ML092260723
| ML092260723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/2008 |
| From: | TLG Services |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Entergy Operations, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ENOC-09-00024, FOIA/PA-2010-0090, NL-08-144 E11-1583-003 | |
| Download: ML092260723 (58) | |
Text
Enclosure 2 to NL-08-144 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-247
Document El1-1583-003 PRELIMINARY DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for the INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER, UNIT 2
~J
.r *_.
I
~ ~i~2 3 preparedfor Entergy Nuclear preparedby TLG Services, Inc.
Bridgewater, Connecticut October 2008
)
IndianPointEnergy Center,Unit 2 Document E1-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page ii of v APPROVALS Project Manager / /'0/Z..,
William A. Cloutier, dr. Date Project Engineer Da4t Thomas Garrett Date Technical Manager X4 a-el.
Geoff1Ae'er5Griffiths' Date Quality Assurance Manager J ph J. Adle- Date TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document El1.1583-003 Preliminary DecommissioningCost Analysis Page iii of v TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE L, DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS ............................................................. 1 1.1 Decommissioning Alternatives ..................................................................... 2 1.2 Regulatory G uidance ...................................................................................... 2 1.3 Basis of Cost Estim ate ................................................................................... 3 1.4 Methodology ............ ....... ............................ 3 1.5 Impact of Decommissioning Multiple Reactor Units ................................... 5 1.6 Financial Components of the Cost Model ............................... 6 1.6.1 C ontingency ......................................................................................... 6 1.6.2 Financial R isk ..................................................................................... 7 1.7 Site-Specific Considerations .......................................................................... 8 1.7.1 Spent Fuel Disposition ........................................................................ 8 1.7.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components ...................................... 12 1.7.3 Primary System Components ............................................................ 13 1.7.4 Retired Components ................................... 14 1.7.5 Main Turbine and Condenser .......................................................... 14 1.7.6 Transportation Methods ................................................................... 14 1.7.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Conditioning and Disposal .............. 15 1.7.8 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning ................................... 17 1.7.9 Site Contam ination ........................................................................... 18 1.8 A ssum ptions ................................................................................................... 18 1.8.1 Estim ating Basis ................................................................................ 18 1.8.2 R elease C riteria ..................................................................................... 19 1.8.3 Labor Costs ......................................................................................... 19 1.8.4 D esign Conditions ................................................................... ............ 20 1.8.5 G eneral ............................................................................................... 20
- 2. R E S UL T S ................................................................................................................... 24 2.1 Decommissioning Trust Fund ...................................................................... 25 2.2 Financial Assurance ........................................ 25 FIGURE 1 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Timeline ............................................................... 26 r
TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document E1.-1583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page iv of v TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE TABLES 1 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposition .................................................... 27 2 Sum m ary of M ajor Cost Contributors ................................................................ 28 3 Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Total Decommissioning Cost ................. 29 4 Schedule of Annual Expenditures, License Termination Allocation ............. 31 5 Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Spent Fuel Management Allocation .......... 33 6 Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Site Restoration Allocation ................... 35 7 Funding Requirements for License Termination ........................................ 36 APPENDIX A. 2007 Detailed Cost Analysis .................................... A-1 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document E1l-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Pagev of v REVISION LOG TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center,Unit 2 Document E1l-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page I of 38
- 1. DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS This document presents the cost to decommission the Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 (IP-2) assuming a cessation of operations after a nominal 40-year operating life in 2013. In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(f)(3), the cost estimate includes an assessment of the major factors that could affect the cost to decommission the IP-2 nuclear unit.
The cost to decommission IP-2 is estimated at $920.5 million. The cost is presented in 2007 dollars for consistent year comparison with the Company's latest filing on the status of the IP-2 decommissioning trust fund.[')
The estimate for IP-2 assumes that it is decommissioned in conjunction with the two adjacent units (the shutdown IP-1 and the currently operating IP-3). As such, there are savings as well as additional costs that are reflected within the estimate from the synergies of site decommissioning and the constraints imposed in working on a complex and congested site. In apportioning site decommissioning costs by unit, not all common costs are shared equitably (e.g., due to the offset in shutdown dates) and some costs elements are impacted by activities or previous operations at adjacent units.
The cost includes the monies anticipatedto be spent for operating license termination, spent fuel storage and site remediation activities. The cost is based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties (contingency) and site remediation and restoration requirements. Many of these assumptions are discussed in more detail in this document.
Entergy intends to fund the expenditures for license termination (comprising approximately 72% of the total cost) from the currently existing decommissioning trust fund. The management of the spent fuel, until it can be transferred to the DOE, may be funded from excess trust fund earnings and from proceeds from spent fuel litigation against the Department of Energy (DOE). Expenditures from the trust fund for the management of the spent fuel will not reduce the value of the decommissioning trust fund to below the amount necessary to place and maintain the reactor in safe storage to place and maintain the reactor in safe storage. The licensee would make the appropriate submittals for an exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8),(i)(A) in order to use the decommissioning trust funds for non-decommissioning related expenses, as defined by 10 CFR 50.2.
Entergy Nuclear Operations' submittal of its "Decommissioning Fund Status Report" to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter No. ENOC-08-00028, dated May 8, 2008 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document EI1-1583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page2 of 38 1.1 DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided general decommissioning guidance in a rule adopted on June 27, 1988.[2] 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.
DECON is defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[3 1 SAFSTOR is defined as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred 41 decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use."[
Decommissioning is to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will be' considered when necessary to protect public health and safety.
ENTOMB is defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property."[5 1As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years.
1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE In 1996, the NRC published revisions to its general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988
[bid. Page FR24022, Column 3 4 Ibid.
5Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document E11-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 3 of 38 the decommissioning process.[61 The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning. Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further described the methods and procedures that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the 1996 revised rule that relate to the initial activities and the major phases of the decommissioning process. The cost estimate for IP-2 follows the general guidance and sequence presented in the amended regulations.
1.3 BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE For the purpose of the analysis, IP-2 was assumed to cease operations in September 2013, after 40 years of operations. The unit would then be placed in safe-storage (SAFSTOR), with the spent fuel relocated to an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) to await transfer to a DOE facility. Based upon a 2017 start date for the pickup of spent fuel from the commercial nuclear power generators, Entergy anticipates that the removal of spent fuel from the site could be completed by the year 2043. However, for purposes of this analysis, the plant will remain in storage until 2064, at which time it will be decommissioned and the site released for alternative use without restriction. This sequence of events is delineated in Figure 1 along with major milestone dates.
The decommissioning estimate was developed using the site-specific, technical information relied upon in the decommissioning assessments prepared in 2000 and 2002.[7181 This information was reviewed for the current analysis and updated to reflect any significant changes in the plant configuration over the past five years. The site-specific considerations and assumptions used in the previous evaluation were also revisited. Modifications were incorporated where new information was available or experience from recent decommissioning projects provided viable alternatives or improved processes. On site interviews were conducted between August and November 2007 to assist in obtaining current site specific conditions as well as collect financial data.
1.4 METHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop the estimate followed the basic approach originally presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study report, "Guidelines for 6 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50, and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996 7 Decommissioning Cost Evaluation Due Diligence Estimate for the Indian Point 1 & 2 Nuclear Generating Stations Document No. El 1-1395-002, September 2000.
8 TLG Document No. El1-1449-002, December 19, 2002 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page4-of 38 Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"1 9] and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."11o] These documents present a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs that simplifies the calculations. Unit factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch) were developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs were then estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed from plant drawings and inventory documents. Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures relied upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R.S.
Means.["]
The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates. The detail provided in the unit factors, including activity duration, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, ensures that essential elements have not been omitted.
This analysis reflected lessons learned from TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station decommissioning, completed in 1989, as well as the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells, and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and engineering for the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Connecticut Yankee, and San Onofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.
Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment. WDFs are assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with the working conditions. The ranges used for the WDFs were as follows:
- Access Factor 0% to 30%
- Respiratory Protection Factor 0% to 50%
9 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIFINESP-036, May 1986 10 W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980 11 "Building Construction Cost Data 2007," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts TLG Services, Inc.
IndianPoint Energy Center,Unit 2 Document E11-1583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 5 of 38
" Radiation/ALARA Factor 0% to 37%
" Protective Clothing Factor 0% to 50%
o Work Break Factor 8.33%
The factors and their associated range of values were originally developed in conjunction with the AIF/NESP-036 study.
Scheduling Program Durations Activity durations are used to develop the total decommissioning program schedule. The unit cost factors, adjusted for WDFs as described above, are applied against the inventory of materials to be removed. The work area (or building area) is then evaluated for the most efficient number of workers/crews for the identified decommissioning activities. The adjusted unit cost factors are then compared against the available manpower so that an overall duration for removal of components and piping from each work area can be calculated.
