ML030990289

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

ML030990289
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	03/27/2003
From:	Womack L Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME
References
+sunsi/sispmjr=200603, -nr, -RFPFR, DCL-03-035, HBL-03-002, OL-DPR-80, OL-DPR-82, OP-DPR-07
Download: ML030990289 (127)

Text

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 1 (3411 MWe) and 2 (3411 MWe)

(Pages 1 through 3)

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Units 1 (3411 MWt) & 2 (3411 MWt)

As provided in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), each power reactor licensee is required to report to the NRC on a calendar year basis, beginning on March 31, 1999, and every 2 years thereafter, on the status of its decommissioning funding for each reactor or share of reactor it owns. This interim report is being submitted to reflect the 2002 TLG Decommissioning Cost Study for DCPP.

1. The minimum decommissioning fund estimate, pursuant

$ in Millions to 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c)'

January 2003 dollars

$ 809.6

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

Market Value (December 2002 dollars)

$ 1,210.4

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

The NRC formulas in section 10CFR50.75(c) include only those decommissioning costs incurred by licensees to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to levels that permit: (1) release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or (2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. The cost of dismantling or demolishing non-radiological systems and structures is not included in the NRC decommissioning cost estimates. The costs of managing and storing spent fuel on site until transfer to DOE are not included in the cost formulas.

1 PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Unit 1 amount remaining

1. years to collect Unit 2 amount remaining

1. years to collect

$ 180.3 19.75 years

$ 347.7 23.3 years

4. The assumptions used regarding escalation in decommissioning cost, rates of earnings on decommissioning funds (anticipates that the Portfolio of each trust will be gradually converted to a more conservative, all income portfolio in 2016 for Unit 1 and 2018 for Unit 2), and rates of other factors used in funding projections; Escalation in decommissioning costs Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 (thought 2016)

Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2017 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2018 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2019 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 2020 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 (Post 2020)

Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 (through 2018)

Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2019 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2020 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2021 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 2022 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 (Post 2022)

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

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

5.50 percent 6.34 percent 6.05 percent 5.76 percent 5.47 percent 5.18 percent 4.89 percent 6.34 percent 6.05 percent 5.76 percent 5.47 percent 5.18 percent 4.89 percent None Yes PG&E submitted to the CPUC on March 15, 2002 a request to seek contributions of $9.205 million per year ending on the last day of commercial operation (September 22, 2021) for Unit 1 and $14.836 million per year ending on the last day of commercial operation (April 26, 2025) for Unit 2

7. Any material changes to trust agreements.

None 2

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

8. TLG Cost Study in 2003 Dollars (in Millions)

Total Project (Decommission 2021 & 2025)

Scope Excluded from NRC calculations2 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs

9. CPUC Submittal in 2003 Dollars (in Millions)

Total Project (Decommission 2021 & 2025)

Scope Excluded from NRC calculations2 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs

$ 1,452.9 397.3

$ 1,055.6

$ 1,722.1

$ 471.0

$ 1,251.1 The cost differential between the TLG Study and the CPUC Submittal is that the TLG estimate does not include contingency for financial risk. Financial risk includes but is not limited to:

• Costs associated with delays in approval of the reports required for decommissioning

• Changes in the project work scope from the baseline estimate, including discovery of unexpected levels of contaminants

• Contamination in places not previously expected

• Regulatory changes

• Policy decisions at the federal and state level which could affect the Utility's ability or timeframe to process certain waste forms for disposal

• Changes in the cost of disposal of low-level radioactive waste 2 Scope excluded from NRC calculations includes dismantling or demolishing the non-radiological systems or structures of the facility, the construction and operation of an ISFSI facility.

3 PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Humboldt Bay Power Plant - Unit 3 (220 MWt)

(Pages 1 through 3)

PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Humboldt Bay Power Plant - Unit 3 (220 MWt)

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

1. The minimum decommissioning fund estimate, pursuant to

$ in Millions 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (C)3 January 2003 dollars

$ 430.1 (HBPP is a shutdown unit with a Site Specific Cost Study; therefore, the minimum decommissioning fund estimate is based on the Site Specific Cost Study shown in item 8 of this enclosure.)

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

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

Market Value (December 2002 dollars)

$ 195.1

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

(See item 6 of this enclosure describing collection of additional funds):

Amount remaining

$ 167.6 3* The NRC formulas in section 10CFR50.75(c) include only those decommissioning costs incurred by licensees to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to levels that permit: (1) release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or (2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. The cost of dismantling or demolishing non-radiological systems and structures is not included in the NRC decommissioning cost estimates. The costs of managing and storing spent fuel on site until transfer to DOE are not included in the cost formulas.

1 PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Number of years to collect 13 years

4. The assumptions used regarding escalation in decommissioning cost, rates of earnings on decommissioning funds (assumes trust will be gradually converted to a more conservative, all fixed income portfolio after 2010), and rates of other factors used in funding projections; Escalation in decommissioning costs Rate of Return on Qualified Trust (through 2010)

Rate of Return on Qualified Trust 2011 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust 2012 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust 2013 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust 2014 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust (Post 2014)

Rate of Return on Non-Qualified Trust (through 2010)

Rate of Return on Non-Qualified Trust 2011 Rate of Return on Non-Qualified Trust 2012 Rate of Return on Non-Qualified Trust 2013 Rate of Return on Non-Qualified Trust 2014 Rate of Return on Non-Qualified Trust (Post 2015)

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

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

5.50 percent 6.34 percent 6.05 percent 5.76 percent 5.47 percent 5.18 percent 4.89 percent 5.39 percent 5.11 percent 4.82 percent 4.54 percent 4.25 percent 3.97 percent None Yes PG&E submitted to the CPUC on March 15, 2002, a request to seek contributions of $12.892 million per year for the next 13 years to the Humboldt Unit 3 Trusts to fully fund the decommissioning liability.

7. Any material changes to trust agreements.

8. TLG Cost Study in 2003 Dollars (in Millions)

Total Project (Decommission 2015)

Scope Excluded from NRC calculations4 Scope Decommissioned to date Total NRC Decommissioning Costs None

$ 362.1 13.6 17.8

$ 330.7 4 Scope excluded from NRC calculations includes dismantling or demolishing the non-radiological systems or structures of the facility.

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

9. CPUC Submittal in 2003 Dollars (in Millions)

Total Project (Decommission 2015)

Scope Excluded from NRC calculations5 Scope Decommissioned to date Total NRC Decommissioning Costs

$ 420.1 14.5 17.8 387.8 The cost differential between the TLG Study and the CPUC submittal is that the TLG estimate does not include contingency for financial risk. Financial risk includes but is not limited to:

• Costs associated with delays in approval of the reports required for decommissioning.

• Changes in the project work scope from the baseline estimate, including discovery of unexpected levels of contaminants.

• Contamination in places not previously expected.

• Regulatory changes.

• Policy decisions at the federal and state level which could affect the Utility's ability or timeframe to process certain waste forms for disposal.

• Changes in the cost of disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

5 Scope excluded from NRC calculations includes dismantling or demolishing the non-radiological systems or structures of the facility.

3 PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 2003 Decommissioning Estimate (Pages 1 through 14)

2003 Decommisioning Estimate PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Estimate of Decommission Costs for BWR and PWR In 2003 HBPP BWR (millions) 114.8 DCPP PWR (millions) 210 Jan 1986 Estimate Escalated to 1999 Escalated to 2000 Escalated to 2001 Escalated to 2002 (Table 2.1 in NUREG 1307 Rev 10 128.9 has no value for 1999 Burial) 400.2 ($360.9 in 2000 Submittal) 412.4 ($425.3 in 2001 Submittal) 418.1 ($445.6 in 2002 Submittal)

(Table 2.1 in NUREG 1307 Rev 10 236.5 has no value for 1999 Burial)

(No Submittal Required) 774.4 ($793.4 in 2001 Submittal)

(No Submittal Required)

Escalated to 2003 430.1 809.6 Jan 1986 based on 10 CFR 50.75 (c) Table of minimum amounts PWR Greater than or equal to 3400 MWt = $105 million per unit BWR based on minimum 1, 200 MWt = ($104 + (.009xMWt)) million per unit Page 1

Composite Escalation PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculating Overall Escalation Rate Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Weight (1)

BWR Combined Escalation Rate for Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan-00 1 0000 1 1229 34862 BWR Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 3.5927 3 6417 3 7462 L (Labor)

E (Energy)

B (Burial) 1 0000 1 0000 1 0000 1 5624 0 8257 0 0000 1 6370 1 0220 10 4061 1.7183 1.1841 10.5540 1.7862 0.9715 10.7015 1 8508 1 2030 10 8491 0 65 0 13 0 22 PWR Combined Escalation Rate for.

Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan-00 PWR Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Weight (1)

Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 L (Labor) 1 0000 1.5624 1 6370 1.7183 1 7862 1 8508 065 1 0000 1 1260 3 5748 36874 E (Energy) 1 0000 0 8499 1.0297 1.1850 0 9909 1 2048 0 13 B (Bunal) 1 0000 00000 108039 10.9840 11.1633 11 3430 022 (1) from NUREG 1307 Revision 10, Report on Waste Burial Charges, Section 2 Summary, Page 3... where A, B, and C are the fractions of the total 1986 dollar costs that are attnbutable to labor (0 65), energy (0.13), and bunal (0 22), respectively, and sum to 1 0 (2) Jan-01 B (Burial) value in this table is a calculation based on averaging the values of Jan-00 and Jan-02 because NUREG 1307 Revision 10 Table 2 1 does not supply a value for 2001.

3 7458 3 8551 Page 2

Development of E Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor - REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3 2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID WPU0S73 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/06/03) and WPU0543 Industnal Electnc Power (as of 03/06/03)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100)

(1982=100)

(1986 = 100)

(1986=100)

(P) =Industrnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils BWR wt =

0 54 BWR wt =

0 46 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for BWR (Humboldt)

Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon)

Jan-86 Feb-86 Mar-86 Apr-86 May-86 Jun-86 Jul-86 Aug-86 Sep-86 Oct-86 Nov-86 Dec-86 Jan-87 Feb-87 Mar-87 Apr-87 May-87 Jun-87 Jul-87 Aug-87 Sep-87 Oct-87 Nov-87 Dec-87 Jan-88 Feb-88 Mar-88 Apr-88 May-88 Jun-88 Jul-88 Aug-88 Sep-88 Oct-88 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 Feb-89 Mar-89 Apr-89 May-89 Jun-89 Jul-89 Aug-89 114 2 115 0 114 4 113 7 114 1 115 3 116 2 116 3 116 3 113 0 1127 1123 1103 1098 1102 1099 1118 1139 116 2 115 7 115 5 1110 1092 1096 1088 1090 1090 109 1 1089 1172 118 2 118 3 1185 1142 1092 1105 112 0 112 0 112 3 112 4 113 6 119 8 1222 1224 82 0 62 4 51 3 49 8 470 447 364 40 1 46 3 43 1 43 5 45 6 51 4 53 1 497 520 533 55 1 56 3 59 4 56 8 59 3 61 2 58 1 548 51 5 49 7 53 3 543 506 469 468 459 42 3 472 50 6 549 540 57 3 61 5 57 5 53 3 52 7 53 5 PWRwt=

058 1 0000 1 0070 1 0018 0 9956 0 9991 1 0096 1 0175 1 0184 1 0184 0 9895 0 9869 0 9834 0 9658 0 9615 0 9650 0 9623 0 9790 0 9974 1 0175 1 0131 1 0114 0 9720 0 9562 0 9597 0 9527 0 9545 0 9545 0 9553 0 9536 1 0263 1 0350 1 0359 1 0377 1 0000 0 9562 0 9676 0 9807 0 9807 0 9834 0 9842 0 9947 1 0490 1 0701 1 0718 PWRwt=

042 1 0000 0 7610 0 6256 0 6073 0 5732 0 5451 0 4439 0 4890 0 5646 0 5256 0 5305 0 5561 0 6268 0 6476 0 6061 0 6341 0 6500 0 6720 0 6866 0 7244 0 6927 0 7232 0 7463 0 7085 0 6683 0 6280 0 6061 0 6500 0 6622 0 6171 0 5720 0 5707 0 5598 0 5159 0 5756 0 6171 0 6695 0 6585 0 6988 0 7500 0 7012 0 6500 0 6427 0 6524 1 0000 0 8938 0 8287 0 8170 0 8032 0 7960 0 7537 0 7749 0 8097 0 7761 0 7769 0 7868 0 8099 0 8171 0 7999 0 8114 0 8277 0 8477 0 8653 0 8803 0 8648 0 8575 0 8597 0 8442 0 8219 0 8043 0 7942 08149 0 8195 0 8380 0 8220 0 8219 0 8178 0 7773 07811 0 8064 0 8376 0 8325 0 8525 0 8765 0 8597 0 8655 0 8735 0 8789 1 0000 0 9037 0 8438 0 8325 0 8202 0 8145 0 7766 0 7961 0 8278 0 7947 0 7952 0 8039 0 8235 0 8296 0 8142 0 8245 0 8408 0 8607 0 8785 0 8919 0 8775 0 8675 0 8681 0 8542 0 8333 0 8174 0 8082 0 8271 0 8312 0 8544 0 8405 0 8405 0 8369 0 7967 0 7964 0 8204 0 8500 0 8454 0 8638 0 8859 0 8715 0 8814 0 8906 0 8957 Page 3

Development of E Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor -REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3 2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03106/03) and WPU0543 Industnal Electnc Power (as of 03/06/03)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100)

(1982=100)

(1986 = 100)

(1986=100)

(P) =Industnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils BWRwt=

054 BWRwt=

046 Sep-89 Oct-89 Nov-89 Dec-89 Jan-90 Feb-90 Mar-90 Apr-90 May-90 Jun-90 Jul-90 Aug-90 Sep-90 Oct-90 Nov-90 Dec-90 Jan-91 Feb-91 Mar-91 Apr-91 May-91 Jun-91 Jul-91 Aug-91 Sep-91 Oct-91 Nov-91 Dec-91 Jan-92 Feb-92 Mar-92 Apr-92 May-92 Jun-92 Jul-92 Aug-92 Sep-92 Oct-92 Nov-92 Dec-92 Jan-93 Feb-93 Mar-93 Apr-93 May-93 Jun-93 1225 1172 1135 114 2 114 9 115 0 115 4 115 1 117 0 1239 1244 1246 1250 121 2 1202 118 9 1242 1243 124 3 1247 1282 1326 1345 1338 133 8 1283 123 1 125 1 1259 1253 1258 1248 1285 1348 1356 135 1 1359 131 2 1255 1267 127 1 1264 1267 1268 1275 1369 59 3 64 0 644 68 1 85 3 59 4 60 4 61 0 58 4 530 51 6 723 87 3 1048 98 9 893 829 743 61 6 600 59 6 576 58 1 62 1 65 4 67 6 71 0 62 2 544 57 3 560 59 0 62 1 654 646 63 3 65 6 68 2 642 594 590 604 63 2 62 4 626 608 1 0727 1 0263 0 9939 1 0000 1 0061 1 0070 1 0105 1 0079 1 0245 1 0849 1 0893 1 0911 1 0946 1 0613 1 0525 1 0412 1 0876 1 0884 1 0884 1 0919 11226 11611 11778 11716 11716 11235 1 0779 1 0954 1 1025 1 0972 1,1016 1 0928 1 1252 1.1804 1 1874 1 1830 1 1900 1,1489 1 0989 1 1095 1 1130 1.1068 1 1095 1 1103 1 1165 1 1988 0 7232 0 7805 0 7854 0 8305 1 0402 0 7244 0 7366 0 7439 0 7122 0 6463 0 6293 0 8817 1 0646 1 2780 1 2061 1 0890 1 0110 0 9061 0 7512 0 7317 0 7268 0 7024 0 7085 0 7573 0 7976 0 8244 0 8659 0 7585 0 6634 0 6988 0 6829 0 7195 0 7573 0 7976 0 7878 0 7720 0 8000 0 8317 0 7829 0 7244 0 7195 0 7366 0 7707 0 7610 0 7634 0 7415 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for BWR (Humboldt) 0 9119 0 9132 0 8980 0 9220 1 0218 0 8770 0 8845 0 8865 0 8808 0 8832 0 8777 0 9948 1 0808 1 1610 1.1232 1 0632 1 0523 1 0046 0 9333 0 9262 0 9405 0 9501 0 9619 0 9810 0 9996 0 9859 0 9804 0 9405 0 9005 0 9139 0 9090 0 9211 0 9560 1 0043 1 0036 0 9939 1 0106 1 0030 0 9536 0 9323 0 9320 0 9365 0 9536 0 9496 0 9541 0 9884 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 0 9259 0 9230 0 9063 0 9288 1 0205 0 8883 0 8955 0 8970 0 8933 0 9007 0 8961 1 0031 1 0820 11523 11170 1 0613 1 0554 1 0119 0 9468 0 9406 0 9564 0 9685 0 9807 0 9976 1 0145 0 9979 0 9889 0 9539 0 9181 0 9299 0 9257 0 9360 0 9707 1 0196 1 0196 1 0104 1 0262 1 0157 0 9662 0 9477 0 9477 0 9513 0 9672 0 9636 0 9682 1 0067 Page 4

Development of E Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 32 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/06/03) and WPU0543 Industnal Electnc Power (as of 03/06/03)

REBASEDTO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100)

(1982=100)

(1986 = 100)

(1986=100)

(P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils BWR wt =

0 54 BWR wt =

0 46 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for BWR (Humboldt)

Jul-93 Aug-93 Sep-93 Oct-93 Nov-93 Dec-93 Jan-94 Feb-94 Mar-94 Apr-94 May-94 Jun-94 Jul-94 Aug-94 Sep-94 Oct-94 Nov-94 Dec-94 Jan-95 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 May-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 Aug-95 Sep-95 Oct-95 Nov-95 Dec-95 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 137.1 1372 1376 131 9 1263 1260 1262 1259 1258 1254 1260 1335 1345 1345 1349 129 1 127 0 1274 1276 1280 1283 1264 1302 1353 1366 136 5 1337 131 4 1276 1277 1279 127 1 1278 1291 1350 1375 1360 1362 1362 131 2 127 1 1277 1283 1281 1282 1273 57 0 54 4 59 3 65 4 61 6 51 4 51 5 57 5 56 2 547 547 54 1 56 3 57 5 57 7 57 7 58 8 547 547 53 3 543 57 1 59 1 55 8 53 5 55 6 58 2 57 8 59 5 60 6 62 6 597 63 5 747 72 0 62 8 643 66 5 73 4 79 7 76 5 76 1 737 72 3 65 2 653 1 2005 1 2014 1 2049 11550 11060 11033 1.1051 11025 11016 1 0981 11033 11690 11778 11778 11813 11305 11121 11156 11173 11208 11235 11068 11401 1 1848 11961 11953 11708 11506 11173 11182 1 1200 11130 11191 11305 1.1821 1 2040 1 1909 1.1926 11926 11489 11130 11182 11235 11217 1.1226 1 1147 0 6951 0 6634 0 7232 0 7976 0 7512 0 6268 0 6280 0 7012 0 6854 0 6671 0 6671 0 6598 0 6866 0 7012 0 7037 0 7037 0 7171 0 6671 0 6671 0 6500 0 6622 0 6963 0 7207 0 6805 0 6524 0 6780 0 7098 0 7049 0 7256 0 7390 0 7634 0 7280 0 7744 0 9110 0 8780 0 7659 0 7841 0 8110 0 8951 0 9720 0 9329 0 9280 0 8988 0 8817 0 7951 0 7963 0 9680 0 9539 0 9833 0 9906 0 9428 0 8841 0 8856 0 9179 0 9101 0 8998 0 9027 0 9347 0 9518 0 9586 0 9616 0 9341 0 9304 0 9093 0 9102 0 9043 0 9113 0 9180 0 9472 0 9528 0 9460 0 9573 0 9587 0 9456 0 9371 0 9438 0 9560 0 9359 0 9605 1 0295 1 0423 1 0025 1 0038 1 0171 1 0558 1 0675 1 0301 1 0307 1 0201 1 0113 0 9720 0 9683 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 0 9883 0 9754 1 0026 1 0049 0 9570 0 9032 0 9047 0 9339 0 9268 0 9171 0 9201 0 9551 09715 0 9776 0 9807 0 9512 0 9462 0 9272 0 9282 0 9231 0 9297 0 9344 0 9640 0 9730 0 9678 0 9780 0 9771 0 9634 0 9528 0 9590 0 9702 0 9513 0 9743 1 0383 1 0544 1 0200 1 0201 1 0323 1 0677 1 0746 1 0373 1 0383 1 0291 1 0209 0 9851 0 9810 Page 5

Development of E Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3 2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/06103) and WPU0543 Industnal Electnc Power (as of 03/06/03)

REBASEDTO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100)

(1982=100)

(1986 = 100)

(1986=100)

