Il'*Wslso(A3.) . 0107 . a 11 -.los62 . '" sag* "L00S e 65 .* -'-

68

1 . . - - 1.187 2a.O.i_3 47 8,7 n,57 1402 2,106 201,082 12.411 201.2.24 FselPoCosn(EC s0ea 40 11 200 9as 1.0i to7 i - Loss - .1.082 29 . 8 6 Bis 181 20.L2.25 IrtrLess Csmpe.t .Ak*M* .

is - 231 11 " - '.I 2a so -

211..20 Yk-tuSaknrj eHVAC(G0i 11 08 -' .: .- 1.670 t2,.a"2M N -A7 7 -

- . 18 21, . . .

, ' . . 128 - .s. - 2.273 .

20..9-29 O0 Wat.*-.(L ) 107 238 .1,800 . 1,2l0 . * . 5,01.11-2 132785 2190 PlmlflaHg (GA) 21+/-0' 659.82 %. :461.

37 220 w1 . . .02 .L . 2162 2101+/-11 Prisnary notzioeutnt osl G-. s9 01- 1 ,2 l 05 .

241 2 4.. . 029 80 .440 ,1 113 89 . 2 40 20..12.3 TxomoRdM-lsMooibo.o(MP e5 192 192 -': 100 194 . 11,0 1,431 2..11331141.aod L- z ) . "/2 . 2 1 23 08 20 .

2 "0 o,020 7 a 244 '127 174 972 972 .1,2.20 m22 .

0I-l3l Radýo t . TkVot27lobns

-- GCO) 410 14,061 12.023 a 41 7 01 2.301 Ls - 2000 168 1.2.133 Ee rdnd o VACC agP 3 .

.. , 0 1 - -

fr.1._2, ni .

40 -se 882.

42 -. 40

. I.6 .

go1. 2n-37 rA-ooSupply & RbustAlr(G1) .

1.110 - Laos. 10,167

r EJnA . -. . - . b 274 " 1ni W10 238 S.nvnkcC pn. 1,181 ot. - . . - . " . 6 65 65. .

go2+/-23 SendiWotez(EA) 4.

12A+/-0 SnnndoWsLon.36C A51 2 14 a 10 I- 6708 - 157 LU6GS oe LOS 09,3989 .

134

.78 - "/1 - - -

2-.2-41 S i.n % Wotn.Hypdons o(EP.QJ 00s1 - . ". *- -

8.948 0,040 . - 1,222 4,602 405,187 16.82 11..43 Sobd wtoaw(10 - 841 so 18 067. 2.000 .767

11. 108 4 150 2-00854 2102.43 IStalyoedbr/E-ensyfinonl Qos7(22) 4 . 137 . -2 ."

. - 184 1,411 1,411

,- . . .. 16,181 12+/-u44 0.mo r . L)1 .. 1,227 .

i 1s 118 .o lo 9-,75 1,07 2c.1.2-45 Suppteslcn odttonosCleanup(. - 64 , 1 so 4B -

10,011

,8s2 5 .. 23,210 1.0.2.46 TS .oo zla,.uOld ,C( . 842 , 0 10 SEE

,os. , tao i 1 ,0o 00 2,022 -

0,303,484 049.198

+/-'1,074. i,89 .2007 69:47 60,059 7ý,70 00,370 ' 20.120 .M.8..

2-1.2 Total, 4.309 13,801 SE 260 24..

Cnyr o~ PlEDft nlorJS*/0.

Wt2 ,.,.r~ .

WA . .C..

... ". . . ,.;+ * . +' .p.

~is8~nj~~ C

~174 TABLE 0 HOIPE OREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION bETAiL91b COtbANAXTSiS

+

09-010. LLM6 NR14C . .Sp.800s.J SS" P6'weend o61551Volumo. Bu2,,.! Willy and S44IuSy O68os RO0 P.kigln9 16.n.P-od 7,0m . .g60 bIspoa.1 D6.., 16.W toal ,i TeMl. 100s664.Mn1heo~or,.tIn Volumi, CI..6nA a.66 05..6. c 07 GC 0 gh Craft0 C.nfr.65, 1643,.