The schedule is used to assign carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security.
1.5 IMPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING MULTIPLE REACTOR UNITS In estimating the near simultaneous decommissioning of three co-located reactor units there can be opportunities to achieve economies of scale, by sharing costs between units, and coordinating the sequence of work. activities.
There will also be schedule constraints, particularly where there are requirements for specialty equipment and staff, or practical limitations on when final status surveys can take place. The estimate for IP-2 considered:
I Savings in program management, in particular costs associated with the more senior positions, from the sequential decommissioning of two, essentially identical reactors. The estimate assumes that IP-2 is the lead unit in decommissioning through the disposition of the reactor vessel and primary system components, at which time IP-3 assumes the lead. Costs for the senior staff positions are only included for the lead unit.
" The current need by IP-3 to use the IP-2 spent fuel 'pool to transfer spent fuel to the ISFSI. As such, the estimate for IP-2 includes an extended period of spent fuel pool operations.
" The confines of a congested site and the need to coordinate dismantling operations. Demolition and soil remediation, following the primary TLG Services, Inc.
IndianPointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 6 of 38 decommissioning phase (removal of major source terms and radiological inventory), are conducted as a site-wide activity.
Sharing of station costs such as ISFSI operations, security, emergency response fees, regulatory agency fees, corporate overhead, and insurance.
1.6 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's proprietary decommissioning cost model, DECCER, produces a number of distinct cost elements. These direct expenditures, however, do not comprise the total cost to accomplish the project goal (i.e., license termination and site restoration).
Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is the inability to specify the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as tool breakage, accidents, illnesses, weather delays, and labor stoppages. In the DECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. Contingency is added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to develop analytically. Such costs are historically inevitable over the duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes funds to cover these types of expenses.
i.6.1 Contingency Consistefit with standard cost estimating practices, contingencies were applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs developed as a "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope, particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur."[1 21 The cost elements in the estimate were based on ideal conditions; therefore, the types of unforeseeable events that are almost certain to occur in decommissioning, based on industry experience, were 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 analysis, does not account for. price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the remaining operating life of the nuclear unit or during the extended storage period.
The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis. A composite value is then reported at the 12 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239.
TLG Services, Inc.
IndianPoint Energy Center, Unit 2 Document E11-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 7 of 38 end of the detailed estimate. The composite contingency value reported for the SAFSTOR scenario, and as shown in the detail table in Appendix A, is 17.26%.
1.6.2 Financial Risk In addition to the routine uncertainties addressed by contingency, another cost element that is sometimes necessary to consider when bounding decommissioning costs relates to uncertainty, or risk.
Examples can include changes in work scope, pricing, job performance, and other variations that could conceivably, but not necessarily, occur.
Consideration is sometimes necessary to generate a level of confidence in the estimate, within a range of probabilities. TLG considers these types of costs under the broad term "financial risk." Included within the category of financial risk are:
- Transition, activities and costs: ancillary expenses associated with eliminating 50% to 80% of the site labor ,force shortly after the cessation of plant operations, added cost for worker separation packages throughout the decommissioning program, national or company-mandated retraining, and retention incentives for key personnel.
" Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, legal challenges, and national 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 expected, contaminated soil previously undiscovered (either radioactive or hazardous material contamination), variations in plant inventory or configuration not indicated by the as-built drawings.
- Regulatory changes (e.g., affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal).
- Policy decisions altering national commitments (e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or in the timetable for such: the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE).
" Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial.
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 TLG Services, Inc.
IndianPointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document E1.-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 8 of 38 is a low probability, and the chances that the estimate is too low is a higher probability. This cost study, however, does not add any additional costs to the estimate for financial risk, since there is insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities. Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk should be revisited periodically and addressed through updates of the base estimate.
1.7 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 impacts of the considerations identified below were included within the estimate.
1.7.1 Spent Fuel Disposition Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[' 31 (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. The NWPA provided that DOE would enter into contracts with utilities in which DOE would promise to take the utilities' spent fuel and high.level radioactive waste and utilities would pay the cost of the disposition services for that material. NWPA, along with the individual contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.
Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule. By January 1998, the DOE had failed to accept any spent fuel or high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts,. Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation for DOE's breach of contract.
Operation of DOE's yet-to-be constructed repository is contingent upon the review and approval of the facility's license application by the NRC, the successful resolution of pending litigation, and the development of a national transportation system. The DOE submitted its license application to the NRC on June 3, 2008, seeking authorization to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Assuming a timely 13 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit2 Document E11-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page9 of 38
,review, DOE expects that receipt of fuel could begin as early as 20 1 7,[t41 depending upon the level of funding appropriated by Congress.
It is generally necessary that spent fuel be actively cooled and stored for a minimum period at the generating site prior to transfer. The NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.54(bb).[15l This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimate, for example, costs associated with the isolation and continued operation of the spent fuel pool and ISFSI.
At shutdown, the spent fuel pool is expected to contain freshly discharged assemblies (from the most recent refueling cycles) as well as the final reactor core. Over the next eight years, the assemblies are packaged into multipurpose canisters for transfer directly to the DOE or for interim storage at the ISFSI. It is assumed that this period provides the necessary cooling for the final core to meet the design requirements for decay heat for either the transport or storage systems (the eight-year period also considers the use of the IP-2 pool by IP-3).
DOE's contracts with utilities generally order the acceptance of spent fuel from utilities based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE was expected to begin in 2017. The first assemblies removed from the IPEC site was assumed to be in 2018. With an estimated rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year for the commercial industry, completion of the removal of all fuel from the site was projected to be in the year 2045 assuming shutdown of IP-2 in 2013 and IP-3 in 2015. Entergy Nuclear's analysis assumes, for purposes only of this report, that Entergy Nuclear does not employ DOE spent fuel disposal contract allowances for up to 20% additional fuel designation for shipment to DOE each year.
Entergy Nuclear's position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept IPEC fuel earlier than the projections set out above. No assumption made in the study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim.
However, at this time, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study
'* "DOE Announces Yucca Mountain License Application Schedule", U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Public Affairs, Press Release July 19, 2006 t U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses" TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center,Unit 2 Document El1.1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 10 of 38 is the most reasonable approach because it insures the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if, contrary to its contractual obligation, the DOE has not performed earlier.
ISFSI This analysis assumes that an ISFSI has been constructed within the protected area (PA) to support continued plant operations. The estimate further assumes that this facility is expanded (to a total capacity of 96 casks) to support decommissioning and accommodate the additional dry storage casks needed to off-load'the IP-2 wet storage'pool (the facility may need to be further expanded for IP-3 spent fuel storage). Once the IP-2 pool is emptied, the spent fuel storage -and handling facilities are available for decommissioning or readied for long-term storage.
Operation and maintenance costs for the ISFSI are included within the estimate and address the costs for staffing the facility, as well as security, insurance, and licensing fees. The estimate includes the costs to purchase, load, and transfer the multi-purpose spent fuel storage canisters (MPCs) directly from the pool to the DOE or to the ISFSI for interim storage. Costs are also provided for the final disposition of the facilities once the transfer is complete.
In the absence of identifiable DOE transport cask requirements, the design and capacity of the ISFSI is based upon a commercial dry cask storage system. It should be noted that Entergy's contract with the DOE requires DOE to provide transport canisters to Entergy, but for present purposes, this estimate includes this cost.
Storage Canister Design The design and capacity of .the ISFSI is based upon the Holtec HI-STORM dry cask storage system. The Holtec multi-purpose canister or MPC has a capacity of 32 fuel assemblies.
Canister Loading and Transfer The estimate includes the costs to purchase, load, and transfer the MPCs from the pool into a DOE-provided transport cask or to the ISFSI.
Costs are also included for the transfer of the fuel at the ISFSI to the DOE.
TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit2 Document Ell-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 11 of 38 For fuel transferred directly from the pool to the DOE, the DOE is assumed to provide the canister at no additional cost to the owner. It should be noted that, in this analysis, DOE is assumed to use its own Transport, Aging and Disposal (TAD) canister with a capacity of 21 assemblies for wet pool pickup.
Operations and Maintenance The estimate includes costs for the operation of the spent fuel pool until it is emptied and the operation of the ISFSI until the spent fuel is transferred to the DOE.
The ISFSI operating duration is based upon the previously stated assumptions on fuel transfer schedule expectations.
ISFSI Design Considerations A multi-purpose (storage and transport) dry shielded storage canister with a vertical, reinforced concrete storage silo is used as a basis for this cost analysis. Approximately 50% of the silos are assumed to have some level of neutron-induced activation as a result of the long-term storage of the fuel (i.e., to levels exceeding free-release limits).: Approximately 10%
of the concrete and steel is assumed to be removed from the overpacks for controlled disposal. The cost of the disposition of this material, as well as the demolition of the ISFSI facilities, is reflected within the estimate.