(P) =Industnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils BWRwt=

054 BWRwt=

046 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00 Jan-01 Feb-01 1297 1351 1359 1347 1360 1301 1279 1283 1274 1272 1267 1264 1292 1338 1348 1352 1352 1304 127 6 1266 1261 125 5 1255 1252 1274 131 0 1339 1339 1341 1295 1275 1265 1268 1267 1267 1268 1286 1336 1362 1374 1378 1341 1309 1327 1364 1364 642 60 8 57 8 61 5 60 4 648 65 8 59 4 54 1 52 0 48 3 50 2 50 0 46 3 45 0 440 48 3 47 4 46 2 38 8 40 9 38 2 42 8 52 5 52 6 52 4 58 7 63 67 6 65 5 71 3 72 9 75 3 87 9 89 7 83 1 82 9 86 2 88 7 91 6 1101 1086 1084 1006 96 1 91 6 11357 11830 11900 11795 11909 11392 11200 11235 11156 11138 11095 11068 11313 11716 11804 11839 11839 11419 1.1173 11086 11042 1 0989 1 0989 1 0963 11156 11471 11725 11725 11743 11340 11165 11077 11103 11095 11095 11103 11261 11699 11926 1 2032 1 2067 11743 11462 11620 11944 11944 0 7829 0 7415 0 7049 0 7500 0 7366 0 7902 0 8024 0 7244 0 6598 0 6341 0 5890 0 6122 0 6098 0 5646 0 5488 0 5366 0 5890 0 5780 0 5634 0 4732 0 4988 0 4659 0 5220 0 6402 0 6415 0 6390 0 7159 0 7683 0 8244 0 7988 0 8695 0 8890 0 9183 1 0720 1 0939 1 0134 1 0110 1 0512 1 0817 11171 1 3427 1 3244 1 3220 1 2268 11720 11171 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for BWR (Humboldt) 0 9734 0 9799 0 9669 0 9819 0 9819 0 9787 0 9739 0 9399 0 9059 0 8932 0 8701 0 8793 08914 0 8924 0 8898 0 8861 0 9103 0 8825 0 8625 0 8163 0 8257 0 8077 0 8335 0 8865 0 8975 0 9134 0 9624 0 9866 1 0133 0 9798 1 0029 1 0071 1 0220 1 0922 1 1023 1 0658 1 0731 11153 11416 11636 1 2692 1 2433 1 2271 11918 11841 11588 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 0 9876 0 9976 0 9863 0 9991 1 0001 0 9927 0 9866 0 9559 0 9241 09124 0 8909 0 8991 0 9123 09167 0 9151 0 9120 0 9340 0 9051 0 8847 0 8417 0 8499 0 8330 0 8566 0 9048 0 9165 0 9337 0 9807 1 0027 1 0273 0 9932 1 0127 1 0159 1 0297 1 0937 1.1029 1 0696 1 0777 1 1200 1 1461 1.1670 1 2638 1 2373 1 2200 11892 11850 11619 Page 6

Development of E Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor -REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3 2 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 03/06/03) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 03106/03)

REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light PPI for Fuels &

PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100)

(1982=100)

(1986 = 100)

(1986=100)

(P) =Industnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) =Industnal Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils BWRwt=

054 BWRwt=

046 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for BWR (Humboldt)

Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 1 1189 1 1277 1.1742 1 2157 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 1365 135 1 1362 148 4 83 1 86 2 94 2 90 2 1 1953 1 1830 1 1926 1 2995 1 0134 1 0512 1 1488 1 1000 1 1116 1.1224 1 1725 1 2077 Page 7

Development of L Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: EDU 13402i (as of 03/06/03)

Jan '86 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Rev 10 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Pg 7)

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1 989=1 00)

Factor Jan-86 89.8 1.00000 Feb-86 Mar-86 Apr-86 90.8 1.01114 May-86 Jun-86 Jul-86 91.2 1.01559 Aug-86 Sep-86 Oct-86 91.6 1.02004 Nov-86 Dec-86 Jan-87 92.5 1.03007 Feb-87 Mar-87 Apr-87 92.6 1.03118 May-87 Jun-87 Jul-87 93.7 1.04343 Aug-87 Sep-87 Oct-87 94.1 1.04788 Nov-87 Dec-87 Jan-88 95.4 1.06236 Feb-88 Mar-88 Apr-88 96.3 1.07238 May-88 Jun-88 Jul-88 97 1.08018 Aug-88 Sep-88 Oct-88 97.7 1.08797 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 98.8 1.10022 Feb-89 Mar-89 Apr-89 100 1.11359 May-89 Jun-89 Page 8

Development of L Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: EDU 13402i (as of 03/06/03)

Jan '86 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Rev 10 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Pg 7)

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)

Factor Jul-89 101 1.12472 Aug-89 Sep-89 Oct-89 101.8 1.13363 Nov-89 Dec-89 Jan-90 103.3 1.15033 Feb-90 Mar-90 Apr-90 104.5 1.16370 May-90 Jun-90 Jul-90 105.6 1.17595 Aug-90 Sep-90 Oct-90 106.3 1.18374 Nov-90 Dec-90 Jan-91 107.5 1.19710 Feb-91 Mar-91 Apr-91 108.9 1.21269 May-91 Jun-91 Jul-91 110 1.22494 Aug-91 Sep-91 Oct-91 110.9 1.23497 Nov-91 Dec-91 Jan-92 111.9 1.24610 Feb-92 Mar-92 Apr-92 112.9 1.25724 May-92 Jun-92 Jul-92 114.1 1.27060 Aug-92 Sep-92 Oct-92 114.9 1.27951 Nov-92 Dec-92 Page 9

Development of L Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: EDU 13402i (as of 03/06/03)

Jan '86 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Rev 10 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Pg 7)

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)

Factor Jan-93 116.2 1.29399 Feb-93 Mar-93 Apr-93 116.4 1.29621 May-93 Jun-93 Jul-93 117.8 1.31180 Aug-93 Sep-93 Oct-93 118.1 1.31514 Nov-93 Dec-93 Jan-94 119.4 1.32962 Feb-94 Mar-94 Apr-94 120.5 1.34187 May-94 Jun-94 Jul-94 121.3 1.35078 Aug-94 Sep-94 Oct-94 121.7 1.35523 Nov-94 Dec-94 Jan-95 122.6 1.36526 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 123.4 1.37416 May-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 123.9 1.37973 Aug-95 Sep-95 Oct-95 125 1.39198 Nov-95 Dec-95 Jan-96 125.9 1.40200 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 127.3 1.41759 May-96 Jun-96 Page 10

Development of L Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor - REFERENCE NUREG-1 307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: EDU 13402i (as of 03/06/03)

Jan '86 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Rev 10 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Pg 7)

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)

Factor Jul-96 128.3 1.42873 Aug-96 Sep-96 Oct-96 128.9 1.43541 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 130.3 1.45100 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 131.4 1.46325 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 132.5 1.47550 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 133.4 1.48552 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 135.2 1.50557 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 136.6 1.52116 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 138.5 1.54232 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 140 1.55902 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 140.3 1.56236 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 142.1 1.58241 May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 143.3 1.59577 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 144.7 1.61136 Nov-99 Dec-99 Page 11

Development of L Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor - REFERENCE NUREG-1 307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: EDU 13402i (as of 03/06/03)

Jan '86 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Rev 10 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Pg 7)

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)

Factor Jan-00 147 1.63697 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 148.8 1.65702 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 150.8 1.67929 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 151.8 1.69042 Nov-00 Dec-00 Jan-01 154.3 1.71826 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 156 1.73719 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 157.6 1.75501 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 159.4 1.77506 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 160.4 1.78619 Feb-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 162.9 1.81403 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 163.8 1.82405 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 165 1.83742 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 166.2 1.85078 Page 12

Development of L Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor - REFERENCE NUREG-1307, REVISION 10, SECTION 3.1 Using Regional Indices SERIES ID: EDU 13402i (as of 03/06/03)

Jan '86 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307 Rev 10 Scaling Factor for West Labor (Pg 7)

Employment Cost Indust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)

Factor Jan-03 is an estimate based on the difference between Jul-02 and Oct-02 Page 13

Development of B Component PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 HBL-03-002 Development of Burial Escalation Developed from NUREG-1 307 Revision 9 Table 2.1 "VALUES OF B SUB-X AS A FUNCTION OF LLW BURIAL SITE, WASTE VENDOR, AND YEAR" (Summary for non-Atlantic Compact) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 BWR Burial Costs (South Carolina) 1.561 1.831 2.361 9.434 9.794 11.42 10.379 13.837 13.948 16.244 16.705 16.936 BWR Restated to 1986 = 100 1.0000 1.1730 1.5125 PWR Burial Costs (South Carolina) 1.678 2.007 2.494 PWR Restated to 1986 = 100 1.0000 1.1961 1.4863 6.7986 7.0757 7.6424 7.6108 9.4470 9.4672 0.0000 10.8039 0.0000 11.1633 11.3430 6.0436 6.2742 7.3158 6.6489 8.8642 8.9353 0.0000 10.4061 0.0000 10.7015 10.8491 11.408 11.873 12.824 12.771 15.852 15.886 18.129 18.732 19.034 2003 has no information in NUREG-1307 Rev 10. 2003 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the average % change between 2000 and 2002 to the 2002 base.

Page 14

• 1 PG&E Letter DCL-03-035 H BL-03-002 Decommissioning Cost Study for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units I and 2

v 1

(

A ce t

. /-

1; Document No. P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST STUDY for the DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric Company prepared by TLG Services, Inc.

Bridgewater, Connecticut February 2002

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Page ii of xii APPROVALS Project Engineer Project Manager Technical Manager Quality Assurance Manager IBenjaiin J. Sfochmal Geof/,M.- Griffitlt/ '

William A. Cloutier

/

darolynA. Palmer Date D te 2/z/

2 02 Date Date TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Page iii of xii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

............................................................................vii-xii

1.

INTRODUCTION.................................

1-1 1.1 Objective of Study..............................................

1-1 1.2 Site Description...............................................

1-1 1.3 Regulatory Guidance..............................................

1-2 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act....................

.......................... 1-4 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy and Amendments.............. 1-5 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination............................. 1-6

2.

DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES................................ 2-1 2.1 DECON...........................................

2-1 2.1.1 Period 1 - Preparations..........................................

2-2 2.1.2 Period 2 - Decommissioning Operations & License Termination.................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration..................

........................ 2-11 2.1.4 Post-Period 3 - ISFSI Operations and Demolition..................... 2-12 2.2 SAFSTOR...........................................

2-13 2.2.1 Period 1 - Operations..........................................

2-13 2.2.2 Period 2 - Dormancy..........................................

2-15 2.2.3 Periods 3 Deferred Decommissioning.................................... 2-17 2.2.4 Period 5 - Site Restoration..................

........................ 2-18

3.

COST ESTIMATE 3-1 3.1 Basis of Estimate.......................................

3-1 3.2 Methodology........................................

3-1 3.3 Financial Components of the Cost Model 3-2 3.3.1 Contingency.......................................

3-3 3.3.2 Financial Risk.......................................

3-8 3.4 Site-Specific Considerations 3-9 3.4.1 Spent Fuel Disposition....................................... 3-9 3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components..................................

3-10 3.4.3 Steam Generators and Other Primary Coolant System Components.......................................

3-11 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Page iv of xii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 3.4.4 Transportation Methods.....................................

3-12 3.4.5 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal..................................... 3-13 3.4.6 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning............................. 3-13 3.5 Assumptions......................................

3-14 3.5.1 Estimating Basis.....................................

3-14 3.5.2 Labor Costs.....................................

3-14 3.5.3 Design Conditions.....................................

3-15 3.5.4 General.....................................

3-15 3.6 Cost Estimate Summary.................

.................... 3-20

4.

SCHEDULE ESTIMATE 4-1 4.1 Schedule Estimate Assumptions.4-1 4.2 Project Schedule.4-2

5.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES.5-1

6.

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

6-1

7.

REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 7-1 TABLES Cost and Schedule Estimate Summary.xii 3.1a Schedule of Annual Expenditures, DECON Unit 1.3-22 3.1b Schedule of Annual Expenditures, DECON Unit 2.3-23 3.2a Schedule of Annual Expenditures, SAFSTOR Unit 1.3-24 3.2b Schedule of Annual Expenditures, SAFSTOR Unit 2.3-25 5.1 Decommissioning Radioactive Waste Burial Volumes.5-3 6.1 Summary of DECON Decommissioning Cost Contributors.6-3 6.2 Summary of SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Contributors.6-4 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Page v of xii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE FIGURES 4.1 4.2a 4.2b DECON Activity Schedule..................................................

4-3 DECON Decommissioning Timelines..................................................

4-8 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Timelines..................................................

4-9 APPENDICES Unit Cost Factor Development..................................................

A-1 Unit Cost Factor Listing (DECON: Power Block Structures Only)............... B-1 Detailed Cost Analyses - DECON..................................................

C-1 Detailed Cost Analyses - SAFSTOR.................................................... D-1 A.

B.

C.

D.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Page vi of xii REVISION LOG I

No.

1 CRA No.1l Date l Item Revised Reason for Revision 0

02/12/02 Original Issue TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Page vii of xii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This study, prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) by TLG Services, Inc., evaluates two different decommissioning alternatives for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) following the final cessation of plant operations. The projected costs to decommission the station are estimated at approximately $1,377.2 million and

$1,363.0 million for the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives, respectively. For each of these alternatives, the major cost contributors to the overall decommissioning cost are labor, spent fuel management, radioactive waste disposal, and other removal related activities (e.g. engineering, support equipment). The costs are based on several key assumptions, including regulatory requirements, estimating methodology, contingency requirements, low-level radioactive waste disposal availability, high-level radioactive waste disposal options, and site restoration requirements.

A complete discussion of the assumptions used in this estimate is presented in Section 3.

A detailed breakdown of the major cost contributors to the decommissioning cost estimate is reported in Section 6. Cost and schedule summaries are reported at the end of this summary. Schedules of annual expenditures are provided in Section 3, with the detailed activity costs, waste volumes, and removal man-hours provided in the Appendices. Costs are reported in 2002 dollars. Both cost estimates include the continued operation of the Fuel Handling Building's fuel storage pools as an interim wet fuel storage facility until the year 2033 and 2037 (approximately twelve years after each unit's license expiration.) In addition, the estimates include the costs to expand the site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) to accommodate the inventory of spent fuel located on site. This ISFSI is expected to operate until the year 2040.

Alternatives and Refulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided general decommissioning guidance in the rule adopted on June 27, 1988.1 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, and ENTOMB.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Page viii of xii DECON was defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations." 2 SAFSTOR was defined as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use." 3 Decommissioning is required to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety. The safe-storage period evaluated in this document defers decommissioning 30 years.

ENTOMB was defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property." 4 As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will also be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety.

The 60-year restriction has limited the practicality of the ENTOMB alternative at commercial reactors that generate significant amounts of long-lived radioactive material. However, the NRC is currently re-evaluating this option and the 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 definition of the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further describes the methods and procedures that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements 2

Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Page ix of xii 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 estimate follow the general guidance and sequence in the amended regulations.

Methodology The methodology used to develop the decommissioning cost estimates for DCPP follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines 5 developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute). This reference describes a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs. The unit cost factors used in this study reflect site-specific costs and the latest available information about worker productivity in decommissioning. The information obtained from the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, as well as from TLG's involvement in the decommissioning planning and engineering for the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Trojan, Rancho Seco, Pathfinder, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, and Cintichem reactor facilities, is reflected within this estimate.

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

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

It should be noted that contingency, as used in this estimate, does not T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

Project and Cost Engmeers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engi-neers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Page x of xii account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the remaining operating life of the units.

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 provide assurance that sufficient funding will be available to accomplish the intended tasks.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level radioactive waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act" in 1980, and its Amendments of 1985 7, the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. Consequently, low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of PG&E's nuclear generating units is destined for the Southwest Compact's future disposal site.

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

High-Level Waste Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" 8 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, and an estimated equivalent value of assemblies irradiated prior to April 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.

After several delays, DOE estimates that the geologic repository will not be operational until sometime between the years 2010 and 2015. For the basis of this 7

"Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1/15/86.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Page xi of xii cost study, PG&E has assumed that the high-level waste repository or some interim storage facility will accept spent fuel from DCPP starting in the year 2018.

The backlog of spent fuel in the national inventory, and slow progress in the development of a waste transportation system, make it necessary to include spent fuel storage in the cost and schedule of commercial reactor decommissioning.

Although the cost to dispose of spent fuel assemblies generated during plant operations currently is not considered a decommissioning expense, the presence of those assemblies on site does have a bearing on the cost to decommission.

For estimating purposes, a spent fuel storage scenario was developed for DCPP. This scenario assumes that PG&E will have constructed an ISFSI at the plant site-to support continued plant operations. It also assumes that the Fuel Handling Buildings at DCPP will be operational for at least 12 years after the cessation of each unit's operations, regardless of the decommissioning mode selected (so as to allow for sufficient cooling for passive storage).

For both decommissioning alternatives, the spent fuel assemblies in the storage pools at the cessation of plant operations will be relocated to the ISFSI for storage until such time that a transfer to a DOE or interim storage facility can be completed. Costs are included within the estimates to expand the ISFSI to accommodate the pool inventories at shutdown. By relocating the fuel to the ISFSI, PG&E can secure the wet storage pools and proceed with decommissioning the DCPP. The current PG&E spent fuel storage plan projects that spent fuel will be at Diablo Canyon until the year 2040 for both the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives.

Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the site will result in substantial 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 after license termination is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed.

The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site is more efficient and less costly than if the process is deferred. Experience at shutdown generating stations has shown that plant facilities quickly degrade without continual maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public, as well as to the demolition work force. Consequently, this study assumes that site structures will be removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level. The site will then be graded and stabilized.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Page xii of xii DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 COST AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

Cost 02$

(thousand)

Schedule (years)

DECON (Prompt Removal/Dismantling)

Unit 1 575,843.6 19.2 Unit 2 & Common 801,321.5 16.1 19.8 (2)

STATION TOTAL 1,377,165.1 (1)

SAFSTOR (Mothball with Delayed Dismantling)

Unit 1 Preparations 31.62 year Maintenance Delayed Dismantling Subtotal 56,564.8 188,024.0 338,862.0 583,450.8 Unit 2 & Common Preparations 29.3 year Maintenance Delayed Dismantling Subtotal 1.5 31.6 7.8 40.9 1.5 29.3 6.5 37.3 40.9 (3) 58,643.8 162,632.4 558,266.6 779,542.8 STATION TOTAL 1,362,993.6 (1)

Columns may not add due to rounding.

(2)

Time elapsed from the cessation of operations at Unit 1 to the completion of the off-site transfer of spent fuel and decommissioning of the ISFSI.

(3)

Time elapsed from the cessation of operations at Unit 1 to the completion of site restoration at Unit 2.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document No. P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 1, Page 1 of 6

1. INTRODUCTION This analysis is-designed to provide Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) with sufficient information to prepare financial planning documents required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It is not a detailed engineering document, but a cost estimate prepared in advance of the detailed engineering preparations required to carry out the decommissioning of Units 1 and 2 of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP).

1.1 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY The objective of this study is to prepare an estimate of the cost, schedule, occupational exposure, and waste volume generated to decommission the DCPP, including all common and supporting facilities. The study considers the integration of two-unit dismantling, as discussed below.

Unit 1 began commercial operation in May 1985, with Unit 2 following in March of 1986. For the purposes of this study, the shutdown dates were taken as 36 years after the date commercial operation, or September 2021 for Unit 1, and 39 years after the date commercial operation for Unit 2, or April 2025.

This time frame was used as input for scheduling the decommissioning.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION DCPP is located on the central California coast in San Luis Obispo County, approximately 12 miles west southwest of the City of San Luis Obispo. The plant, comprised of two nuclear units, is located on a 750-acre site adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, roughly equidistant from San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) consists of a pressurized water reactor and a four-loop Reactor Coolant System. The systems were supplied by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Units 1 and 2 each have a current license rating of 3411 Mwt, with corresponding net dependable capability electrical ratings of 1087 megawatts (electric), with the reactors at rated power.

The Reactor Coolant System is comprised of the reactor vessel and four heat transfer loops, each containing a vertical U-tube type steam generator, and a single-stage centrifugal reactor coolant pump. In addition, the system includes an electrically heated pressurizer, a pressurizer relief tank, and TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document No. P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 1, Page 2 of 6 interconnected piping. The system is housed within a "containment structure," a seismic Category I reinforced-concrete dry structure. It consists of an upright cylinder topped with a hemispherical dome, supported on a reinforced concrete foundation mat, which is keyed into the bedrock.

A welded steel liner plate anchored to the inside face of the containment serves as a leak-tight membrane.

The liner on top of the foundation mat is protected by a two-foot thick concrete fill mat, which supports the containment internals and forms the floor of the containment.

The lower portion of the containment cylindrical wall has additional embedded wide flange steel beams between elevations 88 ft. 2 in. and 108 ft. 2 in. (mean sea level).

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

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

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

1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE The NRC provided decommissioning guidance in the rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," (Ref. 1) published and adopted on June 27, 1988. This rule amended NRC regulations to set forth technical and financial 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 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document No. P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 1, Page 3 of 6 manner and that adequate licensee funds would be available for this purpose.

Subsequent to the rule, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," (Ref. 2) which provided guidance to the licensees of nuclear facilities on methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the requirements of the rule. The regulatory guide addressed the funding requirements and provided guidance on the content and form of the financial assurance mechanisms indicated in the rule amendments.

The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB. It also placed limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is restricted in overall duration to 60 years unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar, providing the NRC with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that these deferred options are only used in situations where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decommissioning.

Consequently, with the new restrictions, the SAFSTOR and ENTOMB options are no longer decommissioning alternatives in themselves, as neither terminates the license for the site. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer for ENTOMB if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the definition of unrestricted release and license termination.

In 1996 the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants (Ref. 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 have permanently and prematurely ceased operations without having submitted a decommissioning plan.

In addition, these licensees requested exemptions from certain operating requirements as being unnecessary once the reactor is defueled.

Each case has been handled individually without clearly defined generic requirements. The NRC amended the decommissioning regulations in 1996 to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process. The new amendments allow for greater public participation and better definition of the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

Under the revised regulations, licensees would submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days after the decision to cease operations. Certification TLG Services, Inc.

Dia6lo Canyon Power Plant Document No. P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 1, Page 4 of 6 would also be required once the fuel were permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Submittal of these notices would entitle the licensee to a fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to follow certain requirements needed only during operation of the reactor. Within two years of submitting notice of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee would be required to submit a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the NRC. The PSDAR describes the planned decommissioning activities, the associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee would be required to submit an application to the NRC to terminate the license, along with a license termination plan.

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

To recover the cost of permanent spent fuel disposal, this legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money was to be collected from the consumers of the electricity generated by commercial nuclear power plants. The date targeted for startup of the federal Waste Management System was 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, DOE announced a five-year delay in the opening date for the repository, from 1998 to 2003. Two years later, in 1989, an additional 7-year delay was announced, primarily due to problems in obtaining the required permits from the state of Nevada to perform the required characterization of the site.

