ML040960053

Decommissioning Project Status, Goals and Challenges with Handwritten Notes

ML040960053
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	10/28/2003
From:	Kacich R Yankee Atomic Electric Co
To:	NRC/FSME
References
-RFPFR, FOIA/PA-2004-0057
Download: ML040960053 (17)

Text

I.

.1 I

Is

,R..

I I....

1 I

I I

acsloee Rone Decomrnrissioning roject Status, Goats and Challenges Richard M. Kacich, President October 28. 2003

Ze

Recent successes and strategic direction have set the stage forpositive outcomes Completion of ftiel transfer enables the resumiption of demolition and disposal A focus on safety remains the key to Yankee's success Management is aggressively pursuing identified challenges Recent FERC settlement provides adequate funding 2HE

.t.,:-

,..t.

Thcn fulQs as de/Ot't.SP~~~l(10 The. 1 6thand fin~al storage.akImaded~wIth GTCmaeal waso rKv~dQtpIFSlpdol6gI

• A, '

comp.

.a.-:a*.

er..

,,je:*A-Spent Fuel Pool Dran o L' WV.

FUEL TRANSFER AND SPF DRAIN DOWN ESafe Fuel and GTCC Transfer to the ISFSI Enabled Decommissioning/Demolition Resumption

• Extensive Stakeholder Interaction Facilitated a Timely NPDES Permit a SFP Drain Down was Uneventfully Completed Despite Significant Radiological Challenges

• Applying Lessons Learned From CY, MY and Big Rock Point Enhanced Outcomes

II 2003Site 'Dem mteils irWm ~app'ear ~Becm"~

0" io chee IcniePlnGal

.*W.:

4.

Ero 6i dion~6 Aeral wal applijear December 2003 Dmolitton j,

Activities' job

'Servrce.urtng Anne 8ervlc' B lnApnri.ex

..August 25.,2003

,..asbestos abatement rs s

oIn. compete abatement prepnratoiforo jg k

Avl.~

, * *; -I-:~, i MRw,

.g _

• g phds20.0demo tlon ca*mp ete-

.. ~ ~

~ u t. 3 2 0

'3

2003 SITE DEMOLITION INCENTIVE PLAN GOAL X Managing Available Real Estate Remains a Continuing Challenge X Time for Planning Dwarfs Time Required for Physical Demolition

• Photos Visually Depict 2003 Incentive Plan Goal Schedule

• Structures to be Demolished in 2003 Include:

Warehouse, Service Building Annex, Service Building, and Turbine Building (YA0 ro HIf

Consistent Physical Demolition Progress Achieves June 2005 Vision 5

JUNE 2005 DEMOLITION VISION

• Photo Series Illustrates Outcome Aligned With the FEIRC Settlement IDemolition Plan Aligned to Reduce Impact of Winter Weather Recurring Demolition Sequence Includes: "Cold &

Dark," Assess, Remediate, Demolish, Dispose

• June 2005 End State of "Physical Decommissioning" Sets the Stage for FSS and Property Transfer if45ijEl)

I !

,t FERC project settlement establishesbasisfor cost and schedulegoals a ALL waste shipped off-site 9 Physical decommissioning complete by June 2005 io Property ready for transfer January 2006 YA K) 6

The FER C settlement also includes requirement to engage interested parties..r..--a

• To cooperatively identify potentially viable alternatives for interim storage of SNF (including GTCC) outside of New England

• To identify the most viable alternative, and

• To develop an action plan to initiate the

,f selected alternative 7

KE.

Tihe cost to decommission is significant Cost Categories Totals ($ Millions)

Total Decommissioning Costs 636.4 1992-2002 Decommissioning (incurred) 347.9 "To-Go" Cost Estimate (2003-2022)*

288.5 Demolition/Disposal 97.1 Radioactive Waste 20.0 Long-Termn SNF Storage 129.2 Site Restoration 0.3 Final Status Survey 4.0 Contingency 37.9 i eITo-Go" cost estimate is stated in year 2003 dollars Q~-I 0ANK 8

Project Challenges Necessitate Strategic Focus Indenture Property Resolution PCB :Contamination

1. /,_

'-I,'

iIi

£ PC s'd o'il s'ampling results:

SPOB sediment samp ILTP Submittal and Approval Sh~erman Dami 4

X o.

V E

t.

9

PROJECT CHALLENGES

• Additional Characterization is Required to Define Scope of Remediation

• Property Indenture Introduces Uncertainties With Shoreline Access and FERC Approvals

• Targeted LTP Schedule for NRC Approval, a Critical Path Activity, is <50% of Previous Industry Best X LTP Reflects Lessons Learned From Other Facilities

Regulatory Permitting Process is Complex and Multifaceted

.1 I

i_

Table I Non-radiological Regulatory Summary P.AE'sora AMW u

A-isS li.1

9.

S W.

rsd5 E

G FCI 1XI Cm III-WrAdfd SF.sga ICud.%ft g~Pd

.40 A=

_ _r W

gW%

%P* Du "am q p

8 rdddp Aaa.

C ksu stR 9..."

DS L Heed PasC E bm.

LP&W C-w 1t.,

11 i

4 f

I wI I -

I t

Ii 5

b~

<u~wa1,68A^

a' C hM A.

s sW s wA P q tt

'c ist p l t A

E*. d nE qA t a w s p n., g~ r U G EtA.EA,,dtsPOW, FEC.P -

FdW W W AMptq sI I RAUI.&*s A.n.ssI WR-.*WW-irlnL

-W4C.

M?;-Y.As-,'J Fliar~lypX4Ss2.x I-Required regulatory approvals and permits 10

• -'.s.-

zF-

...,.:.54.

REGULATORY PERMITTING PROCESS Non-RCRA CAP Status Requires a Yankee-Conceived Site Closure Process

• Number and Variety of Required Permits Requires Extensive Stakeholder Interaction Campaign o Constructive Engagement With Regulators Will Enhance Permit Timeliness

• Long Lead Time Permit Submittals Depend on Completion of Environmental Characterization X To Date, Stakeholder Interaction and Opposition Impact has Been low YNE

The requested LTP review interval is aggressive, but achievable

• Ycankee Rowe is a comparatively clean site

• Substantial prior characterization has been performed and additional workl is underway

• Process familiarity developed fronm past experience (CY) and industry lessons learned

'I.

YANKEE B.-.--

NRC.fo u s and support will enhance the quality andtimeliness of results s Decomnmissioning project success is important to demonstrate nuclear plant end-of-life costs are manageable and finite

• Key Yankee regulatory issues include:

• , LTP review interval Emergency response requirement - Statte Police

• .: NEIL Liability Insurance exemption 7-A 4E,Y J-ANKEE 12