GTCC The dismantling of the reactor internals generates radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)).
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the Federal Government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. However, to date, the Federal Government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance. As such, the estimate to decommission IP-2 includes an allowance for the disposition of GTCC material.
TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document Eli-i1583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 12 of 38 For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel. The GTCC material is assumed to be shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (since the fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning and the ISFSI deactivated).
1.7.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The reactor pressure vessel and reactor internal components are segmented for disposal in shielded transportation casks. Segmentation and packaging of the internals are performed in the refueling canal where a turntable and remote cutter are installed. The vessel is segmented in place using a mast-mounted cutter supported off the lower head and directed from a shielded work platform installed overhead in the reactor well. Transportation cask specifications and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations dictate segmentation and packaging methodology (i.e., packaging will meet the current physical and radiological limitations and regulations). Cask shipments are made in DOT-approved, currently available truck casks.
As stated previously, the dismantling of reactor internals at the IPEC reactors will generate radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., GTCC). For purposes of this study, the GTCC radioactive waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.
Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components can provide savings in cost and worker exposure by eliminating the complex segmentation requirements, isolation of the GTCC material, and transport/storage of the resulting waste packages. Portland General Electric (PGE) was able to dispose of the Trojan reactor as an intact package. However, the location of the Trojan Nuclear Plant on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since.
It is not known whether this option will be available when the IPEC units cease operation. Future viability of this option will depend upon the ultimate location of the disposal site, as well as the site licensee's ability to accept highly radioactive packages and effectively isolate them from the environment. Consequently, the study assumes the reactor vessel will be segmented, as a bounding condition.
TLG Services, Inc.
- wdian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell-1583.003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 13 of 38 1.7.3 Primary System Components The current scenario defers decommissioning for approximately 50 years. The delay will result in lower working area dose rate (from natural decay of the radionuclides produced from plant operations). As such, decontamination of the reactor coolant system components and associated reactor water cleanup systems is not anticipated to be necessary and no allowance is included for this activity within the estimate.
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) drops 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 processing or disposal.
The following discussion deals with the removal and disposition of the steam generators, but the techniques involved are also applicable to other large radioactively-contaminated components, such as heat exchangers and the pressurizer. The steam generators' size and weight, their location within the reactor building, as well as the disposal facility waste acceptance criteria, and access to transportation will ultimately determine the removal, transportation, and disposal strategy.
A crane is set up for the removal of the generators. It can also be used to move portions of the steam generator cubicle walls and floor slabs from the reactor building to a location where they can be decontaminated and transported to the material handling area. Interferences within the work area, such as grating, piping, and other components are removed to create sufficient lay-down space for processing these large components.
The generators are rigged for removal, disconnected from the
.surrounding piping and supports, and maneuvered into the open area where they are lowered onto a down-ending cradle. Each generator is rotated into the horizontal position for extraction from the containment and placed onto a multi~wheeled vehicle for transport to an on-site preparation area.
Disposal costs are based upon the displaced volume and weight of the primary side. portions of the steam generators. Each component is then TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document E1.1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 14 of 38 loaded onto a barge for transport to a rail head and the disposal facility.
The secondary side is assumed to be sent to an off-site waste processor.
1.7.4 Retired Components The estimate includes the cost to dispose of the retired steam generators currently stored on site. Transportation and disposal will occur following the removal of the installed steam generators.
1.7.5 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. The turbine rotors and shafts are removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings are removed from their anchors by controlled demolition. The main condensers are also disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material is then prepared for transportation to an off-site recycling facility where it will be surveyed and designated for either decontamination or volume reduction, conventional disposal, or controlled disposal. Components are packaged and readied for transport in accordance with the intended disposition.
1.7.6 Transportation Methods It is expected that most of the contaminated piping, components, and structural material, other than the highly activated reactor Vessel and internal components, will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, as described in Title 49.[161 The contaminated material is packaged in Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2, or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411) for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shipping containers. The reactor vessel and internal components are expected to be transported in accordance with
§71, as Type B. It is conceivable that the reactor may qualify as LSA II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated within the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport.
Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of long-lived isotopes (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) has not reached levels exceeding those that permit the major reactor tW U.S. Department of Transportation, Section 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178, 2007 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document EI1-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 15 of 38 components to be shipped under
- i' j *.,:&
current transport regulations , > ,.
requirements.
Transport of the highly activated metal, -produced in the segmentation ,,.-,
of the reactor vessel and internal v components, is by shielded truck cask.
Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vessel segment(s), "* "'
supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer. The e .
maximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible is based upon the license limits of the
- N available shielded transport casks. ,
The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internal segments is designed to meet these limits.
Considering the location of IPEC (see map above) and the potential for restricted road use, it is assumed that transportation of materials requiring controlled disposal will utilize the Hudson River via barge shipment to the nearest transfer point for rail or trucking to the Energy-Solutions' facility in Clive, Utah. However, for estimating purposes, costs to transport the majority of the low-level radioactive waste (excluding large components) were based upon, truck transport costs developed from published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit.[171 Memphis (TN) was used as the destination for off-site processing.
1.7.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Conditioning and 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 Policy Act" in 1980,L's8 the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.
STri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),
Docket No. MC-427719 Rules Tariff, March 2004, Radioactiqe Materials Tariff; February 2006.
ts "Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573, 1980 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document El1-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 16 of 38 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 for implementation. After little progress, the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985,[191 extended the implementation schedule, with specific milestones and stiff sanctions for non-compliance. Subsequent court rulings have substantially diluted those sanctions and, to date, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed and constructed.
At the time this analysis was prepared, IP-2 was able to dispose of Class A, B or C low-level radioactive waste[201 at the licensed commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina. In June 2000, South Carolina formally joined with Connecticut and New Jersey to form the Atlantic Compact. South Carolina legislation requires South Carolina to gradually limit disposal capacity at the Barnwell facility through mid-2008. As of June 30, 2008, access to the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility is available only to generators located in states affiliated with the Atlantic Compact.
However, IP-2 is still able to dispose of Class A material at EnergySolutions' facility in Clive, Utah.
The costs reported for direct disposal (burial) in the estimate are based upon Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. current Life of Plant Disposal Agreement with EnergySolutions.[ 211 This facility was used as the destination for the majority of the waste volume generated by decommissioning (99.3%). EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Class B and C) generated in the dismantling of the reactor. As such, the disposal costs for this material (representing approximately 0.6% of the waste volume) were based upon Barnwell disposal rates, as a proxy.
Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core and comprising approximately 0.1% of the total waste volume) is generally not suitable for shallow-land disposal. This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.
"9 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15, 1986 20 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" 21 General Services Agreement 10160239 between Entergy Nuclear Operations and EnergySolutions, June 2007 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document El1.1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 17 of 38 A significant portion of the waste material generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials. This waste can be analyzed on site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, for processing and/or for conditioning/ recovery. Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be accomplished through a ('ariety of methods, including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimate reflects the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction. Costs for waste processing/reduction were also based upon existing agreements.
Disposition of the low-level radioactive waste generated from decommissioning operations (and cost basis) is summarized in Table 1.
1.7.8 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC will terminate (or amend) the site license when it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the license termination plan, and that the final status survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. The NRC's involvement in the decommissioning. process ends at this point.
Building codes and state environmental regulations dictate the next step in the decommissioning process, as well as the owner's own future plans 22 and commitments for the site.[ 1 Only existing site structures are considered in the dismantling cost. The current analysis includes all structures as defined in the site plot plan.J231 The electricail switchyard remains after Indian Point is decommissioned in support of the regional transmission and distribution system. The Generation Support Building and IPEC Training Center remain in place for future use. Clean non-contaminated structures are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. The voids are backfilled with clean debris and capped with soil. The site is then re-graded to conform to the .adjacent landscape. Vegetation is established to inhibit erosion. These "non-radiological costs" are included in the total cost of decommissioning.
22 "Entergy is committed to returning the Indian Point Unit 1, 2 and 3 facilities and the surrounding site to a "Greenfield" condition." Letter from Michael R. Kansler to Westchester County Attorney Alan D. Scheinkman, March 16, 2001 23 Entergy Nuclear Northeast "Buildings and Structures Identification Plan" ER-04-2-012, Rev. 01 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit2 Document El1-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 18 of 38 Site utility and service piping are abandoned in place. Electrical manholes are backfilled with suitable earthen material. Asphalt surfaces in the immediate vicinity of site buildings are broken up and the material used for fill, as required. The site access road remains in place.
1.7.9 Site Contamination As indicated by the IPEC Groundwater Investigation Project,[24] it is likely that radionuclides in the soil has contaminated portions of the subsurface power block structures. As such, sub-grade surfaces of the following IP-2 structures are designated for removal:
- Discharge Canal
" Fuel Storage Building, and
" Turbine Building (approximately 50%).