DOE has projected additional delays as a result of proposed Congressional reductions in appropriations for the program.

Utilities have responded to this impasse by initiating legal action and constructing supplemental storage as a means of maintaining necessary operating margins. On November 14, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Northern States Power Company, et al., v. U.S. Department of Energy. In the decision, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Indiana Michigan Power Company, et al v. U.S. Department of Energy that the DOE has an unconditional obligation to begin disposal of the utilities' spent nuclear TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document No. P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 1, Page 5 of 6 fuel by January 31, 1998. Since the agency was not in default at the time the Northern States Power decision was issued, the court declined to prescribe "remedies" in the likely event the DOE failed to uphold its obligation. More recently, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of Yankee Atomic Power Company in its damage claim. However, even with the ruling, the DOE's position has remained unchanged. The agency continues to maintain that its delayed performance is unavoidable because it does not have an operational repository and does not have authority to provide storage in the interim. Consequently, the DOE has no plans to accept any spent fuel from commercial U.S. reactors before the year 2010.

For purposes of constructing the decommissioning cost estimate, DOE is assumed to begin receiving spent fuel from the DCPP site in the year 2018. It is estimated that the DCPP spent fuel would be completely transferred to DOE by the end of year 2040. These schedules and dates are based upon information provided by PG&E and DOE's capacity and turnover schedule (Ref. 5).

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

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

The low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of DCPP is destined for the Southwest Compact's future disposal facility. For purposes of constructing the decommissioning cost estimates, an assumed unit burial rate of $5.05 per pound was used to calculate the cost for disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of DCPP.

This rate is derived from the disposal rates charged at the Barnwell low-level waste disposal facility for non-Atlantic compact generators.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document No. P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 1, Page 6 of 6 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination In 1997, 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination,"

(Ref. 7) was published.

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

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

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

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

However, the mandate is not legally binding and the possibility exists that a site, once released from its NRC license, could be subject to EPA regulation.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 1 of 18

2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Cost studies were developed to decommission DCPP under two of the NRC-approved decommissioning alternatives: DECON and SAFSTOR. The duration of dormancy (30 years) selected for the SAFSTOR alternative is within the maximum allowable interval (60 years) between cessation of operations and termination of the site license(s). Although the alternatives differ with respect to technique, process, cost, and schedule, the two alternatives attain the same result: removal of all regulated radioactive material from the site and ultimate release of the site for unrestricted and/or alternative use.

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

Although detailed procedures for each activity identified are not provided, and the actual sequence of work may vary, these activity descriptions provide a basis not only for estimating, but also for the expected scope of work, i.e., engineering and planning at the time of decommissioning.

2.1 DECON The DECON alternative, as defined by the NRC, is "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations." This study does not address the cost to dispose of the spent fuel residing at the site; such costs are funded through a surcharge on electrical generation.

However, the study does estimate the costs incurred with the interim on-site storage of the fuel pending shipment by the DOE to a disposal facility.

The conceptual approach that the NRC has chosen in its amended regulations is to divide decommissioning into three phases. The initial phase commences with the effective date of permanent cessation of operations and involves the transition of both plant and licensee from reactor operations, i.e., power production, to facility de-activation and closure.

During the first phase, notification is to be provided to the NRC certifying the permanent cessation of operations and the removal 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. TLG's methodology TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 2 of 18 divides the decommissioning project into periods, based upon major milestones in the project. The NRC's initial phase corresponds to TLG's Period 1, with phases two and three as subsets of Period 2. TLG's Period 3, Site Restoration, and Post-Period 3, ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning, have no corresponding NRC phases. However, the NRC does require licensees to have a funding and high-level waste management plan under 10 CFR §50.54(bb).

2.1.1 Period 1 - Preparations In anticipation of the cessation of plant operations, detailed preparations are undertaken to provide a smooth transition from plant operations to site decommissioning.

The organization required to manage the intended decommissioning activities is assembled from available plant staff and outside resources, as required.

Preparations include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications appurtenant to the operating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility and major components, and the development of the PSDAR.

Engineering and Planning The PSDAR, required before or within two years of the notice to cease operations, provides a description and timetable of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities and the associated financial requirements of the intended decommissioning program. Upon receipt of the PSDAR, the NRC will make the document available to the public for comment in a local hearing to be held in the vicinity of the reactor site. Ninety days following submittal and NRC receipt of the PSDAR, the licensee may begin to perform major decommissioning activities under a modified 10 CFR §50.59 procedure, i.e., without specific NRC approval.

Major activities are defined as any activity that results in permanent removal of major radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure of the containment, or results in dismantling components (for shipment) containing Greater-than-Class C waste (GTCC), as defined by 10 CFR

§61. Major components are further defined as comprising the reactor vessel and internals, large bore reactor coolant system piping, and other large components that are radioactive. The NRC includes the following additional criteria for use of the §50.59 process in decommissioning. The proposed activity must not:

• foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 3 of 18

• significantly increase decommissioning costs,

• cause any significant environmental impact, or

• violate the terms of the licensee's existing license.

Consequently, in conjunction with the development of the PSDAR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, work packages, and procedures must be assembled in support of the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.

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.

The NRC recognizes that the existing operational technical specifications will require review and modifications to reflect plant conditions and the safety concerns associated with permanent cessation of operations. The environmental impact associated with the planned decommissioning activities must also be considered.

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

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

Much of the work in preparing the PSDAR is also relevant to the development of the detailed engineering plans and procedures.

This work includes, but is not limited to:

• Site preparation plans for the proposed decommissioning activities;

• Detailed procedures and removal sequences for plant systems and components;

• Evaluation of the disposition alternatives for the reactor vessel and its internals;

• Plans for decontamination of structures and systems; TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 4 of 18

• Design/procurement and testing of tooling and equipment;

• Identification/selection of specialty contractors;

• Procedures for removing and disposing of radioactive materials; and Sequential planning of activities to minimize conflicts with simultaneous tasks.

Site Preparations Following final plant shutdown and in preparation for actual decommissioning activities, the following activities are initiated.

• Prepare site support and storage facilities, as required.

Perform site characterization study to determine extent of site contamination.

• Isolate spent fuel storage services and fuel handling systems located in the Fuel Handling Buildings from the power block such that decommissioning operations can commence on the balance of the plant. This activity may be carried out by existing plant personnel in accordance with existing operating technical specifications.

Decommissioning operations are assumed to be scheduled around the Fuel Handling Buildings to the greatest extent possible such that the overall project schedule is optimized.

Current dry storage cask designs are licensed for spent fuel with a core discharge decay time averaging approximately five years or longer. Considering the longer fuel cycles and higher fuel burnup, the fuel at DCPP may require up to twelve years of active cooling before being relocated to dry storage.

Therefore, decommissioning operations for the Fuel Handling Buildings cannot be expected to begin prior to twelve years after the cessation of plant operations. As spent fuel decays to the point that it meets the heat load criteria of the dry storage casks, it will be transferred either to the on-site ISFSI or to the DOE high-level waste repository. It is assumed that all fuel is transferred from the Fuel Handling Buildings within approximately 12 years after cessation of operations at each unit.

• Clean all plant areas of loose contamination and process all liquid and solid wastes.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 5 of 18 Conduct radiation surveys of work areas, major components (including the reactor vessel and its internals), sampling of internal piping contamination levels, and primary shield cores.

• Correlate survey data and normalize for development of packaging and transportation procedures.

Determine transport and disposal container requirements for activated materials and/or hazardous materials, including shielding and stabilization. Fabricate or procure such containers.

• Develop procedures for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous effluent, processing of radwaste including Dry Active Waste (DAW), resins, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning, site security and emergency programs, and industrial safety.

Following submittal of the PSDAR and certification of permanent fuel removal from the reactor vessel, the licensee may commence major decommissioning activities. Full access to the decommissioning fund will require the preparation of a detailed site-specific cost estimate for submittal to the NRC. In addition, a license termination plan must be prepared at least two years prior to the license termination date.

2.1.2 Period 2 - Decommissioning Operations & License Termination For the DECON alternative, significant decommissioning activities involve the following steps:

• Construct temporary facilities and modify existing storage facilities to support the dismantling activities.

These may include additional changing rooms and contaminated laundry facilities for increased work force, establishment of laydown areas to facilitate equipment removal and preparation for off-site transfer, upgrading roads to facilitate hauling and transportation, and modifications to the Reactor Building to facilitate access of large/heavy equipment.

• Design and fabricate shielding and contamination control envelopes in support of removal and transportation activities; specify/procure specialty tooling and remotely operated equipment.

Modify the refueling canal to support segmentation activities and prepare TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 6 of 18 rigging for segmentation and extraction of heavy components, including the reactor vessel and its internals.

Procure required shipping canisters, cask liners, and Industrial Packages (JPs) from suppliers.

Conduct decontamination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimize) worker exposure.

Remove, package, and dispose of all piping and components that are no longer essential to support decommissioning operations.

Remove control rod drive housings and the head service structure from reactor vessel head and package for controlled disposal.

• Segment reactor vessel closure head and vessel flange for shipment in cask liners.

Load overpack liners into shielded casks or place in shielded vans for transport.

Segment upper internals assembly, including upper support assembly, deep beam weldment, support columns, and upper core plates; package segments in shielded casks. These operations are performed remotely by cutting equipment located underwater in the refueling canal. Package and dispose of items that meet §61 Class C criteria or less.

• Disassemble/segment remaining reactor internals in shielded casks.

These internals include core barrel, core baffle/former assembly, thermal shields, lower core plate, and lower core support assembly.

The operations are also conducted under water using remotely operated tooling and contamination controls. Package and dispose of items that meet §61 Class C criteria or less.

Package §61 GTCC components into fuel bundle containers for handling and storage along with the spent fuel assemblies. Transfer fuel bundle containers to the Fuel Handling Buildings or suitable storage location.

• Segment/section the reactor vessel, placing segments into shielded containers.

The operation is performed remotely in air using a contamination control envelope.

Sections are placed in containers stored under water (for example in an isolated area of the refueling TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 7 of 18 canal) using a remote or shielded crane. Transport the containers using shielded truck casks.

• Remove the reactor coolant piping and pumps after the vessel water level drops below the elevation of the inlet and outlet nozzles during vessel segmentation. Package the piping in IPs; the reactor coolant pumps are sealed with steel plate so as to serve as their own containers. Ship piping and pumps for controlled disposal.

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

• Remove activated concrete biological shield and accessible contaminated concrete (excluding steam generator and pressurizer cubicles). If dictated by the steam generator and pressurizer removal scenarios, remove those portions of the associated cubicles necessary for access and component extraction.

• Remove steam generators and pressurizer for shipment and controlled disposal. Remove steam domes from generators as the diameter exceeds the clearance requirements dictated( by rail transport.

Weld an end-cap over the exposed tube bundle on the lower shell units. Decontaminate exterior surfaces, as required, and seal-weld openings (nozzles, inspection

hatches, and other penetrations).

These components can serve as their own burial containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed and the internal contaminants are stabilized.

Add steel shields to those external areas of the steam generator lower shell units to meet transportation limits and regulations. Segment steam generator steam domes to meet individual package restrictions and transport dome segments off site for recycle.

A License Termination Plan is required to be prepared at least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination. Submitted as a supplement to the 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 decommissioning, and any associated environmental concerns. The NRC will notice the receipt of the plan, make the plan TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 8 of 18 available for public comment, and schedule a local hearing.

Plan approval will be subject to any conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by the NRC. The licensee may then commence with the final remediation of site facilities and services, including:

• Remove steel liners from the refueling canal and containment, including any contaminated canal concrete, and route for controlled disposition.

• Remove contaminated equipment and material from the Auxiliary Building. Remediate until radiation surveys indicate that the structure can be released for unrestricted access.

Remove contaminated equipment and material from the Fuel Handling Buildings following the transfer of all residual spent fuel to either an onsite storage facility or a federal facility off site.

Remediate Fuel Handling Building areas until radiation surveys indicate that the structure can be released for unrestricted access.

• Decontaminate remaining site buildings and facilities with residual contaminants.

Remove all remaining low-level radioactive waste along with any remaining hazardous and toxic materials. Material removed in the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear units will be routed to an on-site central processing area. Material certified to be free of contamination will be released for unrestricted disposition, e.g., as scrap or for recycle or general disposal.

Contaminated material will be characterized and segregated for additional on-site decontamination, off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction,- waste treatment, etc.) and/or packaged for controlled disposal at the regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

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

Conduct final radiation survey to ensure that all radioactive materials in excess of permissible residual levels have been remediated. This survey may coincide with final NRC site inspection.

Incorporated into the License Termination Plan, the Final Survey Plan details the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed. The Final Survey Plan is developed using the guidance provided in NUREG/CR-5849, "Manual TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 9 of 18 for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination." This document delineates 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 survey design and implementation are conducted in a manner that provides a high degree of confidence that applicable NRC criteria are satisfied.

Once the survey is complete, the results are provided to the NRC in a format that can be verified.

The NRC then reviews and evaluates the information, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license. The NRC will terminate the license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the License Termination Plan and that the final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release.

NRC Acceptance Criteria for Decommissioning NRC's requirements for decommissioning and license termination are contained in §20, Subpart E (Radiological Criteria for License Termination).

The NRC's current position on residual contamination criteria, site characterization, and other related decommissioning issues is outlined in an NRC document entitled "Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of Site Decommissioning Management' Plan Sites," that was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 1993 (57 FR 13389).

Through rulemaking, the NRC has established the decommissioning acceptance criteria to be an annual dose of not more than 25 mRem above natural background to an average member of the critical group from all exposure pathways (i.e. direct radiation, inhalation and ingestion).

The critical group is defined in §20.1003 as "the group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual reactivity for any applicable set of circumstances."

Other Regulations and Standards Applicable to Decommissioning

• §190, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation" - limits radiation doses to members of the public from radioactive materials introduced into the general environment as the result of operations that are part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 10 of 18

§20 "Standards for Protection Against Radiation" - regulates the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual -does not exceed the radiation protection standards.

According to

§20.1001, the total dose to an individual includes doses from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background radiation. In addition, the requirements of §20.1302 apply to NRC-licensed facilities during decommissioning and when the facility is operational.

This regulation prohibits licensees from releasing radioactive materials to an unrestricted area in concentrations that exceed the limits specified in §20 or that exceed limits otherwise authorized in an NRC license.

• §50 Appendix I -

provides numerical guidance for keeping radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents released to unrestricted areas "as low as reasonably achievable" during normal operations of a nuclear power reactor.

NRC Decommissioning Process and Survey Procedures NRC licensees are required to conduct radiation surveys of the premises where the licensed activities were conducted and submit a report describing the survey results.

The survey process follows requirements contained in §50.82 that pertain to the decommissioning of a site and termination of a license. This process is designed to result in the unrestricted release of a site.

The current decommissioning regulatory process associated with license termination is comprised of the following basic steps:

• Site radiological characterization;

• Development, submission, and NRC review of PSDAR;

• Performance of decommissioning actions described in the PSDAR and leading to the removal of radioactivity from the site;

• Performance of termination surveys and submittal of the final termination survey report;

• Performance of NRC confirmatory survey; and TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 11 of 18 NRC termination of the §50 license.

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

and the other decontamination activities will substantially damage power block structures including the Reactor, Auxiliary, Fuel Handling and Turbine Buildings.

Verifying that subsurface radionuclide 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 failures have been recorded, or where it is required to confirm that subsurface process and drain lines were not breached over the operating life of the station.

Prompt dismantling of site structures is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures, with a work force already mobilized on site, is more efficient and less costly than if the process were deferred.

Site facilities quickly degrade without continual maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public and future workers.

Abandonment creates a breeding ground for vermin infestation as well as other biological hazards.

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

Foundations and exterior walls are assumed to be removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade.

This depth of removal allows for clearance of the exposed rebar mats, embedded conduit and piping, and structural steel produced in demolition. The three-foot depth also allows for the placement of both gravel for drainage and topsoil for vegetation to be established as erosion control. Site areas affected by the dismantling activities are cleaned and the plant area graded as required to prevent TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 12 of 18 ponding and inhibit the refloating of subsurface materials. Activities include:

• Demolition of the remaining portions of the containment structure and interior portions of the Reactor Building. Internal floors and walls are removed from the lower levels upward, using controlled blasting techniques.

Concrete rubble and clean fill produced by demolition activities are used on site to backfill voids.

Suitable materials can be used on site for fill; other wise the rubble is trucked off site for disposal as construction debris.

• Removal of remaining buildings using conventional demolition techniques for above ground structures, including the Turbine Building, Auxiliary Building, Fuel Handling Buildings, and other site structures, including the Breakwater.

• Preparation of the final dismantling program report.

2.1.4 Post-Period 3 - ISFSI Operations and Demolition Following the transfer of the spent fuel inventory from the Fuel Handling Buildings, the ISFSI will continue to operate under a separate and independent license (§72).

Transfer of spent fuel to a DOE or interim facility will be exclusively from the ISFSI once the fuel pool structures have been emptied and the released for decommissioning.

Assuming initiation of the federal Waste Management System in 2010, transfer of spent fuel is assumed to begin in 2018 and continue for a period of approximately 22 years, with the final spent fuel shipment presumed to occur in the year 2040.

At the conclusion of the spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI will be decommissioned.

Long-term exposure from the spent fuel assemblies will have produced low-level neutron activation of the interior surfaces of the dry storage modules to levels exceeding current release limits.

Consequently, portions of the modules will be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste.

The NRC will terminate the §72 license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with a license termination plan and the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. Once TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 13 of 18 the requirements are satisfied, the NRC can terminate the license for the ISFSI.

The reinforced concrete dry storage modules are then demolished and disposed of as clean fill, the concrete loading ramps are removed, and the area graded and landscaped to conform with the surrounding environment.

2.2 SAFSTOR The NRC defines SAFSTOR as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use."

The facility is left intact, (during the SAFSTOR period) with structures maintained in a sound condition.

Systems not required to operate in support of the spent fuel pool or site surveillance and security are drained, de-energized, and secured.

Minimal cleaning/removal of loose contamination and/or fixation and sealing of remaining contamination is performed.

Access to contaminated areas is secured to provide controlled access for inspection and maintenance.

The engineering and planning requirements are similar to those for the DECON alternative, although a shorter time period is expected for these activities due to the more limited work scope. Site preparations are also similar to those for the DECON alternative.

However, with the exception of the required radiation surveys and site characterizations, the mobilization and preparation of site facilities is less extensive.

2.2.1 Period 1 - Operations In anticipation of the cessation of plant operations, detailed preparations are undertaken to provide a smooth transition from plant operations to site decommissioning. While implementing the staffing transition plan, the organization required to manage the intended decommissioning program is assembled from available plant staff and outside resources.

Preparations include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications appropriate to the operating conditions and requirements, characterization of the facility and major components, and development of the PSDAR.

The program outlined in the PSDAR will be designed to accomplish the required tasks within the ALARA guidelines for protection of personnel TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 14 of 18 from exposure to radiation hazards. It also addresses the continued protection of the health and safety of the public and the environment.

The NRC recognizes that the existing operational technical specifications will require review and modifications to reflect plant conditions and the safety concerns associated with permanent cessation of operations. The environmental impact associated with the planned decommissioning activities must be considered; an environmental report on those concerns not already assessed must be submitted to the NRC for consideration and possible preparation of an environmental impact statement.

The process of placing the plant into SAFSTOR includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

• Isolate spent fuel storage services and fuel handling systems located in the Fuel Handling Buildings from the power block so that safe-storage operations may commence on the balance of the plant. This activity may be carried out by plant personnel in accordance with existing operating technical specifications. Activities are assumed to be scheduled around the fuel handling systems to the greatest extent possible. The spent fuel contained within dry storage casks at the time of shutdown will remain in dry storage until shipment to DOE can be completed. All remaining spent fuel on site will continue to be stored in the existing spent fuel pools awaiting pickup by DOE. The existing spent fuel storage facilities will continue to operate until all spent fuel is removed from the site, is currently projected to occur in 2040.

• Drain/de-energize/secure all non-contaminated systems not required to support dormancy operations.

• Dispose of contaminated filter elements and resin beds not required for processing wastes from decontamination activities.

• Drain reactor vessel; internals remain in place.

• Drainlde-energize/secure all contaminated systems. Decontaminate systems as required for future maintenance and inspection.

Prepare lighting and alarm systems if continued use is required.

De-energize and/or secure portions of fire protection, electric power, and HVAC systems if continued use is not required.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 15 of 18

• Clean loose surface contamination from building access pathways.

• Perform an interim radiation survey of plant; post warning signs as appropriate.

Erect physical barriers andlor secure all access to radioactive or contaminated areas, except as required for controlled access, i.e.,

inspection and maintenance.

Ship spent fuel to a DOE or intermediate facility - continuously throughout Period 1 and into the dormancy period.

• Install security and surveillance monitoring equipment and relocate security fence around secured structures, as required.

This study assumes that demolition would be delayed for those structures located outside the secured area until after the termination of the license.

2.2.2 Period 2 - Dormancy The second phase identified by the NRC in its rule addresses licensed activities during a storage period and is applicable to the dormancy phases of the SAFSTOR alternative. After an optional period of storage (such that license termination is accomplished within 60 years of final shutdown), it is required that the licensee submit an application to terminate the license, along with a License Termination plan (described in Section 2.1.2), thereby initiating the third phase.

Activities required during the planned dormancy period include a 24-hour guard force, preventive and corrective maintenance on security systems, area lighting, general building maintenance, heating and ventilation of buildings, routine radiological inspections of contaminated structures, maintenance of structural integrity, and a site environmental and radiation monitoring program. The length of the dormancy period selected for each unit is approximately 30 years.

Spent fuel transfers, from the ISFSI to a federal repository, will continue until the year 2040.