. . ..AI6vrn,.,,I610,n

,:. __ ... .... 0,5 ,Cst .Calls C-o. c.d.Co . C..tg C..t,. CnS.6O.U0,8 0oFt. C-ost ... *os m C.t. Cm.,Feet CU. 25et Cu.pfont CU.7oo C~. 25 Lb,.. Man ."i. M..ho,um a.,5.~on0t 7B0,:72 BRA

,Ps.outfso£ll L 712P 1,054 12i 67 12D3 ., . ,0i.o 4,464 4.4.6A 461 1,824 -. 740,512 32,665 723 1,"24 126 A7 a 63 18,516 1,006 4',44 4.66 467 7U614 740,573 32,683 L4 8no8tl.Sh~d~o6Ioou87ns~fd.,m, gti 616 8 . I f12 26 141 731 731 2377 2ll 9,440 11,608 8;16 PaeA 2a Atti ..031. 6,661 26,4268 m2 "73 ' .22,544 i6,t156 14,08 7.2.648 64.6 " 7.7869. ,7280 b7,486 . ,257,"53 659,263 CiotsmaSC tf 23Jt ~ .906og tss6, i S. .* , 1, .s . ..., . . at 62 . 1.26", .

'I'* o uo-En Manni bi. n . 4. Is N Ill 69 068 a, a 76 . 739 1 27 , 16a 221*. 1.4 449 W. 1*40 4,077 0 7,7

. 7.8

' - 5 8 8 643,621 2,2

.1 ;-...Pn 86 178 175

ills~r

0 t"o. 118 " ' tsl i.2 4 .4 Em .phy 6 2*h46. .

666pIr6 10b iA'Hyqui~pffiaht-nd MI.,0 " ; [ - 986 '"*.291 2.191-"

4.41, )6"h'hT do* 6,6. . .... 9. . 622 ' 95 17e .69 2 ,71--

boo*e ,* - - - 170,446 2,0ssL 4.0 O.65575. .

tZwenar.a . 160 ..[ 44 i *

- -. " . 63b

-i1 2010 168'6,6 6.-61 'd - - * - " ...

4.93 'E3a :y n8 Jpm5s8 1e.o * '1,86 ., -2 4.70 11 ."l arb. agoAW .5 .s . 66 835nto .1 . 66 "s8o4-

.8665- - 7, ,6 4,6

,4.

8405D7828 ~

4.*34n

.E 71 1 C4,.4p7 5~o 3..

. ,6

-. "56 . '.66 le 68."

26 8

726 ...

h62 66 B

183' 02" 4.108 PA, -Lfi5 sý".IooEqn~vmistJSdvli,. . 360 42 1 z 4.11 Is2 c0m . 8l3 oR -. *i

7617 - 116.'

48 2 "

gas. WS '" -. - - ..... . , . e

.41.2 - ,eRids Toro.O&M. Cus. 22 26 L 4.169 1.i*na.o t

'Tr* .dq - " ,276 . 7in, 4.14 U 7 9 a . .i47 -~ 11,09o 6,847*64,666'3.. 66 ."- - . 66.

.4 S,.1ts8ooo4f~43.*ot 1 ,64 66A .9 20,504. -4,646. 1.61.0 86,1162 61 . O.

6,00- 173,446 6,666 268,873 B61 00;3l si. G6,1 88,866 1,461 626 13,085 1.8,161 25.041 62,276 116,706 007;G76 61 7,7f6 06.420 46,347 5.008 4,072,676 666,615 268.671 8 T A 76 0 "Adi-122 67 ISO i6 o~43AilaiR..j ClsS.

.. . .. ,11.*86 ,1 , . 1,67 .

3,863. '. 22,676 15,67i6-16676

20,617

. .*l,26

.2 . Su.lo6olpaioS 9. Aa.lumosl CosMA.

u2& Pgrldd.Depan4.0.6 Osb

~..1

-a LIneuran.0

\126 ... "

68"i , - : S4 26i 6,40 5M. S6 2,8 '

o 4

f.. Rvootlibydno.lsuplI,. 18 . 8 11 ,,..64. 03 I11274 216 4.4 blzpus.lnfDAw 668.SAd S4.8 Plant entu.ybuilge 046 87 28263 266 . " "

1. 5 266

. 60" 4.6 I'm67.., . - .