All other structures or buildings expect to be impacted in the decontamination process are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade.
Site remediation costs include the removal and disposition of 379,000 cubic feet of potentially contaminated soil on the IP-2 site. This volume includes soil contaminated by IP-1 located within the boundaries of the IP-2 site.
1.8 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made in the development of the estimate for decommissioning IP-2.
1.8.1 Estimating Basis Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in 2007 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the periods of performance.
The estimates rely upon the physical plant inventory that was the basis for the 2002 analysis (updated to reflect any significant changes to the plant over the past five years).
24 "Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report," GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., January 2008 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document Eli-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 19 of 38 The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors. These factors address the impact of activities such as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training, and the use of respiratory protection and protective clothing. The factors lengthen a task's duration, increasing costs and lengthening the overall schedule. ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering and planning, and in the development of activity specifications and detailed procedures. Changes to worker exposure limits may impact the decommissioning cost and project schedule.
1.8.2 Release Criteria This estimate assumes that the site will be remediated to the levels specified by the NRC and the State of New York. Specifically, "the total effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual of the general public, from radioactive material remaining at a site after cleanup, shall be as low as reasonably achievable and less than 10 mrem above that received from background levels of radiation in any one 2
year."[ 61 1.8.3 Labor Costs Entergy will manage the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit in addition to maintaining site security, radiological health and safety, quality assurance and overall site administration during the decommissioning. Entergy will provide the supervisory staff needed to oversee the labor subcontractors, consultants, and specialty contractors engaged to perform the field work associated with the decontamination and dismantling efforts.
Personnel costs are based upon average salary information made available by Entergy. Qverhead costs are included for site and corporate support, reduced commensurate with the staffing levels envisioned for the project.
Severance and retention costs are not included in the estimates.
Reduction in the operating organization is assumed to be handled through normal staffing processes (e.g., reassignment and outplacement).
25 NYSDEC Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials, Bureau of Hazardous Waste Radiation Management: Cleanup Guidelines for Soils Contaminated with Radioactive Materials (DSHM-RAD-05-01)
TLG Services, Inc.
IndianPointEnergy Center, Unit2 Document E1l-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page20 of 38 The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear unit is acquired through standard site contracting practices. The current cost of site labor is used as an estimating basis.
Security, while reduced from operating levels, is maintained throughout the decommissioning for access control, material control, and to safeguard the spent fuel. A full-time security force is assigned to the nuclear unit. With one exception, IP-2 is also assumed to provide for any IP-1 security requirements. IP-1 specific security requirements are addressed in the IP-1 estimate.
1.8.4 Design Conditions Activation levels in the vessel and internal components are modeled using NUREG/CR-3474.[26I Estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the IPEC.
components, projected operating life, and different period of decay.
Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from CR-0130[271 and CR-0672,128] and benchmarked to the long-lived values from CR-3474.
The control elements are disposed of along with the spent fuel (i.e., there is no additional cost provided for their disposal). Disposition of any control elements stored in the pools from operations is considered an operating expense and therefore not accounted for in the decommissioning estimates.
Activation of the reactor building structures was assumed to be confined to the biological shield.
1.8.5 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses are cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by IPEC and its subcontractors. The plant's operating staff 26 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 27 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 28 H.D. Oak, et al., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0672 and addenda, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1980 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document El1-1583.003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page21 of 38 performs the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period.
- Drain and collect fuel oils, lubricating oils, and transformer oils for recycle and/or sale.
e Drain and collect acids, caustics, and other chemical stores for recycle and/or sale.
Process operating waste inventories. Disposal of operating wastes during this initial period is not considered a decommissioning expense; however, the estimate does include the disposition of the retired steam generators currently in storage.
Scrap and Salvage The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only. Entergy will make economically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following final plant shutdown.
However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in this analysis are not consistent with removal techniques required for salvage (resale)' of equipment. Experience has indicated that buyers prefer equipment stripped down to very specific requirements before they would consider purchase. This can require expensive rework after the equipment had been removed from its installed location. Since placing salvage value on this machinery and equipment would be speculative, and the value would be small in comparison to the overall cost of decommissioning, this analysis does not attempt to quantify the value that an owner may realize based upon those efforts.
It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that any value received from the sale of scrap generated in the dismantling process would be more than offset by the on-site processing costs. The dismantling techniques assumed in the decommissioning estimates do not include the additional cost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnace ready" conditions. With a volatile market, the potential profit margin in scrap recovery is highly speculative, regardless of~the ability to free release this material.
Furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other property is removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities. Spare parts are made available for alternative use.
TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit2 Document El1.1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 22 of 38 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation The decommissioning cost estimate for IP-2 assumes that the spent fuel building will be used for the interim storage of spent fuel once plant operations cease until the fuel can be either transferred directly to the DOE or relocated to the ISFSI. Therefore, so that the adjacent power block structures can be de-energized and configured for long-term storage, 'the spent fuel handling building, and in particular the spent fuel storage area, will be isolated, creating a spent fuel island. This process can involve; establishing a local control area, installing in-situ pool cooling and water cleanup systems, establishing and routing independent power and control systems, redesigning the heating and ventilation systems, reconfiguring the area monitoring systems and relocating the security boundary. Costs for these activities are based upon experience at plants that have undergone decommissioning and, in the process, isolated their spent fuel pool operations.
Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be de-energized, with the exception of those facilities associated with spent fuel storage (temporary power is run throughout the plant, as needed). Replacement power costs are used to calculate the cost of energy consumed during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.
Insurance Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) following cessation of plant operations and during decommissioning are included and based upon current operating premiums. Reductions in premiums, throughout the decommissioning process, are consistent with the guidance and the limits for coverage defined in the NRC's proposed rulemaking "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors."' 29i The NRC's financial protection requirements are based on various reactor (and spent fuel) configurations.
2 "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors," 10 CFR Parts 50 and 140, Federal Register Notice, Vol. 62, No. 210, October 30, 1997 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document E11.1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 23 of 38 Property Tax Property taxes or fees in lieu of taxes are not included within the estimate.
Emergency Planning Fees Emergency planning costs are estimated from FEMA, state, and local fees, as provided in the IPEC budget accounts. Maintenance and service costs are included with the annual fees.
Site Modifications The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers are moved, as appropriate, to conform to the site security plan in force during the various stages of the project.
TLG Services, Inc.
L..
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit2 Document El1-1583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 24 of 38
- 2. RESULTS The proposed decommissioning scenario, major cost contributors and schedule of annual expenditures are summarized in Figure 1 and in Tables 2 and 3. The summaries are based upon the 2007 detailed cost estimate provided in Appendix A.
The cost elements are assigned to one of three subcategories: NRC License Termination, Spent Fuel Management, and Site Restoration. The subcategory "NRC License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50.75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the unit's operating license, recognizing that there may be some additional cost impact from spent fuel management. The costs for license termination are shown in Table 4.
The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with post-shutdown spent fuel pool operations, the containerization and transfer of spent fuel to the DOE or ISFSI, and the management of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer of all fuel from this facility to an off-site location (e.g., geologic repository) is complete. It does not include any spent fuel management expenses incurred prior to the cessation of plant operations. The costs for spent fuel management are shown in Table 5.
"Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination.
This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Non-contaminated structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to the local grade. Contaminated foundations are removed to bedrock. The costs for site restoration are shown in Table 5.
It should be noted that the costs assigned to these subcategories are allocations.
Delegation of costs is for the purposes of comparison (e.g., with NRC financial guidelines) or to permit specific financial treatment (e.g., Asset Retirement Obligation determinations). In reality, there can be considerable interaction between the activities in the three subcategories. For example, an owner may decide to remove non-contaminated structures early in the project to improve access to highly contaminated facilities or plant components. In these instances, the non-contaminated removal costs could be reassigned from Site Restoration to an NRC License Termination support activity. However, in general, the allocations represent a reasonable accounting of those costs that can be expected to be incurred for the specific subcomponents of the total estimated program cost, if executed as described.
TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center,Unit 2 Document E11.1583.003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 25 of 38 For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel. The GTCC material is assumed to be shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (since the fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning and the ISFSI deactivated). While designated for disposal at the geologic repository along with the spent fuel, GTCC waste is still classified herein as low-level radioactive waste and, as such, included as a "License Termination" expense.
2.1 Decommissioning Trust Fund The decommissioning trust fund, as reported in Entergy's latest status report (dated May 8, 2008) was $347.20 million, as of December 31, 2007.[30) This includes the money available from the Provisional Trust.
2.2 Financial Assurance It is the current plan, based on the growth of the funds in the IP-2 decommissioning trust, to fund the expenditures for license termination from the currently existing decommissioning trust fund.