Equipment maintenance, inspection activities, and routine service are performed by resident maintenance personnel.

This work force will TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 16 of 18 maintain the structures in a safe condition, provide adequate lighting, heating, and ventilation, and perform periodic preventive maintenance on essential site services.

An environmental surveillance program is carried out during the dormancy period to ensure that potential releases of radioactive material to the environment are detected and controlled. Appropriate emergency procedures are established and initiated for potential releases that exceed prescribed limits.

The environmental surveillance program constitutes an abbreviated version of the program in effect during normal plant operations.

Security during the dormancy period is conducted primarily to prevent unauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of its own actions. Security will be provided by the security fence, sensors, alarms, surveillance equipment, etc., which must be maintained in good condition for the duration of this period. Fire and radiation alarms are also to be monitored and maintained. While remote surveillance is an option, it does not offer the immediate response time of a physical presence.

Variations in the length of the dormancy period are expected to have little effect upon the quantities of radioactive wastes generated from system and structure removal operations. While there will be a decrease in the contamination levels present on all surfaces due to radioactive decay over an increased dormancy duration, it is not expected that any material that is non-releasable at the time of shutdown will decay to a releasable state over the permissible time frame (i~e.

60 years maximum).

Without detailed contamination characterization-information, it is not possible to make any further assumptions concerning contamination levels.

Given the levels of radioactivity and spectrum of radionuclides expected from 40 years of plant operation, no plant process system identified as being contaminated upon final shutdown will become releasable due to the decay period alone, i.e., there is no significant reduction in waste volume by delaying decommissioning. In fact, SAFSTOR estimates can show a slight increase in the total projected waste volume, due primarily to initial preparation activities for placing the units in safe-storage, as well as from follow-up housekeeping tasks over the caretaking period for the station. Since SAFSTOR does not require system flushes for decontamination purposes, the waste volumes associated with liquid TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Reu. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 17 of 18 waste processing have been eliminated. In this case, the cost estimate showed a small decrease in the total low-level waste volume in the SAFSTOR mode relative to DECON.

The delay in decommissioning yields lower working area radiation levels.

As such, the difference between the prompt and delayed scenarios is moderated by reduced ALARA controls for the SAFSTOR's lower occupational exposure potential.

Because this alternative provides a period of decay for the residual radioactive material, lower radiation fields are encountered than with the DECON alternative. Some of the dismantling activities may employ manual techniques rather than remote procedures. Thus, dismantling operations may be simplified for some tasks. However, this study does not attempt to quantify this effect because it would have an immaterial impact on overall costs.

2.2.3 Periods 3 - 4 Deferred Decommissioning A License Termination Plan must be prepared at least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination. Submitted as a supplement to the FSAR or equivalent, the plan must include a site characterization, description of the remaining dismantling activities, plans for site remediation, detailed plans for the final radiation survey, designation of the end-use of the site, an updated cost estimate to complete the decommissioning, and any associated environmental concerns. The NRC will notice the receipt of the plan and make the plan available for public comment. A local hearing will also be scheduled. Plan approval will be subject to any conditions and limitations deemed appropriate by the NRC. The licensee may then commence with the final remediation of site facilities and plant services.

Although the initial radiation levels due to 60Co will decrease significantly during the dormancy period, the internal components of the reactor vessel will still exhibit sufficiently high radiation dose rates to require remote sectioning under water due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides such as 94Nb and 59Ni.

Therefore, the dismantling procedures described for the DECON alternative would still be employed during SAFSTOR.

Portions of the biological shield will still be radioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with long half-lives (152Eu and 154Eu).

Decontamination will require controlled removal and disposal. It is assumed that radioactive corrosion products on inner surfaces of piping and components will not have decayed to levels that will permit unrestricted use or allow conventional removal.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 2, Page 18 of 18 These systems and components are surveyed as they are removed and disposed of in accordance with the existing radioactive release criteria.

Prior to the commencement of decommissioning operations, preparations are undertaken to reactivate site services and prepare for decommissioning.

Preparations include engineering and planning, a detailed site characterization, and the assembly of a decommissioning management organization. Final planning for activities and writing of activity specifications and detailed procedures are also initiated at this time.

Much of the work in developing a License Termination Plan is relevant to the development of the detailed engineering plans and procedures.

The activities associated with this phase, as well as the follow-on decontamination and dismantling processes, are detailed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

The primary difference between the sequences anticipated for the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios is the absence, in the latter, of any constraint on the availability of the Fuel Handling Buildings for decommissioning. The timing for the SAFSTOR scenario is such that the spent fuel inventory has been removed from the site prior to the initiation of decontamination and dismantling activities, eliminating a significant scheduling hindrance.

Any GTCC material generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals is assumed to be directly routed to DOE's geological facility, without the need to provide for interim storage on site.

2.2.4 Period 5 - Site Restoration For the SAFSTOR alternative, the site restoration activities are the same as those for DECON Period 3, without restriction on the availability of the ISFSI for dismantling and demolition.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 1 of 25

3. COST ESTIMATE The DCPP cost estimate accounts for the unique features of the site, including the primary coolant system, electric power generation systems, site buildings, and structures. The basis of the estimate and its sources of information, methodology, site-specific considerations, assumptions and total costs are described in this section.

3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE A site-specific. cost estimate was developed using drawings and plant documents provided by PG&E.

Components were inventoried from the mechanical and electrical Piping & Instrument Diagrams (P&ID). Structural drawings and design documents were used to analyze the general arrangement of the facility and to determine estimates of building concrete volumes, steel quantities, numbers and sizes of major components, and areas of the plant to be addressed in remediation of the site.

Representative labor rates for each designated craft and salaried worker were provided by PG&E for use in construction of the unit removal factors, as well as for estimating the carrying costs for site management, worker supervision, and essential support services, e.g., health physics and security.

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

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

(Ref. 8) and the US DOE "Decommissioning Handbook" (Ref. 9). These references utilize a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations. Unit cost factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch) were developed from the labor cost information provided by PG&E.

The TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 2 of 25 activity-dependent costs are estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards, tons, inches, etc.) developed from plant drawings and inventory documents.

The unit cost factors used in this study reflect the latest available information about worker productivity in decommissioning, including the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project completed in 1989, as well as from TLG's involvement in the decommissioning planning and engineering for the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Oyster Creek, Trojan, Rancho Seco, Pathfinder, and Cintichem reactor facilities.

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

The program schedule is used to determine the period-dependent costs for program management,-

administration, field engineering, equipment rental, quality assurance, and security.

The study used typical salary and hourly rates for personnel associated with period-dependent costs for the region in which the station is located. Some of the costs for removal of radioactive components/structures were based on information obtained from the "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R. S. Means (Ref. 10).

Examples of unit cost factor development are presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study. Appendix A presents the detailed development of a typical site-specific unit cost factors. Appendix B provides the values contained within one set of factors developed for the DCPP analyses.

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

3.3 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's proprietary decommissioning cost model, DECCER, is composed of a number of distinct cost line items. These direct expenditures, however, do not compose the total cost to accomplish the project goal, i.e., license termination and site restoration.

Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is the inability to specify the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as tool TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 3 of 25 breakage, accidents, illnesses, weather delays, and labor stoppages. In the DECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. Contingency is added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to develop analytically. Such costs are historically inevitable over the duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes monies to cover these types of expenses. The allotment of these monies is discussed further herein.

In addition to the routine uncertainties that contingency addresses, another cost element that is sometimes necessary to consider when bounding decommissioning costs relates to uncertainty, or risk. Examples can include changes in work scope, pricing, job performance, and other variations that could conceivably, but not necessarily, occur. Consideration of these uncertainties is sometimes necessary to generate a level of confidence in the estimate, within a range of probabilities. TLG considers these types of costs under the broad term "financial risk." This cost study, does not add any additional costs to the estimate for financial risk since there is insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities. Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk should be revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimate.

3.3.1 Contingency The activity-and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning costs. A contingency is then applied on a line-item basis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in the AIF/NESP-036 study.

"Contingencies" are defined in the American Association of Cost Engineers "Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook" (Ref. 11) as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur." The-cost elements in this estimate are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, a contingency factor has been applied. In the AIF/NESP-036 study, the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning are discussed and guidelines are provided for percentage contingency in each category.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 4 of 25 The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a "safety factor issue." Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. They also provide assurance that sufficient funding is available to accomplish the intended tasks. Some of the rationale for (and need to incorporate) contingency within any estimate is offered in the following discussion.

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

The most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a 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 interdependent; any deviation in schedule has a significant impact on the 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 required is a function of the pieces generated in the segmentation activity, a value calculated on optimum performance of the tooling employed in cutting the various subassemblies.

The risk (uncertainty) associated with this task is that the expected optimization may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional program costs.

For this reason, contingency must be included to mitigate the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with specialty tooling modifications and

repairs, field

changes, discontinuities in the coordination of plant services, system failure, water

clarity, lighting, computer-controlled cutting software corrections, etc. Experience in decommissioning other plants in the past has shown that many of these problem areas have occurred during, and in support of, the segmentation process.

Contingency dollars are an integral part of the total cost to complete this task.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 5 of 25 Exclusion of this component puts at risk a successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, follow-on related activities.

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

Incomplete or Changed Conditions:

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

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

• Additional decontamination, controlled

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

Adverse Working Conditions:

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

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

Maintenance, Repairs and Modifications.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 6 of 25

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

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

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

• Requests for additional safety margins by a vendor.

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

Additional collection of site run-off and processing of such due to disturbance of natural site contours and drainage.

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

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

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

Labor Turnover of personnel, e.g., craft and health physics.

Replacement of labor is costly, involving additional training,

badging, medical

exams, and associated processing procedures.

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

I TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 7 of 25

• Additional personnel required to comply with NRC mandates and requests.-

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

Schedule

• Schedule slippage due to a conflict in required resources, i.e.,

the licensee was forced into a delay until prior (non-licensee) commitments of outside resources were resolved.

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

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

The cost model incorporates considerations for items such as those described

above, generating contingency dollars (at varying percentages of total line-item cost) with every activity. The purpose of the contingency is to allow for the costs of high probability program problems occurring in the field where the occurrence, duration, and severity cannot be accurately predicted, and so their associated costs have not been included in the basic estimate. Past decommissioning experience has shown that unforeseeable cost elements are almost certain to occur in the field and may have a cumulative impact. In this study TLG examined the major activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling, packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate a contingency.

Individual activity contingencies ranged from 10% to 75%, depending on the degree of difficulty judged to be appropriate from TLG's actual decommissioning experience. The contingency values used in this study are as follows.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 8 of 25 Decontamination 50%

Contaminated Component Removal 25%

Contaminated Component Packaging 10%

Contaminated Component Transport 15%

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25%

Waste Recycling/Recovery 15%

Reactor Segmentation 75%

NSSS Component Removal 25%

Reactor Waste Packaging 25%

Reactor Waste Transport 25%

Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50%

GTCC Disposal 15%

Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15%

Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15%

SuPplies 25%

Engineering 15%

Energy 15%

License Termination Survey 30%

Construction 15%

Taxes and Fees 10%

Insurance 10%

Staffing 15%

3.3.2 Financial Risk Financial risk refers to the possibility and associated probabilities of certain events occurring that could increase or decrease costs for decommissioning.

Included within the category of financial risk are:

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

Changes in the project work scope from the baseline estimate, involving the discovery of unexpected levels of contaminants, contamination in places not previously TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 9 of 25 expected, contaminated soil previously undiscovered (either radioactive or hazardous material contamination),

or variations in plant inventory/configuration not indicated by the as-built drawings.

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

• Policy decisions altering federal and state commitments, e.g.,

the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or the adjustment of the timetable for such.

Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial.

Some of these inputs may vary slightly, e.g. -10% to +20%; burial could vary from -50% to

+200% or more.

It has been TLG's experience that the results of a risk analysis, when compared with the base case estimate for decommissioning, indicate that the chances of the base decommissioning estimate's being too high is a low probability, and the chances that the estimate is too low is a much higher probability. This is primarily 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 pricing variations in the cost of labor (both craft and staff). TLG did not perform a risk analysis for the DCPP and therefore the cost estimate does not include any increase in decommissioning costs as a result of risk analysis.

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 these considerations, identified below, are included in this cost study.

3.4.1 Spent Fuel Disposition For purposes of this cost study, PG&E provided a spent fuel scenario

-management plan that addressed the storage scenario for both DCPP nuclear units. The PG&E spent fuel disposition scenario assumes that TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 10 of 25 DOE will begin receipt of spent fuel from DCPP in 2018. It also assumes construction of an ISFSI prior to final plant shutdown in order to support continued plant operations. For both scenarios, the fuel will remain in wet storage in the existing fuel pool(s) for 12 years following shutdown of each unit. During this time, the existing ISFSI will be expanded to accept the inventory of fuel from the pools. All fuel will be transferred to the ISFSI within 12 years of final unit shutdown. The last spent fuel shipment is expected to occur in 2040.

3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented for disposal in shielded transportation casks. Segmentation and packaging of the internals' packages are performed in the refueling canal, where a turntable and remote cutter will be installed. The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mounted cutter supported off the lower head and directed from a shielded work platform installed overhead in the reactor cavity.

Transportation cask specifications and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations dictate segmentation and packaging methodology.

All packages must meet the current physical and radiological limitations and regulations. Cask shipments will be made in DOT-approved, currently available, truck casks.

The dismantling of reactor internals at DCPP will generate radioactive waste generally unsuitable for shallow land disposal (GTCC).

Although the material is not classified as high-level waste, DOE has indicated it will accept title to this waste for disposal at the future high-level waste repository.

However, an acceptance criteria or a disposition schedule for this material has not been established, and numerous questions remain as to the ultimate disposal cost and waste form requirements. As such, for purposes of this study, the GTCC waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.

Reactor coolant piping is cut from the reactor vessel once the water level in the vessel (used for personnel shielding during dismantling and cutting operations in and around the vessel) is dropped below the nozzle zone. The piping is boxed and shipped by shielded van. The reactor coolant pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, and transported for disposal together with the steam generators.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 11 of 25 3.4.3 Steam Generators and Other Primary Coolant System Components The steam generators' size and weight, as well as their configuration in the Reactor Building and limited access in the Reactor Building itself, place constraints on their intact removal. Modifications to the Reactor Building are necessary for component extraction, due to the fact that the only large access to the building is the existing equipment hatch, located above grade level.

To remove the generators through this hatch requires that the units be positioned horizontally, typically impossible due to physical impediments within the structure.

Determination of the removal strategy requires several different considerations.

Considerations for the extraction process include modifications to the Reactor Building for removal of the generators, rigging needed to maneuver and extract the generators from the structure, and component preparations needed to transport the generators to a disposal site.

A potential method for removal (and the one used as the basis in this estimate) is the extraction of the generators through a hatch created in the side of the Reactor Building. Sections of concrete are removed to create an opening large enough to extract the steam generators. Prior to sectioning and removal of the steam generator cubicle walls, adjoining floor slabs, and floor grating must be accomplished before the generators can be maneuvered to the opening.

The hatch is re-created using a diamond wire saw to section the containment wall into removable blocks. Once the building is opened, grating within the work area is decontaminated and removed. Next, a trolley crane is set up for removal of the generators. By setting the trolley crane first, it can be used to lower portions of the steam generator cubicle walls that will have to be removed as part of the building modification effort.

It also can be used to help remove portions of the floor slab. A 15-foot section of the cubicle wall will be dismantled to allow the maneuvering of the generators within the building. Large cubicle wall sections are lowered out of the Reactor Building using the trolley crane, where they can be decontaminated and transported to the material handling area.

The upper steam generator domes will be disconnected from the surrounding piping and supports. The steam dome will then be rigged TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon PowerPlant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 12 of 25 for removal. The steam domes will be cut from the lower shell units and transferred to a laydown area for further segmentation.

A prefabricated end-cap will mate with the exposed cut end on the lower shell unit. This end-cap will cover the exposed lower shell tube bundle, recreating a leaktight container. The lower shell units will then be disconnected from all piping and supports, rigged for removal and maneuvered into the open area where they will be lowered onto a dolly.

The dolly will allow the lower end of the steam generator to rotate through the opening as it is being lowered. Nozzles and other openings will be welded closed.

When this stage has been completed, the generator lower shell unit will be lifted onto a multi-wheeled transporter and moved to an on-site storage area to await transport to the disposal facility.

The three remaining steam generators will be removed using the same technique. Once the components have been removed, a portion of the opening will be closed using concrete blocks.

A smaller opening will be covered with a temporary barrier to allow for future access.

Once at the storage area, each generator lower shell unit will have a two-inch thick carbon steel membrane welded to its outside surface for shielding during transport. The units will then be loaded onto a multi-wheeled transporter and moved to an on-site rail head where they will be shipped to the Ward Valley waste disposal facility. Depending upon the proximity of the rail head to the disposal location, the units may be off-loaded from the train and onto multi-wheeled transporters to be moved for the remaining distance to the disposal site.

The size and weight of the generator packages was a-concern in evaluating transportation alternatives. As such, discussions were held with both the railroad and Lampson, Inc. (rigging), on the moving of the generators.

Both companies have had experience with moving large nuclear components, and were able to supply costs based on specific generator dimensions and weight. TLG was also able to apply its experience gained in the planning of the disposition of the steam generators at the Trojan site, where Lampson was a subcontractor.

3.4.4 Transportation Methods For the purposes of the cost estimate, it was assumed that the low-level radioactive waste produced in the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear units will be moved overland by truck, shielded van, rail, TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 13 of 25 and/or multi-wheeled transporter to the regional burial facility.

Transport costs were derived assuming a final destination of no greater than 1,000 miles from the plant using published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit (Ref. 12).

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

To the greatest extent practical, non-compactable low-level radioactive waste is treated to reduce the total volume of radioactive material requiring controlled disposal.

The treated material meeting the regulatory and/or site release criteria is released as clean scrap, requiring no further cost consideration. Material not meeting release criteria will be processed for volume reduction and packaged for controlled disposal as radioactive waste. Material/waste recovery and recycling are assumed to be performed by an off site, licensed processing center.

Compactable DAW, such as booties, glove liners, respirator filter cartridges, shipping containers, radiological controls survey materials, etc. will be assumed to be drummed and compacted to 10% of their original volume. This is the minimum practical volume to which low-level waste can be compacted to reduce costs.

3.4.6 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning A final radiation survey will be conducted to ensure that all radioactive materials in excess of permissible residual levels have been remediated in accordance with 10 CFR §20 Subpart E "Radiological Criteria for License Termination."

This survey may coincide with final NRC site inspection.

The NRC will terminate the 10 CFR §50 license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the license termination plan, and that the terminal radiation survey and associated TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 14 of 25 documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. The NRC's involvement in the decommissioning process will end at this point. Local building codes and state environmental regulations will dictate the next step in the decommissioning process.

3.5 ASSUMPTIONS The following are the major assumptions made in the development of the cost estimates for decommissioning DCPP.

3.5.1 Estimating Basis

1.

Costs are calculated in 2002 dollars. TLG has not included factors for present-value economic analysis, escalation, or general inflation.

2.

Both units are assumed to be essentially identical except for common structures and systems. Common systems and structures are assigned to and incorporated within the estimate for Unit 2 since they are required to support decommissioning operations.

3.

Plant

drawings, equipment, structural specifications, and construction details were provided by PG&E.

3.5.2 Labor Costs

1.

The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the DCPP units will be acquired through standard site contracting practices.

The current cost of labor at the site is used as an estimating basis.

2.

Costs for site administration, operations, construction, and maintenance personnel are based upon current, average salary information provided by PG&E.

3.

PG&E, as the licensee, will oversee the decommissioning operations, as well as provide site security, radiological controls, and overall site administration during decommissioning and dismantling.

PG&E will hire a Decommissioning Operations Contractor (DOC),

providing contract management of the decommissioning labor force and subcontractors. The DOC provides engineering services for such items as writing activity specifications, procedures, activation

analyses, or structural modifications.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 15 of 25

4.

The costs associated for the transition of an operating to a decommissioning organization, (e.g.,

separation

packages, retraining, severance, or incentives) are not included in this estimate.

3.5.3 Design Conditions

1.

Any fuel cladding failure that has occurred or may occur 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 which permit the major primary coolant system components to be shipped as Low Specific Waste (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) waste and to be buried within the requirements of 10 CFR 61 or the regional burial ground; or

• to have necessitated systematic decontamination during the operating life of the plant so that the radionuclide levels will be acceptable for transport as LSA or SCO waste and the burial will be within the requirements of 10 CFR 61.

2.

The estimated curie content of the vessel and internals at final shutdown was derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474 (Ref.

13). Actual estimates will be derived from the Cilgram values in NUREG/CR-3474 and adjusted for the different mass of components and projected operating life, as well as for different periods of decay.

Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from NUREG/CR-0130 (Ref. 14) and NUREG/CR-0672 (Ref. 15), and benchmarked to the long-lived values from NUREG/CR-3474.

3.5.4 General

1.

PG&E provides for any necessary electrical power to be brought on site required to decommission the plant. Energy costs are included in the estimate.

2.

Material and heavy equipment rental and operating costs are taken from R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 16 of 25

3.

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

• Auxiliary Steam

• Condensate

• Extraction Steam and Heater Drip

• Lube Oil Distribution and Purification

• Turbine Steam Supply

• Turbine and Generator

• Main Condensers

• Main Turbine/Generator

4.

Contaminated concrete surfaces in the Reactor Buildings, Fuel Handling Buildings, Containment Penetration Areas, Radwaste Storage Building and Auxiliary Building will require decontamination by scabbling (removal of concrete surfaces to a depth of one-half inch), or a drill and spall technique (removal of concrete surfaces to a depth of two inches).

5.

Radioactively contaminated piping, components, and structures other than the reactor vessel and internals are assumed to meet DOT limits for LSA or SCO material.

For transportation calculations, the distance from the plant site to the (burial site) is not greater than 1,000 miles. Rates for shipping radioactive wastes were provided by Tri-State Motor Transit in published tariffs for this cargo.