." .26"* 5 86 -.,9 a.4.7 E.on. P 1.4 uloO..1ee t.4, ISRA Cawyla.nei Staff *.. ~ " . 614 b0 .706,86o ,o .

9.4. 017'Pthl 816rfir 08,M663665 . 11 a '4, m 448 Cul s1l0 662 6.CoiS or5 "474 71 646 14 - ,. s Ccp,4ght6PSG NudearI6999800 rucelnc. .e

Document P07-4ws-o0o, Rn. 0" Hp. Cr-e N-r--, .riz ScOOL- A.ppdL. C Pasg 9ofu12

D:.o....-nl.et-E C.s. An0e12 175

*TABLE C STATION.

'OPE OTEEK *P NULOEAR GENEPATING AILU* i COST ANALYSý is (Thousands of 2002 Dollkm) 511 Opnt'el Site ?eee.o d sOt u meseeoe 03udl Ualftyend off-Sl~f LLRW *R Crt Centbeetr

- Ue.Term. Mrpneoegmbt Rect2a5 Volue cM.. A CersEB Cl.s C GTCC We1ghI D-.n Removaliport pacb.glng . Pepeeoslng- 01sepoe Other tet.l Tet' Manhoem

costa*"

ostse ", GotS CmeFeet Cu.Feat .C.Feet C(..t Cueet I..

Goss *costs. Cosb3 . nUnpose

(=dn-4) * - t.240 3,791 19,071 18.271 - 107,177 2.*U U-ilt-sy -eCmu .S.. . . 11*., 4 1-,s04 2,208 16,749 16,701 49 138 181223 Z0.4 Seh e te -POeh-.Dpe..deetCe.O I.ls 10 . "

29,890 ' 0,B3 - 49.3 " -.. 539 i 2427.455 191.623

. "1,25 10 , , " 6,711 S,3.07 2.0 "PTOMPE22OD 2. COST 10

.712,249 2.429,616

. .. *.. 1,404' . .

. 8,228 123,125 200M063 19,324 - 918 28,79i,35 22100-*e3et~2e.

PRO IS19,712.

2 O 92.003 19,.69 . 4.800. 40600s 80629 189.9T7 69.0126 804,620 615,119 .

. e e0d stt..Bulc. .e.lk

.,.70.. . * " . 164.666 23.2.2O1St-o*ot.=.e0tU g . - 1."1'.123 2.7 2 117. - . * . .Z7 2S.:36 23.LS st afee ,92 *Ae 10.644 0271 6,229 4109- 69 627 23.9.14 A-BU,&De..et Wtr Pe-TeeakBldg 40.381 403 2,204 8.59,04 3b.2.L5 B=V, Fotty ,- 3,125 : 1' 549

.20 -

31.L.B C!-poloolo Lp .4 1,772 -- 10.426 1,941 . 231 1,772 --

1 . 7 3b.1.1.7 CeotoeliooWouleoe . 1,793 3..LL" C33oge 1 29.326

. . . 19 2,2*27 2 h3.*2.LS Cl.. teeg Wet.. Pe S .v. . 1,2 ... 7.618 74'9 70 * "

3b.LL8.2,13Collg*eT-e.

201,111 DtReol&cantM13e2AIN.

(U40

. 1,5

", ".070 b69 9 69 2

4 43

~." . 9,62 42T

.2 67.695 3M.L71 l oe is . He-,.. , - . 02 -'- 1,120

. 14 104 " 104 - 2,609 3b.LL12 2 W"t..Te"kFde'dVe" 94 192 -. 20 It.2.j OoeoHuo 197 .24 110 7 1 99. 12,018 33.L.2.3 Go~d He,. Emeregw.. GeoioeO. E-NAke 392 1,011 31 097 -

S20 .16S I..L .. tl , . e : . . 129 5*,61a 074 374 i ' "

2012.119 Co~oL*T~esee , S4* 36 .49 -

17,417 2409 222 2,1992.1 6.197 33715 leefe~ooe4eoe N . ,

as 444 44 73,1,2.13 65,,l eoeY*W o=t.e$ , . 86 ..-

92u 8.924. 602 6.282 L6,680 231,1,70 S-oo.e&ERweotB.eedlg 6 ,021 1,0-9 ..