Table 4 identifies the cost projected for license termination (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75). Table 7 provides the details of the proposed funding plan for decommissioning IP-2 based on a 2% real rate of return on the decommissioning trust fund. As shown in Table 7, the current trust fund (as of December 31, 2007) is sufficient to accomplish the intended tasks and terminate the operating license for IP-2. The analysis also shows a surplus in the fund at the completion of decommissioning. This surplus could be made available to fund other activities at the site (e.g., spent fuel management and/or restoration activities), recognizing that the licensee would need to make the appropriate submittals for an exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) in order to use the decommissioning trust funds for non-decommissioning related expenses, as defined by 10 CFR 50.2.
30 Entergy Nuclear Operations' submittal of its "Decommissioning Fund Status Report" to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter No. ENOC-08-00028, dated May 8; 2008 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit2 Document E1l-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 26 of 38 FIGURE 1 SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE (riot to scale)
Shutdown: September 28, 2012 IP-3 Shutdown 12/2015 Period 1 Period 4 5 Transition and Period 2 Decommissioning Preparations I Safe-Storage Operations 09/2013 03/2015 12/2045 06/2064 12/2065 09/2069 09/2073 ISFSI Expansion Canister and overpack fabrication License Terminated Fuel to ISFSI I 06/2021 Storage Pool Empty ISFSI Operations All Spent Fuel Off Site TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell.1583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 27 of 38 TABLE 1 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposition 1 Waste Volume Mass Waste Cost Basis Class R'J (cubic feet) __(p-Low-Level Radioactive Waste (near-surface disposal) EnergySolutions A 620,166 53,686,179 Barnwell B 31330 352,433 Barnwell C 501 45,688 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel
_(el*.i ogicr
_0 ,).__Equi4valent__! GTCC 46 14,146 1
Processed/Conditioned Recycling I (off-site recycLng center - Vendors A 381,062 15,069,040 Total [21..... ... _ 1,005,5541 69,257,486 il Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55
[21 Columns may not add due to rounding.
TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document El1-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page28 of 38 TABLE 2 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Summary of Major Cost Contributors (thousands, 2007 dollars)
License Spent Fuel Site Termination Management Restoration Total Decontamination 13,539 - 13539 Removal 86,741 2,058 45,099 98 Waste Packaging 13,502 3 13,505 Transportation 21,005 119 21,124 Waste Disposal 63,760 107 63,867 Waste Processing (Off-site) 32,441 - - 32441 Program Management I1] 246,534 73,658 36,506 356,698 Corporate A&G 33,688 -- 33,688 Site O&M 22,246 3,709 25,955 Spent Fuel Management M - 95,895 95,895 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 10503 . - 10,503 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 47,813 742 48,555 Energy 31,888 1,966 1,260 35,114 Radiological Characterization 17,072 17,072 Property Taxes - -
Miscellaneous Equipment 15,098 4 15,102 Environmental 3,521 3,521 Total 659,351 178,256 82,869 920,477 III Includes security and engineering 121 Includes capital costs for ISFSI expansion, multi-purpose dry storage containers and storage overpacks, packaging and handling (transfer pool to ISFSI or DOE and ISFSI to DOE)
TLG Services, Inc.
IndianPoint Energy Center,Unit 2 Document Ell-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 29 of 38 TABLE 3 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures Total Decommissioning Cost (thousands, 2007 dollars)
Equip & Yearly Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Totals 2013 7,993 452 818 75 2,340 11,678 2014 33,286 4,337 3,143 644 9,834 51,245 2015 15,243 6,087 1,242 450 15,563 38,585 2016 9,844 6,624 630 23 3,560 20,682 2017 9,817 6,606 629 23 3,550 20,625 2018 9,817 6,606 629 23 3,550 20,625 2019 9,817 6,606 629 23 3,550 20,625 2020 9,844 6,624 630 23 3,560 20,682 2021 6,577 3,504 469 23 2,835 13,408 2022 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2023 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2024 3,435 488 315 22 2,144 6,404 2025 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2026 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2027 3,426 487 314 22 2;138 6,387 2028 3,435 488 315 22 2,144 6,404 2029 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2030 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2031 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2032 3,435 488 315 22 2,144 6,404 2033 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2034 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2035 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2036 3,435 488 315 22 2,144 6,404 2037 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2038 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2039 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2040 3,435 488 315 22 2,144 6,404 2041 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2042 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2043 3,426 487 314 22 2,138 6,387 2044 3,435 488 315 22 2,144 6,404 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell-1583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 30 of 38 TABLE 3 (continued)
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures Total Decommissioning Cost (thousands, 2007 dollars)
Equip & Yearly Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Totals 2045 3,352 477 314 22 2,9 ,6 2046 1,4 278 314 21 1,205_ 3,668 2047 1,849 278 314 21 1,0 3,668 2048 1,854 279 315 21 1,209 3,678 2049 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2050 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2051 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2052 1,854 279 315 21 1,0 ,7 2053 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2054 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2055 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2056 1,854 279 315 21 1,209 3,678 2057 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2058 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2059 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2060 1,854 279 315 21 1,209 3,678 2061 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2062 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2063 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2064 18,046 1,528 1,904 26 3,390 24,894 2065 33,595 5,569 3,135 2,703 11,377 56,378 2066 59,374 30,267 2,986 48,793 29,516 170,936 2067 36,100 8,503 2,366 16,144 12,189 75,302_
2068 12,254 2,813 965 5,036 5,579 26,647 2069 1336 6,018 314 2,089 3,732 25,529 2070 13,376 6,018 314 2,089 3,732 25,529 2071 13,376 6,018 314 2,089 3,732 25,529 2072 13,368 5,960 320 2,061 4,059 25,767 2073 7,802 1,039 463 18 17,162 26,485 Total 448,403 137,873 35,114 1 83,259 215,828 920,477 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 31 of 38 TABLE 4 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures License Termination Allocation (thousands, 2007 dollars)
Equip & Yearly Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Totals 2013 7,993 452 818 75 1,826 11,164 2014 33,286 4,337 3,143 644 7,860 49,271 2015 9,218 1,326 1,004 450 13,309 25,307 2016 1,854 310 315 23 1,209 3,711 2017 1,849 309 314 23 1,205 3,701 2018 1,849 309 314 23 1,205 3,701 2019 1,849 309 314 23 1,205 3,701 2020 1,854 310 315 23 1,209 3,711 2021 1,849 297 314 23 1,205 3,688 2022 1,849 285 314 22. 1,205 3,676 2023 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2024 1,854 286 315 22 1,209 3,686 2025 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2026 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2027 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2028 1,854 286 315 22 1,209 3,686 2029 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2030 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2031 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 11 2032 1,854 286 315 22 1,209 3,686 2033 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2034 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2035 1,849 285 314' 22 1,205 3,676 2036 1,854 286 315 22 1,209 3,686 2037 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2038 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2039 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2040 1,854 286 315 22 1,209 3,686
- 2041 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2042 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2043 1,849 285 314 22 1,205 3,676 2044. 1,854 286 315 . 22 1,209 3,686 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell-1583.003 Preliminary Decommissioning Coat Analysis Page 32 of 38 TABLE 4 (continued)
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures License Termination Allocation (thousands, 2007 dollars)
Equip & Yearly Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Totals 2045 1,849 285 314 22 1,0 ,7 2046 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2047 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2048 11854 279 315 21 1,209 3,678 2049 1,849 278 314 21 1253,668 2050 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2051 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2052 1,5 279 315 211,0367 2053 1,4 278 314 21 1253,668 2054 1,4 278 314 21 1,2053,6 2055 1,849 278 314 21 1253,668 2056 1,854 279 315 21 1,209 3,678 2057 1,4 278 314 21 1253,668, 2058 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2059 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2060 1,854 279 315 21 1,209 3,678 2061 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2062 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2063 1,849 278 314 21 1,205 3,668 2064 17,902 1,528 1,904 26 3,390 24,751 2065 32,847 5,564 3,135 2,703 11,377 55,625 2066 57,084 30,181 2,986 48,793 29,516 168,560 2067 33,597 8,.285 2,366 16,063 11,523 71,834 2068 11,168 2,613 958 5,010 5,364 25,113 2069 138 95 0 2,089 3746,046 2070 138 95 0 2,089 3,724 6,046 2071 138 95 0 2,089 3,724 6,046 2072 308 116 10 2014, 051 6,547 2073 7,802 1,039 463 18 17,162 26,485 Total 300,431 69,436, 31,888, 83,151 174,445 6531 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document E1l-1583.003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page.33 of 38 TABLE 5 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures Spent Fuel Management Allocation (thousands, 2007 dollars)
Equip & Yearly Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Totals 2013 .0 0 0 0 514 514 2014 0 0 0 0 1,974 1,974 2015 6,025 4,762 238 0 2,255 13,279 2016 7,989 6,314 315 0 2,352 16,971 2017 7,968 6,297 314 0 2,345 16,924 2018 7,968 6,297 314 0 2,345 16,924 2019 7,968 6,297 314 0 2,345 16,924 2020 7,989 6,314 315 0 2,352 16-971 2021 4,728 3,207 155 0 1,629 9,720 2022, 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2023 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2024 1,581 202 0 0 936 2,718 2025 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2026 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2027 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2028 1,581 202 0 0 .936 2,718 2029 1,577 201 0 a 0 933 2,711 2030 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2031 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2032 1,581 202 0 0 936 2,718 2033 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2034 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2035 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2036 .1,581 202 0 0 936 2,718 2037 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2038 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2039 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2040 1,581 202 0 0 936 2,718 2041 1,577 201 0 0' 933 2,711 2042 1,577 201 .0 0 ,933 2,711 2043. 1,577 201 0 0 933 2,711 2044 1,581 202 0 0 936 2,718 TLG Services,Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document E11-1593-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 34 of 38 TABLE 5 (continued)
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures Spent Fuel Management Allocation (thousands, 2007 dollars)
Equip &Yearly Year' Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Totals 2045 1,503 192 0 0 889 2,585 2046 0 0 0. _____ 0 _____ 0 0____
2047 0 0 0 ___ 0 __ 0 0 2048 0 0 0_____ 0_____ 0_____ 0_____
2049 0 0 0_____ 0 0 0___
2050 0 0 0_____ 0 0 0___
2051 0 0 0_____ 0 0 0___
2052 0______ 0 ______ _______ 0 0 0_________
2053 0 0 0 0 0___ 0 2054 0_____ 0_____ 0 0 0___ 0 2055 0 0 0 0 0 0__
2056 0_____ 0 _____ 0 0 0___ 0 2057 0 0 0 0 0___ 0 2058 0 0 0 0 0___ 0 2059 0 0 0 0 0___ 0 2060 0 0 0 _ _ 0 __ 0 0 2061 0 0 0000 2062 0 0 0 0 0 0 2063 0 0 0 0 0 0 2064 0 0 0 0 0 0.