6.

The reactor vessel and internals disposal costs were based on remote in-place segmentation, packaging in shielded casks, and shipping by truck to the burial ground. A maximum normal road weight limit of 80,000 pounds is assumed for all truck shipments, with the exception of anticipated overweight cask shipments. Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vessel segment(s),

supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs and tractor-trailer.

The maximum curies per shipment assumed permissible is based upon the license limits of available shielded shipping casks. The number and curie content of vessel segments were selected to meet these limits.

7.

The number of cask shipments out of the Reactor Building is expected to average three, every two weeks.

In the DECON alternative, the reactor vessel and coolant system will be chemically TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 17 of 25 decontaminated using one chemical flush and two water rinses prior to segmentation. Typically, a decontamination factor of 10 is expected from this operation.

8.

This study estimates that there will be some radioactive waste generated which is greater than 10 CFR 61 Class C quantities (GTCC), resulting from disposal of the highly activated sections of the reactor vessel internals. This waste will most likely be disposed of as high-level waste in the DOE's repository unless an alternative solution is approved by the NRC. The cost of disposal, unlike that for the spent fuel,- is not addressed by DOE's 1 mill/kWhr surcharge, and has been estimated from equivalent disposal costs for spent nuclear fuel.

9.

Control elements will be removed and disposed of along with the spent fuel assemblies.

10. GTCC waste generated through segmentation of the reactor vessel internals will be transferred to the on-site ISFSI or to the DOE high-level repository within the approximate 12-year decay period following plant shutdown. If the DOE were to default on its obligations to accept spent fuel and GTCC

material, decommissioning costs would almost certainly increase.

11. This study does not address the cost for the removal and disposal of spent fuel from the site. Ultimate disposition of the spent fuel is the province of DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and funded through the 1 mill/kWhr electrical generation surcharge.

If the DOE were to delay its obligations to accept spent fuel later than a time consistent with its initial pickup of spent fuel from DCPP in

2018, then decommissioning costs would increase.

12. Spent fuel is assumed to remain in the spent fuel pools for a 12-year decay period to satisfy the dry cask storage system design criteria.

13. The final reactor core discharge will be transferred to the spent fuel pool, located in the Fuel Handling Buildings, where it will remain for at least twelve years. Additional storage of fuel on site will be necessary prior to its transfer to the DOE for final disposal.

14. Scrap generated during decommissioning is not included as a salvage credit line item in this study for two reasons: (1) the scrap TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 18 of 25 value merely offsets the associated site removal and scrap processing costs, and (2) a relatively low value of scrap exists in the market. Scrap processing and site removal costs are not included in the estimate.

15. PG&E will make economically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment during decommissioning. Nonetheless, because placing a salvage value on this machinery and equipment would be speculative, and the value would be small in comparison to overall decommissioning expenses, this estimate does not attempt to quantify the value that PG&E might realize based upon those efforts. For purposes of this study, decommissioning is assumed to begin in 2021; it may occur earlier or later, depending on a variety of economic and regulatory factors.

Additionally, because of PG&E's life cycle management of equipment (a program designed to optimize equipment performance through preventive maintenance),

it is difficult to predict the remaining life of on site equipment when decommissioning begins. Finally, it is difficult to predict whether the market for used equipment will be stronger or weaker than it is at the time of this estimate. For these reasons, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the salvage value of the equipment at DCPP.

Moreover, any salvage value would be small when compared to total decommissioning expenses.

16. The PG&E staffing requirements during decommissioning vary with the level of effort associated with the various phases of the project. Once the decommissioning program commences, only those staff positions necessary to support the decommissioning program are included.

Costs are not included in this study for staff transition from plant operations to decommissioning.

17. Engineering services for such items as writing activity specifications, detailed procedures, detailed activation analyses, and structural modifications, etc. are assumed to be provided by outside contractors.

18. PG&E will remove items of personal property owned by PG&E that can be removed without the use of special equipment.

19. PG&E has sufficient scaffolding to support the decommissioning project.

No costs associated with the purchase or rental of scaffolding are included in the estimate.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 19 of 25

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

Those warehouses scheduled for removal will be dismantled as they are no longer needed to support the decom-missioning program; others may remain for alternate use.

21. PG&E will perform the following activities as a staff function, shortly after cessation of operations at Unit 2:

• Fuel oil tanks will be emptied. Tanks will be cleaned by flushing or steam cleaning as required prior to disposal.

• Acid and caustic tanks will be emptied through normal usage; any excess acid or caustic removed to support disposal of the storage container(s) are returned to the vendor.

• Lubricating and transformer oils will be drained and removed from the site by a waste disposal vendor.

22. The decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with the current regulations, which are assumed to still be in place at the time of decommissioning.

Changes in current regulations may have a cost impact on decommissioning.

23. This study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors that incorporate such items as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training, the use of respiratory protection, and personnel protective clothing.

These items lengthen a task's duration, which increase the costs and lengthens the schedule. ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering and planning, and in the development of activity specifications and detailed procedures. Changes to §20 worker exposure limits may impact the decommissioning cost and project schedule.

24. Nuclear liability insurance provides coverage for offsite damage or injuries due to radiation exposure from equipment and material.

Nuclear property insurance provides protection against direct physical damage to onsite property by a broad range of causes including, radioactive contamination, fires, floods, etc.

This estimate includes the premium cost for both liability and property insurance. PG&E provided current nuclear liability and property insurance premiums. These premiums are adjusted to reflect the relative changes in risk during the various phases of TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 3, Page 20 of 25 decommissioning. Insurance is required until both the Part 50 and Part 72 are terminated

25. Only existing site structures and those presently planned will be considered in the decommissioning cost.

26. The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers will be moved as appropriate to conform with the Site Security Plan in force at the various stages in the project.

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

28. Underground metal and concrete piping will either be surveyed in place and released, or excavated and removed for survey.

Any piping that exceeds the site release criteria will be removed.

29. Property tax payments for DCPP are not included in this estimate.

3.6 COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

Summaries of the radiological decommissioning costs and annual expenditures are provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. The costs were extracted from the detailed cost tables in Appendices C & D, and divided into five categories, PG&E Labor, Equipment and Materials, Contractor Labor, Burial, and Other. The following should be considered when reviewing Appendices C and D:

• "Decon" as used in the headings of these tables, refers to decontamination activities (as opposed to the NRC term DECON), which refer to the prompt removal decommissioning scenario.

• "Total" as used in the headings of these tables, is the sum of Decon, Remove, Pack, Ship, Bury, and Contingency, as well as other miscellaneous items not listed (such as engineering and preparations).

The subtotal reported for the major cost categories does not include contingency, which is reported in a separate column.

• "Other" includes different types of costs that are not easily categorized.

For instance, in systems removal and structures decontamination, the "Other" cost consists of the off-site recycling costs for low-level radioactive TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 21 of 25 waste. In most of the engineering preparatory activities the "Other" cost is strictly engineering labor; however, "Other" also includes taxes, insurance, plant energy budgets, and regulatory fees.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 22 of 25 TABLE 3.1a SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES DECON UNIT 1 (2002 Dollars)

Equipment &

Matarials Year PG&E Labor Contractor I nhnr Rim-tria n%&LA-l TzW

_c--

D-[U l

Tl JL et:

early I otals 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 5,547,377 20,047,451 21,258,915 21,194,678 18,747,094 15,558,491 4,891,853 4,904,604 4,891,853.

4,891,853 5,431,853 5,444,604 4,794,164 1,444,189 1,894,189 1,897,248 7,666,470 6,099,036 1,581,432 1.568.134 2,381,238 8,605,465 14,884,293 15,606,509 14,471,071 11,149,372 37,500 37,500 37,500 3,677,500 7,517,500 6,002,500 2,327,500 3,677,500 7,517,500 6,002,500 6,951,638 1,869,967 5,239,500 5,225,248 2,487,881 14,647,881 22,246,880 23,693,952 21,986,005 17,038,566 488,207 489,545 488,207 488,207 1,028,207 1,029,545 737,442 206,226 656,226 656,545 7,411,803 5,835,776 7,688,837 7,658,566 1,131,341 4,088,511 22,367,201 27,573,020 25,562,136 19,679,343 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 8,189,439 2,284,422 0

0o 2,939,654 10,623,502 3,369,110 1,149,009 1,118,713 1,024,117 707,670 708,993 707,670 707,670 752,670 753,993 752,664 752,614 752,614 753,936 869,921 675,345 359,846 15,549,170 14,487,491 58,012,810 84,126,398 89,217,168 81,885,019 64,449,890 6,125,230 6,140,642 6,125,230 9,765,230 14,730,230 13,230,642 8,611,770 6,080,530 10,820,530 9,310,230 31,089,271 16,764,546 14,869,614 30,001,118 I

0 I.

I.

1Q

'7 AQ d

,All1.

-5.1-7 0-, 00, 18 a ;,{ e

,00 1l43,L

,JUU 1 36,964,505 110,875,414 45,028,881 l 575,843,588 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 23 of 25 TABLE 3.lb SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES DECON UNIT 2 (2002 Dollars)

Equipment &

Materials Contractor Labor Year PG&E Labor lr I Ietn nth1-Vaurlsw TA+I Materil Labr Ri r

aly Ildtal 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 402,500 237,500 13,968,627 20,476,977 21,331,089 20,124,408 17,321,980 6,015,823 6,555,823 6,571,654 6,305,823 6,105,823 6,555,823 6,571,654 12,979,138 10,765,830 5,456,464 5,261,853 1,144,370 842,500 37,500 5,795,926 9,905,468 16,402,159 18,297,783 17,913,970 3,677,500 7,517,500 6,002,500 2,327,500 3,677,500 7,517,500 6,002,500 7,149,637 10,293,129 85,467,891 81,020,856

,3,096 165,000 0

6,687,035 15,303,036 24,727,894 25,923,039 24,124,073 1,185,629 1,725,629 1,728,877 1,475,629 1,275,629 1,725,629 1,728,877 10,440,868 11,815,732 26,503,564 25,144,870 2,765,673 0

0 2,660,585 8,230,499 27,560,667 30,753,197 30,106,795 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

8,121,239 2,265,398 0

21,795 2.7

.1 270,000 225,000 6,094,731 7,391,659 1,150,789 1,198,414 1,182,627 707,663 752,663 753,985 752,663 752,663 752,663 753,985 869,945 687,150 473,028 15,662,779 45,782 1,680,000 500,000 35,206,905 61,307,639 91,172,598 96,296,842 90,649,444 11,586,615 16,551,615 15,057,017 10,861,615 11,811,615 16,551,615 15,057,017 39,560,827 35,827,240 117,900,948 127,112,153 6,629,838 3.096 I

41 7A 11n tn-ore A -

I '-,

10, IDOU ZtY0:Z4 184,446,683 112,391,093 40,478,190 801,321,541 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 24 of 25 TABLE 3.2a SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES SAFSTOR UNIT 1 (2002 Dollars)

Equipment &

Materials Contractor Labor Year PG&E Labor Burial Other Yearly Totals 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 4,850,631 17,529,510 8,823,891 6,031,467 6,015,637 6,015,637 6,015,637 6,031,467 6,015,637 6,015,637 6,555,637 6,571,467 5,953,236 2,889,978 3,339,978 3,346,999 3,139,978 2,939,978 2,939,978 2,927,675 1,721,658 1,721,658 1,721,658 1,726,375 1,721,658 1,721,658 1,721,658 1,726,375 1,721,658 1,721,658 1,721,658 1,726,375 1,721,658 4,040,322 16,569,245 16,944,801 13,553,369 7,351,707 483,863 416,307 1,033,195 670.869 846,248 3,058,223 1,775,062 354,042 353,177 353,177 353,177 354,042 353,177 3,993,177 7,833,177 6,319,042 2,643,177 3,993,177 7,833,177 6,319,042 2,643,177 353,177 353,177 353,177 315,677 315,677 315,677 316,542 315,677 315,677 315,677 316,542 315,677 315,677 315,677 316,542 315,677 594,075 2,098,401 9,839,187 13,855,245 13,855,245 6,488,430 2,161,308 5,363,958 3.482,899 1,857,546 6,712,913 2,053,322 489,522 488,184 488,184 488,184 489,522 488,184 488,184 1,028,184 1,029,522 737,427 206,277 656,277 656,595 606,277 406,277 406,277 396,277 116,236 116,236 116,236 116,554 116,236 116,236 116,236 116,554 116,236 116,236 116,236 116,554 116,236 3,033,213 18,795,122 22,281,443 22,385,072 18,977,249 8,322,722 3,262,031 7,576,629 4,919,619 0

0 433,490 53,734 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,734 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,734 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,734 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,734 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,734 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,734 53,588 228,896 1,176,180 19,515,241 29,045,677 29,045,677 13,602,130 0