.1." "- 3"" 1 Im ,04 . . . 238,992 33.242 W -'iwItelke mOWdotee . -- 19,104 2.209 99,62 1,6090 14.941 3.LL2.2. Toe-Bl~oSldiao742 241 2.246 1.0 3&.L2.4 Toobi..oe 1.006 ' 74,280

' "* " *' 203 o

021 i0 s.

7.0295 .. s, 7.065." s-20u.L24 Ho bO2s tt._&a,=

73a.11 . , m , rO, ,ee* " . 1,331 11.3k.ee.,o 17.091 217 2,000 2,0020 ..

3b-L0+/-2.l2t7 lI*2T t Poedl "te,1 - 1,444 . . 889,459 0,97 4 ,87 . " ,0.10 . . - *0 Z3.2L- Totete . 8,9 "'908 6*,011 22.2 CB.AMSIL5e 1.946

' 0 621 eat - " ..... 1,200 33.L2L GS . &ludh o. t e .e ag- -..

. . . 17 11 12 1,220

.2.U4 .. 1.. 614 . 897,418

. . -. . . 114 6,d6 10,270 - . 4,k24 7o,49e a.31 S0 W.belP bod y6h.C. 69,099

.( 22 ,,... ý7 9,071

. * *. 0,019a 52 .o,,42- .2,742" 3b1t. Co t Or2.suneg 1,019 1,619 3b." Ab.oL. Dsp ..I 105 221 9.071 2.220 435 918 2,8 19 . 2742 .

3W. &,3ot1~~hd S Aa&U=oeoCoAst 33 Peeod "td ote mbet 940 "

9gg 122 943 23.3,1 2.oo teal aue.voe 040 922 123 042 53.3 2. t1, Pe.1e lb Celat..e 6o-a Cop.PYgte Ps,EO N, .1 , ".7.9"272000

.. .. 1. .

I

-jplM musa :Em S'Pigiloo(

toningsoi Aubsfs TABLE C AOPIM biEEK NUSLtAX WINERATING STATION D~ETAILEDl COST AN'ALYkf; SI,4n6Fuel slid P -6,,d BufflV.I.-0r Buroia Ui~lityin

-it. LIRW NRIC

-ty a m~..t Fttrto oum Ea. ýC2 ls TC Wih rf T '. m~axm lp . i" *11 Tt1 U 13*hg 2

12U11L43.f C19 7G.,16.i I0 pri61B4111,ito

- 7411 026 66g 3,66 10666 via

. .aa.o i ,6h 1 F0-

-,9 .. ., 67 .226 29.64 6,53 UIl S. riSlEC,6 cat

-140964 6..

72..i 24,604 *. 676 . ,216 SA ,1q.t5i T OT, P6i"OD 2bCOS4 RI("Db (0'TCC1 Sta p peri l . /s pp aB qedio50~nA.,,CoAil

. 7~i.

4.2 pe. i t~p as6 4 69&2-4.4 Me001 I2Find .6 6 96 024

.9 I,,5.6 a~ond 6 .i No Be 17 1 .-

.,7 J Syteazior 6

01M Cast.

,2 36s . 1,6 5 7 3 TOTAL PiRE0D 56 COST .

ices,~~~~,G4 57.. 5,218oy~htSGM.5o12i!4

.Doo,.s-osnP0-142S-OO2. Bes. 0 Hoep cs-Ah 4ooloo G-.ot~ogSMet!-e Appondto. q Poo- If1 of M2 DoosoooLiskionbg C~os .o5ýo.

177 TABLE C

"-.. HOPE CAXERINUOULEAI GENERATING STATION'

"" DETAMLED COST

'-ffhodspiJs ANALYSIS ':" .

or'*02doilboeurs) . . e _ _ _ _

SSRC SpoetFuel site proessed BudialVolumes Burial fitlttyosd Off-Site lURW TQtas Toto U&.T1,sii. Mangemit Restormuon Volumie ClessA C1233 CleI GT-Ccc Weight Craft ConbatcRtr Dcos mot, pookasg Transport Processoldj Disposal Other onitogonol CoS "ools

Coow Cos Co. Foot Co. Foot Co. Feet Co. Foot Co. Feet Lbst. - Manoinsoo Maohours Decodptio. Cost. Cost Cost.. Cost. Coss *-b Costs . Cost.