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0 2066 0 0 0 0 0 0 2067 423 191 . 0 81 666 1,361 2068 137 68 0 26 215 446 2069 32 280 0 0 6 318 2070 32 280 0 0 6 318 2071 32 280 0 0 6 318 2072 31 276 0 0 6 314 Total 89,115 45,689 1,966 107 41,379 17,5 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document E11.1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page 35 of 38 TABLE 6 Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures Site Restoration Allocation (thousands, 2007. dollars)
Equip & Yearly Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Totals 2013-2063 0 0 0 0 0 0 2064 143 0 0 0 0 143 2065 748 5 0 0 0 753 2066 2,290 86 0 0 0 2,376 2067 2,080 27 0 0 0 2,107 2068 950 132 7 0 0 1,088 2069 13,206 5,643 314 0 1 19,165 2070 13,206 5,643 314 0 1 19,165 2071 13,206 5,643 314 0 1 19,165 2072 13,028 5,568 310 0 1 18,907 Total 58,857 22,748 1,260 0 4 82,869 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 Document Ell-1 583-003 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 36 of 38 TABLE 7 Funding Requirements for License Termination 2013 Shutdown, 60-Year SAFSTOR Basis Year 2007 __________
Fund Balance $347.20 (millions)
Annual Escalation 0.00% _________
Annual Earnings 2.00%
_ _A B C Decommissioning License Escalated License Trust Fund Termination Termination Cost Escalated at 2%
Cost Escalated at 0% (minus expenses)
Year (millions) (millions) (millions) 2007 ________-347.200 2008 ______ -354.144 2009 ______ -361.227 2010 -368.451 2011 _______375.820 2012 - 383.337 2013 11.164 11.164 379.840 2014 49.271 49.271 338.165 2015 25.307 25.307 __ 319.622 2016 3.711 3.711 322.303 2017 3.701 3.701 325.048 2018 3.701 3.701 327.848 2019 3.701 3.701 330.704 2020 3.711 3.711 333.607 2021 3.688 3.688 336.591 2022 3.676 3.676 339.647 2023 3.676 3.676 342.764 2024 3.686 3.686 345,933 2025 3.676 ___ 3.676 349.176 2026 3.676 3.676 352.484 2027 3.676 3.676 355.857 2028 3.686 3.686 359,288 2029 3.676 3.676 362.798 2030 3.676 3.676 366.378 2031 3.676 3.676 370.030, 2032 3.686 3.686 373.744 2033 3.676 3.676 377.543 2034 3.676 3.676 381.418 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center,Unit 2 Document E11-1583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioningCost Analysis Page 37 of 38 TABLE 7 (continued)
Funding Requirements for License Termination 2013 Shutdown, 60-Year SAFSTOR Basis Year 2007 Fund Balance $347.20 (millions)
Annual Escalation 0.00%
Annual Earnings 2.00%
A B C Decommissioning License Escalated License Trust Fund Termination Termination Cost Escalated at 2%
Cost Escalated at 0% (minus expenses)
Year (millions) (millions) (millions) 2035 '3.676 3.676 385.370 2036 3.686 3.686 389.392 2037 3.676 3.676 393.504 2038 3.676 3.676 397.698 2039 3.676 3.676 401.976 2040 3.686 3.686 406.329 2041 3.676 3.676 410.780 2042 3.676 3.676 415.319 2043 3.676 3.676 419.950 2044 3.686 3.686 424.663 2045 3.675 3.675 429.481 2046 3.668 3.668 434.403 2047 3.668 3.668 439.423 2048 3.678 3.678 444.533 2049 3.668 3.668 449.756 2050 3.668 3.668 455.083 2051 3.668 3.668 460.517 2052 -3.678 3.678 466.049 2053 3.668 3.668 471.702 2054 3.668 3.668 477.468 2055 3.668 3.668 483.349 2056 3.678 3.678 489.338 2057 3.668 3.668 495.457 2058 3.668 3.668 501.698 2059 3.668 3.668 508.064 2060 3.678 3.678 514.547 2061 3.668 3.668 521.170 2062 3.668 3.668 527.926 TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit2 Document El-1i583-003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Page38 of 38 TABLE 7 (continued)
Funding Requirements for License Termination 2013 Shutdown, 60-Year SAFSTOR Basis Year 2007 Fund Balance $347.20 (millions)
Annual Escalation 0.00%
Annual Earnings 2.00%
A B C Decommissioning License Escalated License Trust Fund Termination Termination Cost Escalated at 2%
Cost Escalated at 0% (minus expenses)
Year (millions) (millions) (millions) 2063 3.668 3.668 534.816 2064 24.751 24.751 520.762 2065 55.625 55.625 475.552 2066 168.560 168.560 316.503 2067 71.834 71.834 250.999 2068 25.113 25.113 230.906 2069 6.046 6.046 229.478 2070 6.046 6.046 228.022 2071 6.046 6.046 226.536 2072 6.547 6.547 224.520 2073 26.485 26.485 202.525 659.355 659.355 Calculations:
Column B = (A)*(1+.00)^(current year - 2007) or for 0%, B = A Column C = (Previous year's fund balance) * (1 + .02) - B (current year's decommissioning expenditures) t, TLG Services, Inc.
Indian PointEnergy Center, Unit 2 Document El1-1583.003 PreliminaryDecommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 1 of 14 APPENDIX A 2007 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS TLG Services, Inc.
Do-.osossi EltI.*16.003 4ndi- Point E0r..y C..t-, Uit 2 Appsdi. A. Pa2of.Jf4 Ds*o -iaoni.gC-1 A-oijsi Table A Indian Point Energy Center. Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommnissioning Cost Estirmate (th-~oods sf2007 d.11.,.)
6600 Fu.s 55" PSwwos 640151Ios~d¶s I09 Dl-on 8 po.ksl Tnssptl Of-UsLRW Plssosslng 85 0the. " 666 186I U.kRC Toss Mp=most 150 va9.,6 CL066A B 6ras C OTCC Po18 -
P 68 Co A.lio¶y AOjo4. Ds.4t10650 Cost Cost s COO*,___ C l5 Co st. Cs... C l-t 5-6 Ca s 05 C6 S Cs. Fs et Cu.F et C . PsFe Cs. P 0 Co..F e W I. Lý . M M InS..
I i Ir. A'iM" D-s..idou- Cost PEWD is. Sh.L*odn thsush Trosst P5954is 0115905- sAg 05.