0 0

2,284,698 8,256,582 2,388,083 562,561 561,638 561,638 561,638 562,561 561,638 561,638 606,638 607,561 601,759 562,118 562,118 562,918 562,118 562,118 562,118 556,966 236,501 236,501 236,501 237,149 236,501 236,501 236,501 237,149 236,501 236,501 236,501 237,149 236,501 321,736 1,279,348 4,275,457 5,691,175 5,675,946 2,651,906 22,375 22,314 14,487 10,321,311 37,299,786 15,473,848 7,491,326 7,472,224 7,472,224 7,472,224 7,491,326 7,472,224 11,112,224 16,077,224 14,581,326 9,989,187 7,705,137 12,445,137 10,939,288 7,005,137 4,315,137 4,315,137 4,287,681 2,443,659 2,443,659 2,443,659 2,450,354 2,443,659 2,443,659 2,443,659 2,450,354 2,443,659 2,443,659 2,443,659 2,450,354 2,443,659 8,218,242 39,918,296 72,856,128 84,530,538 74,905,824 31,549,051 5,862,020 13,996,095 9,087,874

- ~~~~ ~~ ~

~ ~ ~

l-197,409,433 112,282,138 131,238,258 96,88U,69U 45,64U,3U4 bd83,4bU,bZ4 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 25 of 25 TABLE 3.2b SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES SAFSTOR UNIT 2 (2002 Dollars)

Equipment &

Materials Contractor Lahnr Year PG&E Labor Buirial nthdar Yp-r-7Trftl-ar Vr, Tn1

• . e1 Myy 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 402,500 237,500 12,249,273 15,404,947 4,891,819 4,904,571 4,891,819 4,891,819 5,431,819 5,444,571 5,181,819 4,981,819 5,431,819 5,444,571 3,390,826 1,495,173 1,495,173 1,483,682 573,217 573,217 573,217 574,788 573,217 573,217 573,217 574,788 573,217 573,217 573,217 574,788 573,217 573,217 573,217 8,230,983 12,237,128 17,031,454 15,725,639 4,932,336 3,728,096 2,420,709 842,500 37,500 2,653,289 3,220,843 400,584 401,578 400,584 4,040,584 7,880,584 6,366,578 2,690,584 4,040,584 7,880,584 6,366,578 2,690,584 400,584 400,584 400,584 363,084 363,084 363,084 364,078 363,084 363,084 363,084 364,078 363,084 363,084 363,084 364,078 363,084 363,084 363,084 2,101,376 7,768,680 16,977,602 16,977,602 43,981,067 83,879,669 54,464,333 165,000 0

5,235,246 6,506,889 1,464,610 1,468,622 1,464,610 1,464,610 2,004,610 2,008,622 1,754,610 1,554,610 2,004,610 2,008,622 1,700,868 1,267,158 1,267,158 1,255,818 488,177 488,177 488,177 489,514 488,177 488,177 488,177 489,514 488,177 488,177 488,177 489,514 488,177 488,177 488,177 13,723,416 19,821,806 26,764,735 25,637,752 24,877,476 26,277,215 17,062,192 0

0 1,234,596 1,480,804 53,588 53,735 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,735 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,735 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,735 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,735 53,588 53,588 53,588 53,735 53,588 53,588 53,588 1,051,068 12,252,551 31,079,522 31,079,522 18,641,753 0

0 270,000 225,000 4,477,493 5,353,516 561,651 562,574 561,651 561,651 606,651 607,574 606,651 606,651 606,651 607,574 583,537 562,247 562,247 557,094 236,494 236,494 236,494 237,142 236,494 236,494 236,494 237,142 236,494 236,494 236,494 237,142 236,494 236,494 236,494 1,151,599 3,021,843 5,972,715 5,964,506 3,571,905 53,674 34,854 1,680,000 500,000 25,849,897 31,966,999 7,372,252 7,391,080 7,372,252 11,012,252 15,977,252 14,481,080 10,287,252 11,237,252 15,977,252 14,481,080 8,419,402 3,778,751 3,778,751 3,750,766 1,714,560 1,714,560 1,714,560 1,719,258 1,714,560 1,714,560 1,714,560 1,719,258 1,714,560 1,714,560 1,714,560 1,719,258 1,714,560 1,714,560 1,714,560 26,258,441 55,102,007 97,826,028 95,385,022 96,004,536 113,938,655 73 982,088 779,542,846

4. 854,,AL--A 1 6U,5643 28t2,714,853 196,087,530 98,374,759 41,800,865 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 4, Page 1 of 9

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

Figure 4.1 presents a schedule for the prompt decommissioning alternative; the assumptions supporting this schedule are listed in Section 4.1. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the Appendix C cost tables, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience. The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project 98" computer software (Ref. 16).

4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule estimates reflect the results of a precedence network developed for the site decommissioning activities, i.e., a PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) Software Package. The durations used in the precedence networks reflect the actual man-hour estimates from the cost tables in Appendix C, adjusted by stretching certain activities over their slack range and shifting the start and end dates of others. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedules.

• All work (except vessel and internals removal activities) is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime. There are 11 paid holidays per year.

• The fuel handling facilities located in the Fuel Handling Buildings will be isolated and serve as interim wet fuel storage facilities until such time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the spent fuel pools, i.e., within approximately 12 years from shutdown of each unit. The pools are assumed to accommodate the final core discharge from each unit, allowing decontamination and dismantling to commence on each unit's power block structures without constraint. Decontamination and dismantling of the Fuel Handling Buildings are initiated once the transfer of spent fuel to the on-site ISFSI is complete.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 4, Page 2 of 9

• Reactor vessel 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 maximum extent possible, consistent with: optimum efficiency; adequate access for cutting, removal and laydown space; and stringent safety measures necessary during demoli-tion of heavy components and structures.

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

4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the cost tables in Appendices C and D are based upon the durations developed in the schedule for each decommissioning alternative. Durations are established between several milestones in each project period; these durations are used to establish a critical path for the entire project. In turn, the critical path duration for each period is used as the basis for determining the total costs for these period-dependent items.

Project timelines for the two decommissioning alternatives are included in this section as Figure 4.2a and 4.2b. Milestone dates are based on a 36 and 39-year plant operating life from the start of commercial operations, for Units 1 and 2, respectively, a minimum of 12 years wet storage for the last core discharge of fuel, and a deferral of thirty years for license termination (SAFSTOR) and final site release.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 3 of 9 FIGURE 4.1 DECON ACTIVITY SCHEDULE I ID I Task Name 1 21 1 22 J 23 1 24 1 25 J 26 J 27 J 28 l-291l301311321l33 l 41l351l361l37 1 38139 140 1 4 142

_2 3

4 5

6 7

a 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Shutdown Unit 1 Unit 2 Operatonal Special Equipment Unit 1 Procure Casksliners Unit I Prepare Plant Unit 1 Prepare Dismantling Seq Unit 1 Activity Specs Unit I Detailed Procedures Unt 1 End Product Description Unit 1 Review Plant Draw ngs Uni 1 Engmeenng Preps Unit 1 Design Water Cleanup Sys Unit 1 Define Work Sequence Unit 1 Establish By-Product Inventory Unit 1 Penod 1 Licensing Unit 1 Detailed Radiation Survey Unt I Detailed By-Product Inventory Unit 1 Penod 1 Waste Unit 1 End Period I Unit I Penod 2 Waste Unit I Penod 2 Licensing Unit I Decon NSSS Unit I RPV Removal Prep Unit 1

+:::

m...

g.'.

S.,.

m. '.

a '...

S.

E. ' '

a,...

M M

Y E.

m.

2'...

i

. 2

. z

,l EE' g.

l 1,

I X

Remove RPV Unit I NSSS Pipe Removal Unit I Steam Generator Removal Unit 1 RCP & Motor Removal Unit 1 28 Remove Pressunzer Unit 1 Task External Tasks

.&Zt7RlU 3

Rolled Up Split Cntical Task li I:

-l] Project Summary Milestone Split TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 9 FIGURE 4.1 (Continued)

ID Task Name 29 Remove Group A Systems Unit I 30 Remove Group B Systems Unit 1 31 Remove Turbine-Generator Unit 1 32 Remove Condenser Unit 1 33 Remove Non-Ess Structures Unit 1 34 Remove TB1 D Systems 35 Remove CP Area 1 C Systems 36 Remove CP Area 1 D Systems 37DeconCGPArea 1 38 Remove RBl C Systems 39 Remove RPAel D Systems 40 Decon RBl 41 Remove Auxi C Systems 42 Remove Auxi D Systems 43 End Wet Fuel Storage Unit I 44 End First Half Period 2 Unit I 45 StartlPeriod I Unit 2 46 Special Equipment Unit 2 47 ProcreCasks/U-ners Unit 2 41 Prepare Piant Unit 2 49 Prepare Dismantling Seq Unit 2 50 Activity Specs Unit 2 Detailed Procedures Unit 2 52 End Product Descnlption Unit 2 53 Review Plant Drawings Unit 2 54 Engineenng Preps Unit 2 55 Design Water Cleanup Sys Unit 2 56 Define Work Sequence Unit 2 I'21I1'22 231'241'25126 '27 '28 '29130 31132 33 3I I35 I36I37If38I139I14oIg41I42I

R

M:

R]

I:

I I

1' f

I;

<4 4<

I Task External Tasks J.'-R Roiled Up Split U...,

Critical Task

[

Project Summary I

Milestone Spt tL n................

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 5 of 9 FIGURE 4.1 (Continued)

ID ITaskName 1-1'2-3'4'5'612 12 13 13 13 1 I

I3 13 13 18-9-0'1 w

57 l Establish By-Product Inventory Unit 2 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Period I Licensing Unit 2 Detailed Radiation Survey Unit 2 Detailed By-Product Inventory Unit 2 Penod 1 Waste Unit 2 End Period I Unit 2 Unit 2 Wet Layup Penod 2 Waste Unit 2 Ucensing Penod 2 Unit 2 Decon NSSS Unit 2 RPV Prep Unit 2 Rmv RPV Unit 2 Rmv Steam Gens Unit 2 Rmv RC Pumps Unit 2 Rmv Pressurizer Unit 2 Remove Group A Systems Unit 2 Remove Group B Systems Unit 2 Remove Turbine-Generator Unit 2 Remove Condenser Unit 2 Remove Non-Ess Structures Unit 2 Remove TB2 D Systems Remove CP Area 2 C Systems Remove CP Area 2 D Systems Decon CP Area 2 Remove RB2 C Systems Remove RB 2 D Systems Decon RB2 Remove Aux2 C Systems 7

Task External Tasks 1TZ-URolled Up Split Critical Task

[--::-

Project Summary Milestone Sp*t TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cast Study Section 4, Page 6 of 9 FIGURE 4.1 (Continued)

ID ITask Name

-F-F-T-312 2

'612

'812

'01-1-2-3-4131317-813 2 85 Remove Aux2 DSystems 86 Decon Aux2 87 Remove FB I C Systems B8 Remove FB I D Systems 89 Decon FB I 90 Final Survey Unit 1 91,

'Remove PB 2 C Systems 92 Remove FB 2 D SystemsI 93OeconFB 2::

[

94 Final Survey Unit 2II 95 NRC Review FSS Unit l and 2 96 End Period 2 Unit I 97 End Period 2Unit 2.9 98 TB 1 Interior Demoiition 99 TB 1 Extenior Demolition 100 T-B 1 Bac-kfil.l-101 TB 2 Interior Demotitioni 102 TB 2 Exterior Demotition:

(

103 TB 2 Backfill::

1T04 FB I Int'erior Demolition 105 FB 1 Exterior Demolition 106 Fil Ba-ckfli`

107 FB 2 Interior Demolition 108 FB 2 Exterior Demolition f

109 FB 2BackfilIl:

110 AB Interior Demorition III AB Exterior Demolition fl 112 AB Backfill Task External Tasks h{

Rolled Up Split Critical Task E:IZ:

Project Summary Milestone Spltt..

TLG Services, Inc.-

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Doc umen t P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 7 of 9 FIGURE 4.1 (Continued)

ID JTask Name

'21 122 J23 J'24 1251'26 177128 [-29 ['30 131 ['32[J33 ['34 1351'361-37]J38 139 1'40 1'41 142 113 CP Area I nterior Demolition 114 CP Area I Extenior Demolition

.I 115 CP Area 1Backfill

.1 PAe neirDmlto 116 CP Area 2 Entenior Demotliton 118 CP Area 2Backfifl 119 RB 1 Inteenor Demolition 120 RB I Exterior Demolition 121 RB I Backfill 122 RB 2 Interior Demotition 123 RB 2 Exterior Demotition 124 RB 2Ba-ckfili 125 Administration Building Demolition 126 Landscaping 127 End Task External Tasks

~Rolled Up Split Critical Task

[I II I]

Project Summary Milestone Split TLG Services~, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 8 of 9 FIGURE 4.2a DECON DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINES DCPP UNIT 1 Wet Fuel Storage..........--

Dry Fuel Storage --...................

-I Startup 1985 May Shutdown Period 1 Penod 2 Operation Preparations Decommissioning Fuel Delay I

I Period 3

_Restoration Post-Period 3

_ ISFSI Operation I

I 2021 Sep I

I I

2023 Mar 2026 Oct 2037 Jun 2038 Nov 2040 Dec 2040 2041 Dec Jul DCPP UNIT 2 14..........

wet Fuel Storage.-

...Dry Fuel Storage----...-----...

Startul 1986 Mar Shutdown Period I Period 2 Operation IPreparations IDecommissiomng I

1

-4 Fuel Delay I

Period 3 Post-Penod 3 Restoration ISFSI Operation I

i~~~

2025 Apr 2026 Oct 2029 Nov 2037 Jun 2038 Nov 2040 Dec 2040 2041 Dec Jul NOT TO SCALE TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 9 of 9 FIGURE 4.2b SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINES DCPP UNIT 1

- Wet Fuel Storage ->+

-Dry Fuel Storage (12 yrs)

Startup Shutdown Period Period 1 Period 2 Dormancy 1985 2021 2023 2033 2040 2054 2056 2058 2059 2060 May Sept Mar Nov Dec Nov May Sept Jun Aug 2062 Aug DCPP UNIT 2

14.

Wet Fuel Storage No*

Dry Fuel Storage -*1 (12 yrs)

Startup Shutdown Period 1 Period 2 Preparations I Dormancy Period 3 l Preparations I Operation I

I Period 4 D&D Period 5 Restoration I

FSS l

I L

I I

I I

I I

I I 1

I I

I l

I I

I I

I I

1985 May 2025 Apr 2026 2037 Oct Jun 2040 2056 Dec Feb 2057 2059 2060 Aug Nov Aug 2062 Aug NOT TO SCALE TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 5, Page 1 of 3

5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES The goal of the decommissioning program is the removal of all radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use, and termination of the NRC license for the site. This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act, (Ref. 17) 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 CFR §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. Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3). For this'study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations.

The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site are shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C and D and summarized in Table 5.1. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in Table 5.1 are consistent with 10 CFR §61 classifications. The volumes are calculated based on the exterior dimensions for containerized material. The volumes are calculated on the displaced volume of components serving as their own waste containers.

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

In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are lower for the highly activated materials (greater than Type A quantity waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.

The waste volume generated in the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit is primarily generated during Period 2 of DECON and Period 4 of SAFSTOR.

Contaminated and activated material is characterized on site, with a significant volume shipped to off-site waste processors. Material that is considered potentially contaminated when removed from a Radiological Controlled Area (RCA), is sent to processing facilities for conditioning and disposal. Off-site processing of waste was TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 5, Page 2 of 3 estimated on a $2.00 per pound basis, based on average rates from existing licensed waste processors.

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

The burial volumes reported in Table 5.1 reflect the savings from recycling and waste conditioning. The cost of processing this material appears as an "other" cost for the systems and plant structures identified in Appendices C and D.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 3 of 3 TABLE 5.1 DECOMMISSIONING RADIOACTIVE WASTE BURIAL VOLUMES Waste Class' Volume (Cubic feet)

DECON Unit 1 Subtotal Unit 2 & Common Subtotal A

B C

>C 98,652 16,255 574 604 116,085 A

B C

>C 107,868 15,272 574 604 124,318 240,403 TOTAL SAFSTOR Unit 1 A

B C

>C 93,981 7,051 584 604 102,220 Subtotal Unit 2 & Common Subtotal A

B C

>C 101,957 7,314 584 604 110,459 TOTAL 212,679 1

Waste is classified according to the requirements delineated in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61.55 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 6, Page I of 4

6. RESULTS The projected costs to decommission the Diablo Canyon Power Plant for the DECON alternative are estimated to be $575.8 and $801.3 million in 2002 dollars for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively.

The projected decommissioning costs for the SAFSTOR alternative are estimated at $583.5 and $779.5 million in 2002 dollars for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively. The costs reflect the site-specific features of DCPP, the local cost of labor, interim storage of spent fuel in an on-site ISFSI, and disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the Southwest Compact's future disposal site. An analysis of the major activities contributing to the total cost for the DECON and SAFSTOR decom-missioning alternatives are provided in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Appendix C contains a detailed list of costs by "activity description" for each unit for the DECON alternative. Appendix D contains a similar list of costs for the SAFSTOR alternative.

The principal cost drivers in decommissioning the plant include labor-related costs, waste management costs, spent fuel management costs, and other costs necessary to complete the project. Staffing represents the largest single contributor to the overall cost. The magnitude of the expense is a function of both the size of the organization required to manage the decommissioning as well as the duration of the program, including the time associated with the onsite caretaking of the spent fuel while DOE completes the transfer.

The cost to process and dispose of the low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear units represents the next largest cost component. The cost includes the conditioning and treatment of a significant portion of the metallic waste at off-site processing centers to reduce the volume of material requiring controlled disposal as well as the cost to dispose of the remaining material at a regional disposal facility. The disposal cost is indicative of the expense incurred in siting, developing, and licensing new disposal facilities.

Removal costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program.

Decontamination and packaging costs also have a large labor component which is based upon prevailing union wages.

Spent fuel management includes capital expenditures for the loading of the spent fuel assemblies into dry storage/transport containers, transfer of the containers to the onsite storage facility, as well as the eventual unloading of the storage cask and transfer of the inner containers to the DOE. Operational and maintenance costs are included in the value reported, as well as associated equipments costs and licensing fees.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 6, Page 2 of 4 Transport costs (shipping) are reported for only that portion of the radioactive waste stream requiring controlled disposal at the regional site. Transport costs for the material designed for off-site treatment are inclusive within the processing fees charged by the vendors and are included within the Burial or Recycling cost component. The reported cost for transport includes the tariffs and surcharges associated with moving large components and/or overweight shielded casks overland as well as the general expense of transporting, e.g., labor and fuel, material over a distance of 1,000 miles.

Finally, "Other" costs include engineering costs, energy, necessary insurance, and fees.

This study provides estimates for decommissioning under current requirements, based on present-day costs and available technology.

Decommissioning requirements and assumptions may change.

Individual costs associated with decommissioning have, historically, increased at rates greater than that of general inflation. The US DOE spent fuel acceptance schedule is subject to change, which may impact the decommissioning schedule. The availability and cost of low-level waste disposal sites is subject to change, which would also impact the decommissioning costs. It is therefore appropriate that this cost study be reviewed periodically and revised as needed.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 6, Page 3 of 4 TABLE 6.1

SUMMARY

OF DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST CONTRIBUTORS Costs 02$

Percent of Work Category (thousands)'

Total Costs' Unit 1 Decontamination 15,820 2.7 Removal 87,382 15.2 Packaging 12,939 2.2 Shipping 4,847 0.8 Burial or Recycling (Off Site) 125,518 21.8 Decommissioning Staffs 216,926 37.7 Spent Fuel Management 56,555 9.8 Other2 55.857 9.7 Subtotal 575,844 100.0 Unit 2 & Common Decontamination 17,738 2.2 Removal 118,997 14.9 Packaging 12,890 1.6 Shipping 4,814 0.6 Burial or Recycling (Off Site) 125,670 15.7 Decommissioning Staffs 242,727 30.3 Breakwater Removal 165,533 20.7 Spent Fuel Management 56,555 7.1 Other2 56.397 7.0 Subtotal 801,321 100.0 Station Total (with contingency) 1,377,165

1.

Columns may not add due to rounding.

2. Other includes engineering & preparations, undistributed costs, NRC Fees, EP Fees and Maintenance Costs, etc.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 4 of 4 TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY

OF SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING COST CONTRIBUTORS Costs 02$

(thousands)'

Percent of Total Costs' Work Category Unit 1 Decontamination Removal Packaging Shipping Burial or Recycling (Off Site)

Decommissioning Staffs Spent Fuel Management Other2 Subtotal Unit 2 & Common Decontamination Removal Packaging Shipping Burial or Recycling (Off Site)

Decommissioning Staffs Breakwater Removal Spent Fuel Management Other2 Subtotal 10,500 81,960 11,322 3,112 111,620 242,806 56,555 65,575 683,461 1.8 14.0 1.9 0.5 19.1 41.6 9.7 11.2 100.0 15,026 114,523 11,440 3,180 114,897 231,998 165,533 56,555 667392 779,543 1.9 14.7 1.5 0.4 14.7 29.8 21.2 7.3 8.5 100.0 Station Total (with contingency) 1,362,994

1. Columns may not add due to rounding.

2. Other includes engineering & preparations, undistributed costs, NRC Fees, EP Fees and Maintenance Costs, etc.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 7, Page 1 of 2

7. REFERENCES

1.

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

June 27, 1988.

2.