Indosv 154 * .5.503.. 504 3e.-. 3SFSIIkos eooosts 1 6 " 40 159 457 248 1.454 33, 1,454 064 457 248 1,454 Zle.2 SobbWsPeolod. AAdlhSooelCoo.6 al51 11-F-,**

54 '.

a ." ;- "

a 30.3 wgbtbdPeriod ao Coltotos costs T

* ,58 U4.2 Poopootytosj 7 buoy equilsoes ooott 17 218 3o..4. !70 BAA. Fl~teoetoubodget 198 e.4.5 UtlltiyStaffCoot ,422 073 1635 - 407.848 40 le1 457 1,667 ZoO TOTALPERIOD 30COST 692 PERIOD If-ISMI SMto Rostetooibo

. "

12 i$9 6985 . * . . .2.497 54 658 .

12 139 313.1 Smasll tool ottoancom 5 ,497 514 O

US ottlotdICloos ot Peeled3tPdctodD~p-e.sOntCost 7.

3C41 I.--os .

14-.2 Pooposyt.- . .1 2E4.3 Bos ~tao stl. 62 71 34.L4 Pioet 6eoo budget au4. UdttylbffCost 314 Ssbto-150tod i3fPosio-D.Do-sdeotck '62 . . . . . . 2457

_.. 5.4 71 771 310 iOTAy PERIOD aECOT .51 all '18"5 21.866 92,415 d.563 ... 51 407.848 517.406 35.3858 40 12. 61.25

. 17,012 9 20,liB PERIODS3TOTALSI *18.560 755,,19 5501,511 2 38,125 20O5059 905.45 915 . 51 19,0655870 2.6715.095 166,ý 5,075 8*46,605 .162,651 i00,071 . l29.240 U W115,2193 80,70 TOTALCOST TO DZCO0nISZUON . 2,500G 155,274

'I

5. " . :.* ' .. ,.

I..

Copy~-ght ?SSG .',ookeau1999/2060 7 iW W m l n~

hCo?E CltERNtJcJLEAR GENERATING STATtION DmtAmtL 1f)cosT NAtYSIS (Thauboundi Ok2Ott Dolifrs)

Atdy AclyVstpln bso coat -Costo t... costs tdool Coos m Costs OIlsPossi btthot.. CooS.,gncy costs -. Costs TOMson To.61 m Costs U . Tan-.

as Mosniqomont Costs I Coats. V.tsmh

,oorto Cu.

A Coss 8 CisosC GTTC CIuoO Mightt Foot Cu.Foot Cu.Faot cu. Foot CU.Pfoot Lb...

cr55 cuobSO-Muohoors iMmrhoro 170,102 !.16"oitdbgU bf D2sahk IALNRO* I4CtCS14SBTERMINATIOri COSTIS 70.141A pit. :. $019,11 dotohfA h 0601O doilotr j ION-?mCI&kRIEMC)LITIoiU cosl1is.ASitbitt botM~lt itasuik do!ti J.bo-ok OLF RD ATRSITERAbV ASTESOLUflABUkttbij 12i,lah 641bhLtat O OWAT?ASDAtHT OUE~75S. .b. ofihlsk~j

'OTALQttJTER TH OILASScRAIXWASltEVoLIttME tENArtJTE . l drblt;

&Ad cTAL SCIdPMETAttEOE0 1lt~so twok

'OTAL OtkdILABORUtEqujRE~.%tz~ His . ,00O r sts-~dto li -i.at~t ssiLYt nrooosrt tryjds osuossihson.tiýSldds MAthl~oo&1 tIsskhO.S bdiiitjos-or.

cau ~koubtbda. -Idtostht i tas sAub r

jfrhtFSEry)~uoZuor1.9USSOOO i' .. . . .... "...

LR-N09-0014, Submittal of Biennial Decommissioning Funding Status Report

Contents

Text

Subject:

References:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 Ma-hou1

Navigation menu

LR-N09-0014, Submittal of Biennial Decommissioning Funding Status Report

Text

Subject:

References:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 Ma-hou1

Navigation menu

Search