-"14 1lot I 3AF6700.4 1s4,los*rbswla sts~ty 093 14 601 641 Is ¶.2 Pmpo~s p e.6anr 86w.515sosa80W) 70 .28 61 T70 10.14 R-.o` k6,56 6*0 mýslUi a1 N5 o. .r s*
a s nOk.6*
1oI8 Oroste 10o aylsosn & p-as sf1 * . . 1.429 93 I4 ¶07 107 1.17 Fp- w, "sand o PSDA,
- 926 Ila. R-~l P.-l dw.RA N-'e 61 9 70 70
- 1. 1,: Pdo t.Id r1 -1y
¶ 1.10 E6t10,66.b9.-.4.0,s 1v617o T 5. 54 714 47 la.1.11 616d5p620561665 47 7 54 54 10 6s 80 714 70
- 1. 1.120.040.180n5I la+3 0"#*n -r4 wr iq-
- 7 &4 54 2.213 22 166 16l a 1.14 P.l0n lSER 8dt A 3.570 233 35 269 266 la.1.15 Pa5M4s S,5-Sp,40 c0*t st,udy1 Ac-, S1lsol
.W 3.513 229 3. 263 263 S61370 2.975
ý10..6 Prt. ,sp11ssl8st0) , m6 29 223 223
'61.. P100 559 *. 2.226 9 145 22 187 T *. 1.426 93 14 107 lD7 1.42
- -4 93 14 107 1of 7*5 13 86s a86 Sll572 10.6TOWS Oeýa Wkat Pm.eýe * . 640 Is.1.1.1 P1014sy 5*n11 55 6 03 03 867 7
1;.1.172 F" OA;pasSa.J6 & 05r1a8 56 8 14 64 1.1.17 TolW 1¶i1 15l11 .. 71 18.1,10 Pl86l4560054l10 8 4 a5 5 1.20 O¶s65n& d. NSSS is ¶.22 Do6sl85.'1s~ OelIrnsbo*d .716550 1sW*P rlOdaAw,* YW.-* 2.164 398 2.5:2 29S62 25.625.
3.50 P.rd 1. AM*,C-86.440 11.z,6
ý:21 Asbl* Aba-mr 1.1 0 7 202 m30 1.703 0753 89.440 11'sm
¶2 SL66" Pos9 1.64455166C-11 1,1.4 87 .1 3 1.783 1.T63 P.H1 Sfr1 1oý0014 8.P ¶0csuiM' Cle~ *b 3 22 22 10.4. P a400.4 .
P060 3 23 22
¶-3 1. P.k'p.1556OO0 OS 066 1.931 ¶03 1.156 1.156 404.3 Hd1hý- s.Jp-s6
-*bl9o 138 691 681 144 H-ýv q*n 1M. 466 . . 70 93 53 S 40 40 619 .. 12,0 5 16..5 Dmpsl.1919136W 55¶ssld 2 2 2 410 3.143 3.143 Us.4.6 Pkm-0 mg .49M51
. . . . Z 33 26 264 . 284 1.48 E -e psIy Pt*9*ng F- 98 1.079 TiLA S-4ioo IWo
!oddss Po-it R-rgy Ce-,. Vit 2 D-os3 611-JS603S D~oosogCsoA~os~ysis pp-d.s4 P5*e f 14 Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR DeLvommnssioning Cost Estimate (tIousands rW20O7dollsrs)
I Activit I
Sw"a Ak I i l 0 - '
D0.-5 IR-ovdI P-k.544ng.
0T-55pcbo51r.5 05-544 g r,
DfpoRIl LL"R csss Otr)
- a. *mI.
O Ttal T TOW Cc-.
Lk.NRC ossi TRml. Mb050R-2 Spt' e. nI Coma R50154it o
Cý ftr Vouk e Cu FMet G- . A C5*s B Cm Fqwit Cs.F.t
.n Cm lls C Cs F C. Fes!
Prsoss.I W8, LbF.
C 5
nn r W.CC Will,
)Ift
-55 Peril 1. Pw D*.'na
..- C-o (oo54.2i)
)la.0 54.080M 421 3,215 3275 0410 S.I FbI P- CAM 73a 111 049 847 41 41 I.4 I1 1SFSI OP.445)8 CoOS 6 47 -
1:4.12 4 5 Moawkng 51 8 59 59 1 4.13 Cor150 A&O 279 2,141 2.141 a1.4.14 1-,* S042COSt
- 1.648 247 1.805 1.A5 46.678
.4,1 IS Luy St* Ceu 3301 2n,306 25.366 423.4D3 154 SM.GWPoad. 1a P440d-O4psieO Co)i. 1,018 3 2 2. 34.217 5.233 40.5w 38.520 610 12,144 5 41'001 IaD TOTAL PERIOD1. COST 2.181 230 31.380 5.M4 44,6 42.M3 7.4W . 101.38 11,703 495,704 3 as PERIODItb- 0*5ST0#0 L2o DECON Ac)0*
P.-ol 15 1.WDO.o .inrsa A40v0 005,6oo ds S10.B01054S tb.1 1I R..WoICoIan-mi-I 1.54
- 77 2.391 2.391 22.977
.18:t.2154S50.5400s44.dQ 446 *253 15 758 0.818 18113 Mi.- 40-u.t 85d8h 3) 15 46 04 Abl.14 P-a4, A.Wy ito44 219 149 328 328 3.200 b1.1,15 Waidt )OdkhTOk Pl 42 S 21 63 "3 612 U,006 01.1 T.M. 2.391 "196 3.581 3.047 34*6 2,391 1.IV. 3481a 3.551 Pol,0I lD C0441.dr Coils 1b.3.1 0,00- -0fl1t . 144 1.103 1.103 10.32 P-,*0)s ul wa4t1 16 . s 440 313 m23 1.232 1.232
- 1.123 67.402 219 1 33 01i,440o505,snoS - s5 50 18.3 Sutbi P.4d 1 1.0C4i.l-l C. 1,124 so 6o 440 313 3 2 3IM 2,393 - 1.123 P7.4A2 219 P5.10 10 P51,4D50psl1f Co 104)-1 i*A6 . 713 1ts 892 692 15.4.2 tr5.00. . 291 26 291 1b.43 Prpd)y W.,5 241 71 355 350 104.5 H7q equ1041.11. fonl 1t17 10 135 1.30 1t4.6: Dopm d DAWg-04 a0 2 I 8 36 30 44 . 0.349 4 100 7 PISO.741y s4444 13 192 702 1h4:9 NRC I-* 65 7 12 72 b4,~0 45~sogsy P44Lo F- 247 25 272 - 272
.104.15 S8.41 .& 714 IN an 828 104)0 Sp".nF4S P) O&4M 16 0a 214 214 10412 IISFSIOp-r1tmipCo1 2 12 12 10A413 6,-ou M4,*,11 13 2 15 Is 444 70 540 040 145 S4soly =81 CO-1 4AS 02 416 478 101,.200 5,547 154.146 Utd8055) COml 632 6.370 8.371 1b04 S.66" P-1 I b p-601.40.04.1 Cokst 713 401 2 1 21 8,624 1.530 11.302 10.804 498 417 0.349 4 110,444 334 8.624 490 1.591 76.751 34.288 118.486 1b0 OTAL .R5JO0 10COST 4.22 401 82 442 30119 17.281 16,734 TL42 So-iit,.. fac.
Indio-o Pi.. Rooiy Cso..d. unit 2 Densoss Cos Asoboi.
Mos AppentAioA. Poo 4 f(14 Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (lhooJo.tds af 200* dollars) w1L005 IC URls 5050 F180 sift Pl.od818 Mroietn,o....d 11,eief 1AW1 end 3
IASUlo111 0005 R-awoo P-oogio Twl Ptoses*. Dispossi 0ther Teel T"~ It .10T lpt00 Rssto.O.M C0A o9cm.
aoes C Grcc Pioso.d c't~ 050001o1 ld..
o .- .typj0i I Dtt __ Co.t C."t cst Cosa Cst ots CoCoole Cs. ot Cost Cost Cost.
c- C.MF. Con C2-o .e
- o. Co.Feet MrWLA.s hbsosthý o PERIOD1 Ic -PropuIkntO for W37510 Dasskwxy PnWs Ic soWDOMMU ososNsActnal-o 480 73 512 552 P1.75-1.. 000a9
"""015751151 equal 53 - a 01 61
- 700 11 3 Wann,1 -~sy pwirIs 0110 733 220 053 953
- 10.5w2 C1.4 S.OWs. "Jtl .8005M Ii Iý Prepare a ejwntirors 5901 7? 4 31 31 101I lo.tol Perod1.0A-td, Costs 132 768 304 1.0M .ISM 14.,262 0 10 Period10008500,OICOet 1.21 Spenht FW PojIsstosl * . . . 0.133 1,2 S.IrkdefP-10 Addlon0stCos.6 * . . . . 9,133 1,310 1.70 10.003 10.503 10.03
.0503 1.3.1 P- 1soqod-ste 10 89 494 351 263 1,382 1,32 1.214 75,.11 240
,032 S108 wos hO'n-es 1 7 7 103 Skoteolusst perodIQCoirswr Cost. as 0 0 .4 351 26 1 .380
- 138g 75,615 2N6 llincsc1. Psvscd~ps~fndot Coot.,
I0
,I I--lOl~ 261 24 291 291
,1042 Plp.. 1 50.