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

3.

U.S.

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

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

4.

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

5.

DOE/RW-0457, "Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity Report,"

U.S.

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

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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

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

10.

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

Kingston, Massachusetts.

11.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Section 7, Page 2 of 2

7. REFERENCES (continued)

12.

Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No. MC-109397 and Supplements, 1996.

• 13.

J.C. Evans et al., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials,"

NUREG/CR-3474, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August, 1984.

14.

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.

15.

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

16.

"Microsoft Project 98," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 1997.

17.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT Example:

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

1.

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

2.

CALCULATIONS Activity Description Critical Duration (minutes)

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

+ Respiratory Protection (50% of Critical Duration)

+ Radiation/ALARA (37% of Critical Duration)

Adjusted Work Duration 128 95 478

+ Protective Clothing (30% of Adjusted Work Duration)

-Productive Work Duration 143 621

+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of Productive Work Duration)

Total Work Duration 52 673

• • • Total Work Duration = 673 minutes or 11.217 hours0.00251 days <br />0.0603 hours <br />3.587963e-4 weeks <br />8.25685e-5 months <br /> ***

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A (continued)

3.

LABOR REQUIRED Crew Number Duration (hours)

Rate

($/hr)

Cost Laborers 3.00 11.217

$36.88

$1,241.05 Craftsmen 2.00 11.217

$48.00

$1,076.83 Foreman 1.00 11.217

$51.24

$574.76 General Foreman 0.25 11.217

$54.26

$152.16 Fire Watch 0.05 11.217

$36.88

$20.68 Health Physics Technician 1.00 11.217

$34.14

$382.95 Total labor cost

$3,448.43

4.

EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs Consumables/Materials Costs

-Gas torch consumables I @ $4.61/hr x I hr {1}

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

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

Subtotal cost of equipment and materials Overhead & sales tax on equipment and materials @ 15.00%

Total costs, equipment & material none

$4.61

$24.00

$6.00

$34.61

__$5.88

$40.49 TOTAL COST: Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pounds:

Total labor cost:

Total equipment/material costs:

Total adjusted exposure man-hours incurred:

Total craft labor man-hours required per unit:

$3,488.92

$3,488.92

$40.49 46.247 81.884 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Study Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 APPENDX A (continued)

5.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

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

AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

• References for equipment & consumables costs:

1. R.S. Means (2002) Division 016 Section 420-6360 pg 23

2. McMaster-Carr Ed. 105

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

• Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for San Luis Obispo, California.

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 1 of 8 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only)

TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 2 of 8 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean valves >2 to 4 inches Removal of clean valves >4 to 8 inches Removal of clean valves >8 to 14 inches Removal of clean valves >14 to 20 inches Removal of clean valves >20 to 36 inches Removal of clean valves >36 inches Removal of clean pipe hangers for small bore piping

$0.41

$4.30

$6.15

$12.00

$23.19

$30.03

$44.21

$52.59

$79.88

$120.01

$231.90

$300.32

$442.15

$525.88

$25.14 Removal of clean pipe hangers for large bore piping Removal of clean pumps, <300 pound Removal of clean pumps, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pumps, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pumps, >10,000 pound

$92.94

$199.91

$557.88

$2,219.95

$4,284.48 Removal of clean pump motors, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pump motors, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pump motors, >10,000 pound Removal of clean turbine-driven pumps < 10,000 pound Removal of clean turbine-driven pumps > 10,000 pounds

$235.93

$926.44

$2,084.50

$2,560.20

$5,742.59 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 3 of 8 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean PWR turbine-generator Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater

$136,365.50

$1,189.55

$2,982.11

$8,424.31

$17,343.63 Removal of clean PWR main condenser Removal of clean tanks, <300 gallons Removal of clean tanks, 300-3000 gallon Removal of clean tanks, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound Removal of clean electrical transformers < 30 tons Removal of clean electrical transformers > 30 tons Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, <100 kW Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, 100 kW to 1 MW Removal of clean standby diesel-generator, >1 MW Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound

$377,985.88

$257.46

$816.62

$6.81

$110.54

$384.11

$768.22

$1,829.61

$1,270.64

$3,659.21

$1,297.85

$2,896.88

$5,997.12

$10.23

$4.46

$110.54

$384.11

$768.22

$1,829.61

$110.54 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 4 of 8 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean H1VAC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated valves >2 to 4 inches Removal of contaminated valves >4 to 8 inches Removal of contaminated valves >8 to 14 inches Removal of contaminated valves >14 to 20 inches Removal of contaminated valves >20 to 36 inches Removal of contaminated valves >36 inches Removal of contaminated pipe hangers for small bore piping Removal of contaminated pipe hangers for large bore piping

$384.11

$768.22

$1,829.61

$0.43

$1.20

$29.67

$54.42

$86.95

$173.61

$210.12

$294.21

$349.42

$349.46

$420.45

$868.05

$1,103.48

$1,471.03

$1,747.09

$82.79

$278.04 Removal of contaminated pumps, <300 pound Removal of contaminated pumps, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pumps, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pumps, >10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motors, 300-1000 pound

$747.16

$1,744.86

$5,790.35

$14,101.10

$739.64 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 5 of 8 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor CostlUnit($)

Removal of contaminated pump motors, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motors, >10,000 pound Removal of contaminated turbine-driven pumps < 10,000 pounds Removal of contaminated turbine-driven pumps > 10,000 pounds Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound Removal of contaminated tanks, <300 gallons Removal of contaminated tanks, >300 gallons, $/square foot Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical e'quipment, >10,000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound

$2,354.42

$5,285.92

$7,137.15

$16,293.15

$3,488.92

$10,090.49

$1,242.29

$24.53

$581.04

$1,416.02

$2,725.95

$5,354.82

$27.92

$24.86

$646.95

$1,565.84

$3,009.50

$5,354.82

$646.95

$1,565.85 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound

$3,009.50 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound

$5,354.82 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound

$2.64 Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in.

$3.14 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot

$6.44 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1 421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 6 of 8 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot Decontamination rig hook-up and flush Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete wt#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cu yd Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/square foot Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cu yd Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard

$28.35

$5,495.23

$11.64

$65.02

$188.98

$290.00

$854.92

$196.39

$1,677.08

$248.37

$2,220.36

$372.62

$290.00

$718.84

$1,676.99

$562.48

$1,561.85

$25.52

$71.07

$224.02

$71.07

$224.02

$17.11

$127.27

$99.68 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 7 of 8 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

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

Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot

$2.94

$33.84

$11.76

$80.13

$27.05

$0.24

$1.21

$3.76

$1.91

$2.02

$11.44

$6.70

$7.37

$66.29

$5.53 Removal of clean overhead cranes/monorails < 10 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead cranes/monorails < 10 ton capacity Removal of clean overhead cranes/monorails >10-50 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead cranes/monorails >10-50 ton capacity Removal of polar cranes > 50 ton capacity, each Removal of gantry cranes > 50 ton capacity, each Removal of structural steel, $/pound Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of clean free-standing steel liner, $/square foot

$537.17

$1,455.78

$1,289.20

$3,493.29

$5,396.79

$22,870.09

$0.32

$2.81

$8.27

$10.21 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-003, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 8 of 8 APPENDIX B (continued)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of contaminated free-standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot

$28.70

$5.10

$33.42

$13.52

$20.61 Landscaping w/o topsoil, $/acre Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-144 LSA box & preparation for use

$1,091.62

$1,538.13

$1,403.24

$1,248.32

$5,723.96 Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use Cost of cask liner for CNSI 14-195 cask Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8-120A cask (resins)

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

Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot

$123.45

$9,438.75

$6,466.95

$6,466.95

$0.60 TLG Services, Inc.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document P01-1421-03, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 1 of 12 APPENDIX C DETAILED COST ANALYSES - DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Dkiblo Cnnyon PomerPlant beco.nmmluioning C'ost Strid,'

TABLE CGI DIABLO CANYON POWVER PLANT UNIT I DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Thousands or2002 Dollars)

Donrrnenl I'01-121 003. nr, o

,IppendIs C. )'age: of 1

IL)

Nlic St.

Bon-I.,t.

Ill L bR hI (ol.b, Nrmber Aetiviy DescrIption Decro Remove Pack S9hip lBurial Other ContiotseCy Total LIlTensm ReStore ALF BCF CtCF GTCC CF Iorur.

I PERIOD I I Prepare prelimrnary decommissioning cost 2 Nolitfoalun of Cessation of Operarions 3 Remove fuel & scrurce material 4 Noliicalion of Permanenl DefoerNg S Deaclivate plant systems & process vaste 6 Prepare and subm l PSDAR 7 Review planl dwgs & specs 8 Perlor detailed rad survey 9 Estimate by-product invenrory 10 End product description It Detarled by-product leventory 12 Denise majorvorir sorluence 13 Pertorm SER and EA 14 Perform Site-Speciftc Cosl Study IS Prepare/subrvt License Terminatiro Plan 16 Receive NRC approval of lemirnatror plan Activity Speclfllcatoes t7 1 Pbnl & temporary lacilitres 17 2 Plant systems 17 3 NSSS Decurttaminatiorn Flush 174 Reactor Intemaals 17 SReactor vessel 176 Biological shield 177 Steam generators 17 Reinforced concrete 17 9 Turbine & condenser 17 10 Plant stuctrures & buildogs 17 11 Waste management 17 12 Faciity & site closut 17 Total Planning & Site Preparations 18 Prepare drsmanlIng sequence 19 Plant prep & lemp svees 20 Design waler clean-tp system 21 RigginglCCEsitoolingfele 22 Procure casts/Imero & containers Deailed Wort Procedures 23 I Plan systems 232 NSSS Decontaminalron Flush 23 3 Vessel head 234 Reador Intemaus 2J 5 Remaining buoidrgs 22 6 CRD cooning assembly 23 7 CR3 housrngs & IC$ ubes 23 8 Incore istlmentalion 23 9 Reactr vesset 23 10 Facility closeout 23 1I Missie shields 23 12 Brological shield 23 12 Steam generators 23 14 Remntorced concrete 23 15 Turbine & condensers 23 16 Auntliary building 23 17 Reactor buoldng 23 Total 24 Decen primary loop 104 160 368 60 104 600 248 400 328 394 333 40 568 520 40 250 126 64 250 36d 72 3 025 1s 24 55 12 12 90 37 60 49 59 50 6

78 37 16 10 37 55 514 454 120 Note I Note 2 Nboe I Note t 164 423 Note I 92 92 120 690 265 460 377 Ntote I

453 383 46 653 598 46 287 147 74 287 423 83 3 479 120 184 423 92 92 120 6900 285 460 377 407 345 46 653 598 46 267 74 143 423 41 3 084 45 38 74 74 143 41 416 192 2.304 112 I 950 96 379 80 200 200 108 80 60 290 96 36 96 368 80 250 216 216 2 859 29 346 17 293 IS 57 12 20 2

12 12 44 14 5

14 15 t2 37 33 33 429 221 221 2,650 2 650 129 129 2 243 2 243 113 113 425 62 220 230 124 92 92 92 334 1 10 4t 110 423 92 267 251 251 3 208 392 92 230 230 31 92 92 92 324 55 41 110 423 46 226 226 2 713 44 63 55 46 287 25 25 575 1 610 805 2416 2 It6 8()G 71 (; S/-ltl ex Mf-Rr..

DInbio Conyon PauwrPt-t Decommisssoning Coat St udy Doceumens P0I-14:1-oo0, I.., o Appendl. C, Ponse 3 of l TJIULE C-I DIAnLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT I DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTINLITE (Those..ds ol 2002 Doll...)

i NRC..

AI.

Burial oil.p (JR hI L -

L.

b r I INum,un r Activty Description Decon Remove P.rk Ship Buria Othter Coshio.eIscy To~ti LieTen Restor A CF II F C CF GTCC CF hlours P.rlod I AdditIonal Costs 25 Hazardous Waste Managemenl 20 Miued Waste Management 27 Spenl Fuel Pad. Cask. Canister. Equrpoment 28 Spenl Fuel Loading Campaigns 29 Spenl Fuel Ops & Maintenance 30 Spent Fuel Floed Cost 31 Transler of Spent Fuel Canisters to DOE 32 Spenl Fuel Pool isolation 33 Silo Characterizatbon Sublolal Period I Activity Cost Period I Undistobuled Cost 1 Dec00 equipment 2 Decon supplies 3 DOC stall relocatlon espenses 4 Process rquld waslO 5 Insurance O Property aoes 7 Health physics supples 8 Heavy equlpmenl rental 9 Smail tool alslance 10 DIsposal of DAW generaled 1 Plant energy budgel 12 NRC ISFSI Fees 13 NRC Fees 14 Emergency Planning Feet 15 Sda Secunty Cosl Sublotal Undlstributed Costs Pertod I Stall Coost DOC Stait Cosl Ulility Stall Cost TOTAL PERIOD I COST PERIOD 2 Nuclear Stlam Supply Syslem Remooal 34 1 Reacltr Coolanl Prpong 34 2 Pressurizer Relef Tankl 34 3 Reacdor CoolanI Pumps b Molors 34 4 Pressunzer 345 Sleam Generalors 34 0 CRDMsAiCls/Servce Slruclure Removal 34 7 Reactor Vessel Inlemals 34 8 ReaclorVessel 34 Tolals 35 Remove spenl luel rocks Removal ol Major Equlpoesl 36 Maro Turbme/Gesesalor 37 Mamn Condensers i 010 41 1.300 105 3 02 67 t1,O2 03 1,02 2,0 126t 557 557 tS5 29 25 49 196 7 577 1 011 23,171 742 590 1 332 1,332 852 3 497 3,564 14 t.412 875 26 404 78 2,215 075 4,909 7.101 82 340 208280 875 4,909 e2.,83 84 641 U41 U4 641 b41 24 102 182 4

34 34 4

28 28 7

s6 56 29 225 225 1,137 a 714 8 714 303 1,314 t,314 4 432 29 214 28 223 103 790 790 10 52 52 190 1 502 1,502 1130 6,336 0 330 356 3 920 3.920 78 378 378 39 300 300 2

14 14 414 2,430 2.430 131 1 008 1.00S 3

28 28 40 445 445 e

83 83 332 2.547 2,547 2,041 19 834 19,834 951 7,291 7 291 3.925 30 091 30,091 12.150 8,430 05,440 991 12 588 13 388 e 656 3

05 3490 a

3 490 89656 32 9 509 9 ii42 991 3,498 8,655 100 19S 25 22 94 78 38 48 326 2 039 71 56 113 1,148 at 3 124 849 7 513 357 36 39 302 I 90 3 892 677 6 973 17 a

193 8

251 93 1 836 114 313 905 793 11 894 2 480 22 I 001 677 5 588 553 a 069 2 387 29 797 2 599 2

9.034 337 150 657 657 83 399 399 548 2 722 2 722 340 2,006 2 006 4.527 24 780 24 760 327 1.628 1 028 4 854 18 272 10 272 0 726 19 230 19 230 17 550 67,674 67 674 499 2 283 2 283 477 621 4,546 2 310 22 200 2 627 1 502 1 096 6,416 2 379 40 707 3.474 2 560 574 574 6 817 1 080 3 853 24 566 2 832 13 118 23 180 87 312 9 340 404 712 208 1 323 1323 1,191 827 422 2,440 2 440 9 20f 2 '28 TI 6 S.,1,r es, Dl l

Diab lo Canyon Power Plant t Decomismisioninrf Cost Stuidy.

TABLE C-I DIABLO CAN1ON POWVER PLANT UNIT I DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Thu-anda of2002 Dollars)

DoramenrPrO-tl t-0 1-81 ?,.,,V AppendiP.

C Parg. I jr I!

ID NIC Sits

.rcal aise lt Li It tt Craft I abr Nastuer Activit Description DOens Remove Pack Ship Burial Other Contingency Total LieTerm Restore AL.F UCF CLF GTCC CF lours Disposal or Plant Systems 38 I Au.irary Steam 38 2 Audlary Steam (RCA) 38 3 Capital AdditIons 85.2002 (clean) 38 4 Capital Additons 85.2002 (conlaminaled) 38 5 Chermcal & Volume Conted 38 6 Chemical & Volume Control (Insulated) 38 7 Component Coolng Wafer 38 8 Cromponent CoDting Waler (RCA) 38 9 Compressed Air 38 10 Compressed A, (Insulated) 38 11 Compressed Air (RCA Insutated) 38 12 Compressed Air (RCA) 3813 Condensate System 38 14 Condensate System (Insulated) 38 15 Conianmenl Spray 38 16 Diesel EnginaGaneralor 38 17 Diesel Engioe-Generstor (Insutated) 38 tO Electrical (Clean) 38 19 Electrical (Contaminated) 38 20 Electrical (Contaminated)

. fH8 38 21 Electrical (Decontaminaled) 38 22 Electrical (Oecontaminated)

. FH8 38 23 Entraction Steam & Healer Drip 38 24 Feed-tster System 38325 Feedmater System (Insulated) 38 26 Feedroater System (RCA Insutaled) 38 27 Feedmaler System (RCA) 38 28 Flre Prolectbon 38 29 Fire Protection (RCA) 38 30 Gaseous Radoaste 38 31 HIVAC (Clean Insulated) 38 32 HtAC (Clean) 38 33 HlVAC (Contaminaled Insulated) 383 4 HVAC (Contaminated) 38 35 HVAC (Conlammated)

• FH8 38 36 Liquld Radwaste 38 37 Liquid Radwaste (Insulated) 38 38 Lube 06 Disttbution & Puotication 38 39 Make-up Waler 38 40 Matke-up Water (Insulated) 38 41 Mate-up Waler (RCA Insulated) 38 42 Matte-p Water (RCA) 38 43 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolant 38 44 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 38 45 Nlitmgen & Hydrogen (Insutaled) 38 46 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA Insulated) 38 47 Nitrogen

& Hydrogen (RCA) 38 48 Nuclear Steam Suppty Sampling 38 49 Nuctnar Steam Supply Sampling (Insulaled 38 50 Oily Waler Separator

& TB Sump 38 51 Residual Heal Removal 38 52 Saety Injection 38 53 Sahtny Inectdon (Insulated) 38 54 Satety Injection (RCA Insulaied) 38 55 Safnly Injectmn (RCA) 28 56 Saltater System 38 57 Service Cooting Waler 38 58 SeNvce Cooting Water IRCA) 38 59 Spenl Fuel Pit Cooling 38 60 Spent Fud Pit Cooling - FHS 38 e1 Turbine Steam Supply 240 238 120 393 895 386 128 539 114 4

22 397 358 198 118 7

1 407 643 193 3 895 1,171 475 53 284 260 195 78 19 235 293 1,253 301 587 72 173 236 21 36 186 74 13 5

88 115 35 30 274 94 6

37 309 127 77 24 64 90 1127 3

I 75 29 13 t21 8

4 227 8

0 9

1 1

39 2

I 43 I

265 2

I 52 23 10 627 2

I 49 1

1 43 2

1 58 0

0 12 30 14 849 2

I 44 O

0 3

8 4

2182 I I 5

3181 12 6

341I 361 1I9 154 374 31 890 157 3 824 1.179 561 398 61 3 955 585 926 3tt 649 158 599 128 11 222 t 088 252 135 t4s 161 22 124 23 2

30 24 49 244 60 2

18 162 21 92 98 4 522 114 716 716 58 515 515 18 137 140 765 765 965 4 048 4 048 396 1,524 1 524 19 147 238 1,467 1 467 17 131 t

S 7

37 37 123 676 576 850 5S780 5,780 266 t8803 1 803 134 893 893 18 136 1

6 211 1,618 246 1t390 t.390 60 323 323 1,587 9,417 9,417 380 2.136 2,136 258 10658 1658 60 424 424 168 1,102 1,102 51 319 319 3

16 Is 155 1.013 1 013 68 390 390 31 181 181 3

21 35 270 1t7 677 677 544 3J163 3,163 128 734 734 660 2.707 2.707 77 296 296 67 401 401 35 271 3

24 12 70 70 65 375 375 39 194 194 2

is 0

1 I

7 7

26 142 142 45 237 237 12 60 60 15 95 95 449 2,113 2 113 44 244 244 2

13 13 18 99 99 158 858 858 19 146 12 88 9

54 54 III 601 601 124 670 670 960 6 609 6 609 137 -

147 131 138 1,618 21 270 271 24 15 146 88 185 2033 562 247 22 97 10t 655 129 I 552 122 106 124 29 2,101 S

117 60 541 786 543 5 424 5 529 2 630 9 348 41,385 20 357 3 078 12,581 2 744 98 517 9 314 25117 8,131 4 622 2 760 178 32 770 15 307 4 608 91243 27,474 10 874 1 212 6 532 2 624 123 5 914 4 482 1,821 475 5 804 6 142 26 507 6 346 29 086 3 870 3 579 5614 521 533 4 307 1927 315 17 196 2003 2 866 895 672 9116 2 207 136 873 7 165 2 G0 2,115 25 9-17 Tl.G ;e St~ t, esX, In (.

Dta bo Cnnyon I'owvrr Ptint Decommlsuloning Cost Sttod TA1bLEC-I DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT I DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST FSTIAMTE (Thous.nd. f 2002 Dollrs)

Docainen-rPOI-.1121 00I, Itev 8 Ayppenwix C, I'og S uf 12 iS)

NiC Sit.e A

l-i C.FI 11 lk It hi rft Lbor I

Ioeshe-Act~cily Desrriptioo Deros Iemov Park Ship IB-rlo

Gahe, Contin~en-o.

Total LlcTerns 1e-ta-A CF BI F CCI GTCC CIF llo,,

Dlsposal of Plant Systems (cont )

38 62 Turbine Steam SupplI (FRCA) 38 63 Turbine and Generator 38 64 Turbine and Generator (Insulated) 38 Totals 39 Erects cffoingf tor tystens removal Decontaminatlon of Site Balidlgs 40 1 Reactor 40 2 Captal Additions 85-2002 40 3 Conbanument Penetatrlon Area 40 4 Fuel Handling 40 Totats 41 LIneese Termination Survey 42 ORISE confirmatory survey 43 Terminate Ocense Period 2 AdditIonal Cost 44 Spent Fuel Pad. Cash, Canister. Equlpment 45 Spent Fuel Loading Camnpagns 46 Spent Fuel Ops & Maintenonce 47 Spent Fuel Fixed Costs 48 Spenl Fuel Securty 49 Transter of Spent Fuel Can stern to DOE Period 2 Additlonal Costs I Decon equpment 2 Decon supplies 3 DOC staff breocation expenses 4 Process oiquid wste S Insurance 6 Property lXaes 7 Heanlh physics supples 8 Heauy equipment rental 9 Smau tor arolsance 10 Pipe cuoing equrpment It Decon rig t2 Disposal of DAW generated 13 Decommissioning Equipment Disposition 14 Ptant energy budget 1 tNRC ISFSI Fees 16 NRC Fees 17 Emrgency Planmng Fees 18 Site Security Cosl 19 LLRW Processing Equipment Subtoth l Undtstributed Costs Period 2 Staff Costs DOC Statf COst Uttity Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 2 778 t11 St 2 446 20 960 4 239 1 253 1t115 20 14 273 41 613 383 2.tSS t.553 St I,

3 I

t47 2

372 4

24 31 43I 11768 238 49 67 4,209 24 130 I

50 132 10 10.197 427 2

113 II 651 95 tS 841 260 208 11.802 7Te 0 592 100 371 2,328 2,328 61 398 390 20 121 121 10 897 62 857 59 838 1092 55t8 551s 3 583 17,126 17,126 42 195 195 328 1,422 1,422 657 2 799 2.799 4 809 2t 542 21.542 I 878 7 270 7.270 32 137 137 note 2 3 019 10 419 124 18 372 2 272 1 150 537 425 39 804 25241 280 1 611 2081 29213 51629 603 6 952 22 200 81483 129 465 5 811 35,895 687 773 1 306 380 3 902 8 874 604 9tt 1184 3 024 15 596 7.571 277 1,952 2 237 34,237 3 927 1 636 3271 277 1 423 2 665 48 892 79 988 518 ii866 2 705

'45 48671 4

231 480 5 493 1 710 3 468 13818 868 6 568 30 078 5 13a 39 373 39 373 589 4,516 4 516 245 1 881 1 881 491 3,782 3,762 42 319 319 213 1.637 1,637 43 708 222.530 219 512 103 790 790 193 988 966 196 1.502 1.502 712 30 04 3 504 270 2.975 28975 975 4,877 4 877 1,331 10,205 9,184 91 694 825 137 1,048 1,048 178 1 362 1 362 1,370 8 037 8 037 13t 855 85 824 6.317 5688 171 1 881 1,881 347 3 813 3 813 79 871 871 2 088 18 005 16 005 227 1,743 1.743 9 422 67 494 65 773 3 019 83,022 1.020 89 1,562 572 632 I 722 12,134 3 474 4,125 4,125 574 921,063 545 31 448 778 32 770 28 658

-03 830 4 299 32 957 32 957 15574 119404 119404 73.004 442,386 437,645 88 38 51.491 9 808 3 233 53,461 242.555 4 740 95 Is6 7.599 574 953 833 j7({

r l le n ~ It,

DIablo Cannon Ponwer Plann Decommtissuioing ('oat Study TABLE C I DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT I DECON DECOMMISSIONINa COST ESTIMIATE (Tho.s.ods of 2002 Dolars)

DocumenrPO1-l1 t'-007t l,

FM 0

Appendix C. Page 6 of 12 IL)

NhC Sit.

Iortl site itFlhRbi Crofl Labor I I Nruber Activitv Deqcriptito Decos Remove Pack Ship Butt.!

Other Cotinoe.c.Y Totrs LeTesrm Restore A CF BC C CCF OTCC CF hours PERIOD 3 Demolilion ot Remaming Site Buoidings 50 1 Reactor 50 2 Capital Adddions 85-2002 50 3 Cntabrnent Penetration Area 50 4 Fuel Handlling 50 5 Miscenaneous 50 6 Turbine 50 7 Turbine Pedestal 50 Totals Site Closeout Activities SI Grade & landscape stle 52 Final report to NRC PerIod 3 Additilonal Cost 53 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposa 54 Spent Fuol Ops & Manilenance 55 Spent Fuel Floed Costs 56 Spent Fuel Security 57 Transfer ot Spent Fuel Canisters to DOE Subtotal Pertod 3 ActIvIty Costs I Insurance 2 Property tates 3 Heiuy equrpoent rental 4 Smal tout alowance S Plant energy budgel 8 NRC ISFSI Fees 7 Site Security Cost Subtotal Undlstrlbuted Costs Pertod 3 Staff Costs DOC Stagt Cost Utility Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 3 8 871 105 421 1313 20

2.

510 935 12,176 103t 7.902 6,185 5 717 is 121 12t 63 485 48 436 197 S 510 5I 1 359 3

23 23 377 2,87 2 88 140 1 075 1 075 1 826 14 002 1,385 12 617 102 078 I 766 6 074 17,063 249 42 836 It 300 fll 367 1,380 208 18594 1594 4 587 125 19 143 143 13562 3,779 154 3 933 13 213 295 593 593 512 13213 2,118 172 103 310 822 1 207 1,982 15,195 15.195 44 341 3411 89 681 681 89 681 681 77 598 S88 4,334 33 227 19 015 14 212 17 189 189 567 4 34 4 346 23 177 177 Is 119 119 31 341 341 93 716 71e 747 5 887 530 5 357 604 604 185 953 17,495 4 682 2,200 13,213 10,207 702 5,354 b34 330 2 530 2,277 253 6t113 47,028 21,822 25,206 604 185 953 TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION Total cost to dew.-Wsso. -rhi Tolal NRC Ocense lermallon cost Is Non nuclear demorflion cost 1s Total bonat sile radwaste volume buned Tolal I OCFR6 I greater thasn class C masle bunod Tolal scrap metal released Irom sie T otal craft tao rasuiremonts 11,279 70 888 11,140 4,108 71.563 316,599 91.26 5705,844 844,907 30.937 98 652 16 255 574 604 1.163 017 180 3%

conligenccy 575 843,56 94 63%

or 544 9068510 5 37%

qr 530 937 078 115i481 cubIc let 004 cubic leet 12 215 tons 1 153017 person hours NOTES or Indicalos costs less than S500 1I this acliviy Is performed by the drecom-mssmaing stall olo-ong plant shuldom, Ihe costs for this are mcluded i thrs penods siaff ostC 21 This act-vity whde performed alter nnat plant sholdovni is considered pard of oreralons and Iherelore no decommissioneng costs are Included tor this act-vity T

, S.i pitets, Int.

Diablo Canton il'oloteerbant Dcm,.r`o I.I2I-007. ten.. 0 Decommissooning Cost Stud, App°endix C, Piore 7 f 12 TABLE C-2 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT 2 DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Thousands of 2002 Dolls.,)

It.)

elRL Se I.neuii,[e

[t t lIt. b1i rf Iat.,,~

Nsa,,ber ActIvity Deerept ton D-rr Renrove Pack Ship Burial Other Contingeecy Total LicTerm Restore A LF It C C

CF tccc' srr PERIOD I

IPrepare pretiminary decommnissroning cost.

104 16 120 120-2INotOcatbn of Cessation of Operaiorrs N..S I 3 Remove fuel & source mraterlal Note 2

4 NotOcstlon of Pe-nanent Dnfueling Note I 5 Deactivate plant systems & process waste

.- ot I a Prepare and submit PSDAR 100 24 184 14 7FtleuIe plant drogs I spes 368 55 423 423 B Perfono detailed rid survey Note I-.-

9 Estinuklte by-product invenlory 012 92 92-tO, End product description 0,

12 92 92 II Detailed by-product inventory 104 la 120 120---

12 Dene nraMal work aeguence 600 90 090 690 13 Peror SER and EA 248 37 285 285 14 Perform Sitie.Specocii Cost Study 400 60 460 4600 IS Prepere/subroid License Terminatson P'lan 328 480 377 377 1 6ReceIve NRC aPProva Of temrmnatioo plan Note I Acttvtty Spentttcattoes 17 I Plant & temporary facrlithes 3 94 59 493 407 45 172P Plnt systems 333 50 363 345 29--

17 3NSSS Dectintamnmatron Flush 40 d

49 6

17 4Reactor Inlemals 568 801 653 0153 179 Reactor vessel 520 t8 095 509 17 6Biloogicatal leld 0-d 6

46 46-

¶7 7Steam generators.

250 37 287 287-.--

17 6 Reinforced concrete 128 19 147 74 74 179Turbine &condenser 64 1 0 74

-74 17 10 Plant structures

& buildings 250 37 287 143 142 3

17 11 Wast maagmentml 3681 55 423 423 171 2 Foclts at ctoseout 72 1 1 8341d 1 7Total 3

025 454 3 479 2 064 416-PlannIng & SIt. PreparatIons 18Prepare dosmantt~rg sequenc 92 29 221 221--

19Plant prep & temp sores 2 304

246, 2 650 2 609 20 Design waler clean-up system 12 1 7 129 129-21 Rigging/CC~sltoinsgletc 1 550 293 2.2493 2243 22 Procure casks/tiners

& containers 98 1 5 113 113 D.tailed Wontk Procedures 22 1 Plant systems

-379 57 435 292 44 2322NSSS Deconlamlnalbon Flush so

-8 1 2 92 92 223 3Vessel head 200 30 230 220 22 4Reactor Intemals 200 29 230 230 22 5Rema.nmg bcuddngs 108 16 124 31 93 23 6CR0 cooing asserobty 0

12 92 92.

22 7CR0 housings & ICI lobes so 8

12 92 92 23 8 Incom~e ostrmentaltin 80 12 92 92 229 Reactor vessel 290 44 234 224 23 tOFacility closeout 96 14 Ito 55 55..

23 It Missileshuelds

-36 5

d1 41..

23128ootg~cal shreld 9 6 Id 110 Ito..

23 13 Sleam generators 368 55 423 423 22 14 Reonforced corncrete so

-8 12 92 46 46 23 IS Turbine 0 condensers 250 37 267

-287.

Ti G: Set ties. Inr.

Dlblo Canvon PorsnrPlrrnl Deron-niueoneng Cost SIdv Dnborawen F'O1-1421 0017, Rtev' o Appendf. c-Pn e

.S of 1I TABLE C-2 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT 2 DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Thoe...ds of 2002 Dolla,.)

It) tRt.

Rtb

.l l-oto I' Ll bI Lt ft I bs-r NIanlee Aetivity Decerlptloo De-o.

Reo,.

P.ck Shtp BIar-l Other Coetinoreoey Total LicTerm Restore A LF HLF

( LF CTCCCF

.lo.rs Delailed Work Procedures (Cont) 23 15 Auxiliary boIding 23 I? Reaclor buliding 23 Total 24 Decon primary loop PerIod I Addlilonal Costs 25 Hazardous Wail. Managoeoet 25 Mooed Wasle Management 27 Spent Fuel Pad. Cask. Canster. Equlpmenl 28 Spent Fuel Loading Campagns 29 Spent Fuel Ops & Malntenance 30 Spent Fuol Foed Cosls 31 Transler of Spent Fuol Caonslerot to DOE 22 Spenl Fuel Pool Isolation 33 Sdlo Characderizalion Sublotal Period I Activity Costs Period I UndisInbuted Cosls 1 Decon equipment 2 Decon suppoes 3 DOC staff relocalion expenses 4 Process iquld wvaste 5 Insurnce 6 Property laxes 7 F-eaili physocs supplies 8 Hesvy equIpment renbal 9 Smat tool afllomnca 10 Disposal of DAW gonerated It Planl energy budget 12 NRC ISFSI Fees 13 NRC Fees 14 Emergency Planning Fees 1I Slte Security Cost Subtotal Undlstributed Cost. PerIod I Stalf Costs DOC Stall Cost Utility Stali Cosl TOTAL PERIOD I COST PERIOD 2 Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 34 tReaclor Coolant Piping 342 Pressurizer Rebel Tank 34 3 Reaclor Coolant Pumps b Motors 34 4 Pressurizer

3.

Steam Generalors 34 6 CRDMsllCIISerarce Struclure Remmel 34 7 Reactor Vessel Inlernals 34 8 Rractor Vessel 34 Ttlals 35 Rrvmove spenl fuel races

1. 492 1 492 687

• 41 103 831 1

218 218 2.859 557 557 700 130 415 31 196 5 051 4

I 01 It 22,451

.306 688 800 3 225 32,564 302 261 12 606 14 1.441 8 76 434 245 78 t,578 882 1,294 814 4 666 6 774 33 251 225 33 251 228 429 3 288 2.713 746 2,238 2,238 U4 641 641 84 541 641 105 805 805 20 150 150 52 478 478 125 956 958 29 225 225 758 5 809 5 809 303 1,3t4 1.314 4,267 28.219 27 229 103 790 790 10 52 52 196 1,502 1 502 1 045 5 881 5 851 355 3 920 3 920 78 378 378 39 300 300 2

14 14 423 2 484 2 484 131 1,005 1 008 43 478 478 25 270 270 8

83 83 237 1810 I8155 2,695 18,956 18956 800 25 25 575 991 12,58 13 388 7982 3 587 3.567 7,982 314 9702 10 OS 2,323 1,882 1.294 4 077 26 173 814 4 686 59,484 811 4 658 459 3 925 30 099 30 099 11,499 81,962 80,971 91i 3,587 7.982 23.404 100 198 25 22 94 78 38 45 326 2 839 71 54 10 1123 79 31I8 839 7 482 357 36 39 352 1 890 91 3 867 674 6 946 is 8

1593 8

251 13 1535 114 313 905 793 1 1894 2 485 I2 108 t 644 5 487 553 5 069 2 354 29 696 2 599 2

1 034 337 1I0 657 657 83 399 399 548 2 722 2 722 340 2 006 2,006 4 527 24 750 24 760 327 I 629 I 629 4766 15992 15992 6 720 19 213 19 213 17.462 67,378 67 378 498 2 282 2 282 477 621 4 545 2 321 22 200 2 627 1 502 845 6 416 2 329 40,707 3224 2 558 574 574 6817 I 080 3 853 0867 2.1 5fi6 2 832 12 706 31 070 R6 320 3133 TlIC;.G't't'ew e's, In r

Dirtbbi Canyon PowerPlant Decom issitoninji Cost Studyr Docrtment Pr01-I121-003.

e.,' 0 Appendxls P. PaRge O9 o0 11 TABLE C-I DIAIILO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT 2 DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMLATE (Thouosdos o7 1003 Dollars) i i)

I b

clfyD rpl.Dc. R

.k Si

~

lINRC sit uiite Ite tO ER I ci traift Caro NmeAcityDsrpinDon 1m Pat Shp h

oi Other Cowtntlngenc Total LicTerm Restore A CF; H CF C

F GTIZ CF isse Ramoca of Major Equipmenl 36 Main Tuione/Generator 37 Mam Condensers Diposal of Plant Systems 38 I Ausiary Slear 38 2 Auitiry Steam (RCA) 38 3 Building Servces (Non-Poser Btock) 38 4 Capital Additons 85-2002 (Cean) 38 5 Capdal Additions 85-2002 (contaminated) 38 6 Chincal & Volume Control 38 7 Chemcal & Volume Contnro ltosoated) 38 8 Component Cootlng Water 38 9 Component Coo4inq Water (RCA) 38 10 Compressed Air 3S11 Compressed Ar (Insulated) 38 12 Compressed Ac (RCA Insulated) 38 13 Compressed Ar (RCA) 38 Is Condensate System 38 tS Condensate System (Insulated) 38 18 Containment Spray 3817 Diesel Engnme-Generalor 38 18 Diesel Engine Generator (Insulated) 38 19 Electrical (Clean) 38 20 Etectneat (Contaminated) 38 21 Electrical (Contarmnated) - FHi 38 22 Electrical (RCA) 38 23 Elecdneal (RCA)-FHd 38 24 Eutracion Stoom & Healer Onp 38 2S Feedwater System 38 28 Feedisoier System (Insuatted) 28 21 Feedtaler System (RCA Insulated) 38 28 Feedmter System (RCA) 38.29 Fire Protection 38 30 Fire Protection (RCA) 38 31 Gaseous Rad-lste 38 32 HVAC (Clean insulated) 38 33 HVAC (Clean) 38.34 HVAC (Conlamrnated Insulated) 38.35 HVAC (Contaminated) 38 36 HVAC (Conlammnated). FHd 38 3? LIquid Radwaste 38 38 Liquid Radwasle (Insulted) 38 39 tube 00 Distribtlion & Purdicatlon 38 40 Make-up Water 38 41 Makt-up Water (Insulated) 38 42 Make-up Water (RCA Insutaled) 38 43 Ma§e-up Water (RCA) 38 44 Mechanical Department Equipment 38 45 Miscellaneoos Reactor Coolant 38 46 iSSS Sampirng 38 47 NSSS Sampling (InsutatedI 38 48 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 38 4 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) 38 50 Nitrogen & Hydrogen IRCA tnsulated) 410 723 211 1 344 1344 1,191 82 422 2 440 2,440 '

.9347 27 028 122 "Tt 85 3 448 8?7 71?

42?

354 124 528 77 4

22 38?

101I 340 187 174 2

2 ose 371 311 2,222 691 402 75 105 107 245 203 108 28 274 220 942 213 355 31?

40 35 188 1St Is 25 125 1

13 78 9 5 27 13 4I 3

28 7

0 1

198 913 1

85 226 12 712 31?

3 207 30 5891

.1 1

45 191 0

5 38 1,56 342 723 1 165 8

4 I

48 48 0

25 155 3

181 783 o

25 176 8

302 112 0

25 2

J29 879 109 I

43 23 I

62 7

o 8

60 380 380 43 253 253 1

5 95 733 188 031 831 883 35 84 308 360 1 388 1,388 19 143 238 1.455 1455 1

08 1

37 37 122 817 676 781 5.317 5.31?

281 1,772 1??72 128 80s 85 11 805 0

2 309 2 366 133 741 741 35 192 192 804 4 e82 4,882 224 1 257 1 25?

234 1,522 1.522 127 925 925 18 122 50 311 31 2

18 16 150 986 986 77 454 454 40 252 252 4

30 41 315 84 485 465 390 2 292 2 292 85 491 491 374 1 570 I 570 35 138 138 s8 545 545 24 "85 2

18 8

54 54 48 282 282 0

1 5

'0 197 I97 41 208 208 9

44 44 2

Is 0

1 I

7 1

733 143 as 28 2 366 122 30 315 185 18 Ia 210 1.783 5I2 Ill13 121 61 448 62 970 61 106 154 t9 2,751 2 707 106 14 662 10 337 37,131 18 505 2 984 12 322 1 881 99 513 9 1t6 22 930 7 832 4 348 1,719 48 47 918 8 828 2,?41 52 102 16 220 9195 1,711 2 54?

2521 118 5 590 4 666 2 505 662 6 578 4 609 19 921 4 495 15 541 1 771 4 239 3 794 376 565 2884 t9 1 978 2 395 Ili Iii Tt 2

a T.'S;,tir ift h-,

Inr.

Diablo Canyon Powes Plont Decommissioninx Cost Stludy DoAument Pl-lt 10

/

o,' 0 Aippen dix C, I'ogre 10 of 1 2 TABLE C-2 DI XBLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT 2 DFCON DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE (Thoaeaed ol 2002 Dollar,)

IL)

NR L Site Blurial s e CIF TC C tlii C

Laor INumber Activity De-crptlon Deco.

R.ma Pack Ship Racial Oilier Coetleceec Total LlcToros Restore A CF B CF C Cr GTCC CF llaar I

Disposal of Plant Systems (cont) 38 S1 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA) 38 52 Nuclear Steam Supply Samplinog 38 53 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling (Insulated 38 54 Oily Waler Separator & TB Sump 38 55 Residual Heat Removal 38 0 Safety Inrection 38 57 Safely Injection (Insulated) 38 58 Safety Itcection (RCA lnsulated) 38 59 Safety Injection (RCA) 38 60 Sabiwaloe Syslem 38 61 Service Cooling Waler 38 62 ServIce Cooling Water (RCA) 38 e3 Sewer System Enpansion 38 68 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling 38 65 Spent Fuel Pit Cooing - FHD 38 66 Turbine Steam Supply 38 67 Turbine Sleam Supply (RCA) 38 68 Turbine and Generator 3a 89 Turbine and Generator (Insulated) 38 Totals 39 Erect scaffolding tor systems removal Dscontaminatllo of Site Buildongs 40 1 Reactor 40 2 Auxilary 40 3 Capdal Additions 85-2002 40 4 Containmenl Penetralion Area 40 5 Fuel Handling 40 6 Radiaste Storage 40 Totals 41 License Termination Survey 42 ORISE confirmatory survey 43 Temmiale ricense PerIod 2 Additlonal Costs 44 Spens Fuel Pad Cask Cannier Equlpmenl d5 Spenl Fuel Loading Campaigns 46 Spent Fuel Ops & Maintenance 47 SPent Fuel FPied Cosls 48 Spent Fuel Secunty 49 Transfer of Spent Funt Canisters to DOE Subtotal Period 2 Actlilty Costs Period 2 Undislribuled Costs I Oecon equipmenl 2 Decoi supplite 3 DOC salff relocalion espenses 4 Process giquid waste S Insurance 6 Properlytaes 7 Healih physics supplies 8 Heavy equipmenl rental 9 Small loot allowance 10 Pipe cuning equipment 245 1 960 79 19 8

20 256 92 S

36 294 120 90 30 31 65 90 t1,57 803 102 48 18 026 0

30 2

10 12 130 27 0

10 2

0 4

1 33 14 6U1 240 1

44 60 0

3 2

0 24 18 4

217 160

28 S

319 94 6

342 101 4,610 1 234

• 250 48 59 3 668 20,308 24 129 129 7

38 38 3

16 16 10 62 62 439 2 067 2.067 43 241 241 2

12 12 18 97 97 153 835 835 18 138 14 104 12 70 70 5

38 112 606 606 125 o7?

677 981 6.748 6,748 386 2,422 2,422 63 416 416 18 III IIl 9 089 53,239 48 847 2 080 10 419 10,419 3 583 17,1t3 17,131 8,283 5,451 5,451 239 1,385 1 385 328 1,422 1422 657 2 600 2,800 94 440 445 8,283 28 635 28 635 132 104 38 4,391 24 10 2 081 109 7

60 537 790 848 9 074 276 1 853 441 l89 441 8 554 2.157 1I 633 6 789 2,779 2 186 698 746 1 555 2,157 26,620 18 952 2299 1 037 458 334 79 553 7.950 4

1 111 292 1 253 1,116 I 1II 103 3268 14 273 41 613 383 38 6

3,614 1,663 375 24 24 31 10 561 180 48 11 11 is 268 10,197 427 2 630 163 672 651 9S 841 260 288 6

15,276 970 25241 6,510 1 662 1611 2081 707 37,812 51 630 26 226 7457 6 852 22 200 766 115,131 217,991 9 074 2 722 11,798 1 798 105 32 137 137 node 2

33 696 3 826 1 333 2 686 454 1 582 5054 38 750 38 750 574 4 400 4 400 200 1 533 1,533 400 3 066 3 006 68 522 522 237 1 619 1818 6 770 38 757 7659 2 684 49783 78793 45313 227,759 223,367 4 391 90,427 3 224 574 I 003 038 687 1,247

$1306 399 4 0'92 6 027 594 911 269 522 1643 2 084 103 790 790 312 1 559 1 559 196 1 502 1 502 715 3 548 3 546 208 2 293 2 293 1 023 5 1t4 5.114 1,204 9231 8308 88 683 615 137 I 048 1 048 923 68 4 06t 506 7it. Ser Inc.rn.

/nr.

Diablo Cannvon PorterPlant Deronmmr sioning Cost Study.

Doeu.-l P11-1 121 0tJ I1?l, 0

Appendiv (

'ag,'e 11 of 1!

TAllt E C-2 DIABILO CANYON POWER PILANT UINIT 2 DFCON DECOMMISSIONIGs COST FSTI5L\\TE (Thousands sf2002 Dollars)

ID IIUL S1te llurlai.

10jltk It I

( raft I HaI INoa ster

%ctlnjty Deicriptlun De.o t R..eo-P., k, S'ip Burial Ot1her Comring.e.ey Ttel LaTlerm Restore A ( F it I F C CF GTFC tF

..t..r.

Penod 2 Un~dsInbuled Costs (cont) 1t Deconng 12 2Dsposal of DAW generated 13 Deco-rossloning Equipment Dispositlion t4 Prant energy budget 15 NRC ISFSI Fees 16 NRC Fees 17 Emergency Planning Fees 18 Srte Secunty Cost 19 LLRW Processung Equrpoent Subtotal Undlsirlbsted Costs Period 2 Staff Costs DOC Slat? Cost Utility Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 Demolition of Remarorog She Bulidings 50 I Reactor 502 Admm-nftrbon 50 3 Aoillaqy 50 4 Breaiwater 505 Capitl Additions 85-2002 50 6 Chemical Storage 50 7 Chorinatlion 50 8 Cinculatrog Water Tunneb 50 9 Cotd Machine Shop 50 10 Coornurrcaton 50 It Condensate PollshiugiTechnicalt Support 50 12 Containment Penetrathor Area 50 13 Drscharge Structure 50 14 FabrIcation Shop 5015 Fire Pump House 50 15 Fust Handiing 50 17 Hazardous Waste Storage Facility 50 18 Intaie Structure 500 t Marotenance Shop 50 20 Miscelaneous Slructures 50 21 NPO Permanent Warehouse 50 22 Ponds 50 23 Portable Foe Pump A Fuel Cart 50 24 Pretreatment 50 25 Radwasle Storage 50 26 Rotor Warhouse 50 27 Security 50 28 Srmutator 50 29 Tolephono Temmnal 50 30 Turbine 50 31 Turbine Pedestal 50 02 Vchicle M.Iotenance 50 33 Waste Water Holdinog & Troatment Facility 50 Tolats 114 3 517 14 929 1814 9

42 4311 231 480 4 969 1 394 2.672 610 19 050 1 346 176 1 362 1,265 7.432 131 855 745 5 714 1J9 1 033 267 2,939 61 671 2 858 21.908 202 1 547 1 362 7 432 855 5,143 571 t 533 2 939 671 21908 1547 10 671 572 11 243 4 057 29 025 778 30 368 2.092 568 6,185 32,604 9,833 69 726 68 165 1 563 29 080 108.415 4,362 33,442 16 262 124 677 33 442 124 677 449,692 6,954 10,267 51,6e6 9,750 3.252 55,968 248,892 75.771 455,606 101,669 7.291 574 1,033,407 6 887 793 5 449 35.437 3,410 7

1,035 290 3

Jn8 423 756 92 1 276 1 360 4 290 266 51 1 057 11 a

1,403 717 286 316 2

3 466 938 27 18 70 464 1 033 7,921 119 912 817 6 268 5,316 40 752 012 3,922 1

4 1

6 l55 1,190 43 333 0

4 58 444 63 486 113 869 14 106 1

5 191 1 468 204 1 564 644 4 940 40 306 8

06 159 1216 0

1 0

I I

9 210 1 613 107 824 43 329 47 364 0

2 520 3 986 141 1 079 4

31 3

20 10 570 81034 1,188 6 732 912 627 5 639 40 752 3,922 4

-8 1,190 333 4

444 49 436 869 106 S

147 1 321 1564 4940 306 5S 1216

-9 81 1533 824 329 364 2

3 986 1079 321 20 2 091 0 943 t02 078 10 358

'32811 1 18,381 51,043 46 9 7 20 361 3 779 44 6 959 6 6077 a 052 1223 55 In 9457 e4t7 4 17 16 31Z 3 444 703 14092

• 13 14 i08 18 t20 9 918e 3 342 1191 28 settog 100 r 1or,

7'112 TI.(; Sev rtevs, Itart

D-hlo Canvon Poll fr Plant Deaooanlaissooning Cost Study, Doart-en!r POIl21 003. Rifa 0 Appendix C. I'ge /2,u/ 12 TABLE C-2 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT 2 DECON DECOMMISSIONING COST FSTIIIATE (Thousands ol 2002 Dollars.)

I iL}

IN-mb-A w1 l1v_--..r.__lo iNK(,

bSte Irlarnt loo0(ICKi

(

IolthI Do on Rem-oe P.o io Ship IBurlal Other Costaneene-Total LIcTorm Restore Alt I, l) CF 114-b (ITCLC tP Ir cx vl r vrscrll vBon Sloe Closeout AcIluiles St Remoe Rubble 52 Grade I landscape sif 53 Final report to NRC Period 3 Additional Cost 54 Vessel 8 Inlemals GTCC Disposal 55 ISFSI License Teanenslion 56 ISFSI Oemolilon 57 Spent Fuel Ops & Maiotenance 58 Spenl Fuel Faced Cost 59 Spool Fuel Secuoty S0 Transfer Spent Fuel C-oisteas to DOE Subtotat Perlod 3 Actvllty Cods Ie nod 3 Undaislbuted Costs I Insueance 2 Properly laes 3 Heany equipment rental 4Smau tool allmomnce 5 Plant energy budget 6 NRC ISFSI Fees 7 Emergency Planning Feea 8 Sile Secunty Cost Subtotl Undlstrlbuted Costs Perlod 3 Slap Costs DOC Stalf Cost Utility Staff Cost TOTAL PERIOD 3 1C8 505 1.395 16276 124,781 124,781 209 1 605 1605 125 19 143 143 184 226

• 587 26 2,179 1,557, 26 184 100 3 779 691 4 471 13 213 54 17 1 063 1152 34

-208 416 416 353 54 I7 14 276 2 703 218 103

-217 212 2,572 3 323 1 982 15 195 15 195 1,004 5.495 5.496 2 632 239 1 630 1 30 31 239 236 62 478 478 62 478 478 53 406 406 30,507 231,664 24.526 207.158 2632 604 40 148 15 396 604 U6 078 22 240 240 567 4 346 4 346 104 795 795 Is 119 119 22 239 239 21 234 234 386 2 958 2 958 1 137 8930 712 8218 26 166,571 994 1,496 1,493 11493

• 10,128 1519 11647 10483 1165 54 17 14.276 26,148 34 662 263.754 35.721 228.033 2,632 604 46,f078 TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 12637 242,138 11,099 4082 74,910 334,524 121,932 801.322 566,343 234 676 107S.68 15 272 574 604 1,902 666 Total cost to decommisslon mvth Total NRC license termination cost is Non-nuclear demoliion cost Is Total bunal saie radmusle voiume boned Total ICFR6I grealer lhan class C wasle buried Tolal scrap mebal released rons ste Total crat labor requlremenls 17 95%

contlngency SS 70 68%

or S5 29 32%

or S2 301.321.541' 66 343 446 34.976.098 123 715 cubic leet 604 cubic feet 22 000 tons 1902 688 person hours 2

NOTES 0 indicates osts less than S500 It Thin acuity is periormed bythe decommissioning slafollloi gplant shuldo"n Ihe coss lor this are included in tIhs penod sba cost 21 This acli-ty whil performed aber final plant shuldomn is considered part of opetahois 8nd thecetore no decommissioning costs are ictuded Ior Iths actisiy 7I1, Sat I Ires. ftil.