10143 HtW1,anytim soppss 193 40 241 241 1b 135 130 10 10 4 3.073 1 103 7w 792 113 - . 1115 100.7 1800Ios 7 72 72 ICA.48 Erlno loogos 247 23 272 - 272 01084 lnI. ?its ice5 M2 B26 180 104.10 SspetFoalPW. O&Mo 26 214 214 I 04.;21 ISPS OpentoniCoot, 2 T2 104.1 QO01ý tI.M-AIr V3 2 II 15 '2 483 104.13 I04.14 10.4. 11 0504000..
S-ey w Umy SIOIC
~Csot A*0 413 5.50; 1624 78 60 83, w8 47a 6.370 540 078 6,379
- . . . . 1.765 310 106,720 Ic SotltotoPeree 10 PrsssO . fpNdrCsolt 1,X32 10.275 9.776 490 14 3.0723 118.411 849 90 494 350 1J8.61 k0.0 TOTAL PERIOD 1 0 COST 185 3,270 23.764 23.267 4w8 1.414 70,6087 14.520 118.902 3.481 ITS 1.026 9217 3.02 PERIODI TOTALS 4,414 12.374 85.913 82.043 2,A70 10,494 257.2668 60.520 733.091 PERIOD0..- WSTOR DOsn.ys~4 e 40.1fSpentFuel Stoffts Per-s 20 04.0, Ds.ootiAýoisr A.6-00
- 2. 11 OstetI lnl 115008
- 2. 1.2 0.o..ro ar.Ioesosst wrs 201.3 P.spslotooist 20 1 4 Bootlsoso108ilapiOce rl 134 28 104 154 2.." 5 Mrolsi-o t.P08 788 197 003 983 201 SoOIOI9e.102. 'Zinny Coo. 020 217 1,137 1,137 9.108rl2a04 0 Cools 2031 SpentFoaC~pew os4T-ifers 45466 6.050 52,516 52.510 24 3 0o80o.oPestnr 2. 0408.08nC-4l "9,866 6.8.0 $2.516 512,516 72.0 &tS-W. Iso.
oea0p.4 A, P. IFo3X03 Indi. n PoiatEor'g C.,tor, Unit 2 App..dlor A, P. 5 . Sf 7*4 De0o-.oi.inoqi Cowt An-1i.
Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (tho-o.d. af 2007 dol~lrs) bLt N Pul a.*8o&.*oo 0000 NOdiSit Vo1070 I U0080 -a off44-0 I g T-ooopO. Proao40 o 0080.01 00 T.W14 To7.7l UiU.TI-, lUfoq..4ooool o o V01.01- Caio. A Ca.. B C OTCC P1O.4.4 Cr0f7 Co l A -Yi4 0.40, D o oR-I&kI
- ol Po C-,l. Co.Uo* Coo0o C 000 Co ts Col C0188 CoOO C, Feet C.. Foot Cm Foo Cu. Foot C.. Foot WL-7.0. 61-ah *.
tn.. . , . 0..t don Coo. Cot OO9 P.,od 2. poo.Op~ndm Cools 20.417 ln wf 3.703 378 4.161 3,777 340 2.42 Pno~P.4 .o .a 7
-151 905 so5 2.43 H-M p8y7. swpl-oo 724 32 176 700 2,51.612 0 2.44 o lA* DW go-.a W 2 8 111 -
2o145 ptoo rgybo 3.41S 513 3.932 1,966 1,066 2.a4 NRCF10s 06 1.484 -
1.349 135 1.484 6.133 013 6,746 - .746 2.4.7 Em0o-,o Roo Foom 2.4.e S*. O&M 2.13* 323 2.471 549 1.929 2040 S FPooIM Fuel 4.615 69002 5.306 5.308 20.4.10 ISFS1Operat,9 C010 257 39 205 - 208 20.4.11 7oa4or M0o55 319 48 367 367 2.4.12 Cpflv A&G . .165 175 1.339 1,339
- 2. 4,13 5-orty 010110 C0 14.276 2.141 ¶60.47 4Z47 11,721
- 2. 4 14 M." Suvl C..* 27.611 4.142 31.752 06,80 25.186 Isa1 51.62 20 ý6Bwsn 2a.4 " ua plod 2. Po'0a.Dposo Co 724 12 a 117 05070 0.411 75.323 22,0A2 53,241 2.581 51.812 20 448.803 2.0 TOTALPEPJOO20COST 724 12 8 117 II71700 10.470 129.006 23.149 1053.57 PRIOD 21,- 04T8070 o od p .0 Dry 3, "l 0wap perod 2b DMdl N -c~s*-, A-s 2..A7I Oua
- b. y fl7 20.12 Sem-,.. rMu e.oomoon7 ,
o078.7 2b4, 3 ' .P 0 040o0
- 24 79 003 6073 3,1f1 769 3.584 3.14w 2b.1 22 7 . 2b ACooly Period 3.0,7 84 4.449 4,44 203 7 SpowlFmI Cal0 -I T1 ,4r 5,713 057 5.570 . .579 2D.3 0 S4bWo1U P."0 Z20 C ndC- 5*.13 807 6.S70 6,570 Peod` 24 Penos*)op*.o ntCorJ%
2b.4. . 13.T36 1.374 15,110 14.754 302 2b44.2 P0080471o 2&.4.2 , H04 "q`- &uppi7.s 2.375 004 2.0 2.98B 29 420 - 115 612 612 9.405 188.114 74 244.4 0o40.*0 73oAW 0004 0 . 43 2b45 Pk"1elo 0m71 T.0 1.004 7.694 7.894 2b4 . NRC7Fo.. 5.278 528 5.806 SA0N 2b04., Em7*oro PFI40ne Foos 17.71
, 7,777 70,0448 15.84 2b.4 8 2004 O&M 3L475 572 3.928 2,14a 1,780 2b.4.0
- 795I8471 Op Cnn anV 1.045 715 1.176 - 1.157 1.24a 107 17435 1.43.
2b04.2t . C-A&G 4.008 884 5.242 5.242 N O27.4 4.122 31,600 19.1n8 12.437 4316W0 0.049 0ý0210 254.0 24.514 816,033 204 3 LRy SlW Col 2b4 S0 Poerd 2bPe- D"ep.3d.. 00l0S 2,375 43 20 425 124.A41 172-8 145.398 85.522 59.787 9.40 . 104.114 74 1,S.0 017 2b.0 TOTALPERO0 21,COST 2,375 43 29 422 134,155 109.30 150,327 08.077 80,300 9,40 . 188.114 74 1.506.017 PERIO02C- S0F7TOR000 MltOMA Spent Fu.d S010.8 Penle 2&04.74 00,o7o7n0.gs-nq A4.b4o.4 2.1 17 O4087W70800 2c 1.2 5404-anmnuo eno,.n- l -oy 20.1.3 P.7p0.- 1000 7LG S*ru..* 1-.
ID-o.oot 031.98800 7n46,,. Pi.. R'sc.y C'nt-o Vbil 2 AD"e.di. A. POE 6 .f 14E flooe..o-ss. C.a4 A-1.b8.
STable A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decom-nnisioning 0 Cost Estimate (thons,,d. of2 07 dollars)
F§7Z17 ýL6i D...6 Co Coo1 Co. ca." Conto Cools Coft 396 Coooooo 53 Cool 455 Co.,
4ss
__ Coa Coo Cu-F..C.F.,CPo C o .. CCF.-1 ... wtA~.
un. 10814 It-looos -*e .(8oonal4ol -
I2O. 4 2,3n 5.11 2.907 2.907 2,1 5 Mnai-o0 IWO.
2.1 SMoeaWP-1 2Ac, y r,. o . 721 641 3,362 3.362 Pn.on 20P01c0.D00101 CoV 244.1 .- . . 1,139 085.00 1.014 11.153 - 11.153 2c 4.2 P019011Is- to.
2c4.4 a IH0wuP1,6 0 ,M. - .*8W - 422 23-50 2,110 55 6,947 13, 30.939 28.4 Dp.SWd DAn 32 21 - 314 85 452a 52.
2.4. PMr F -m .e ow.05 758 4,816 5.815 2C4 6 NRC 141 3.969 391 1.302 4.310 2o.4 G4 O-L ." .M 19412 212 ,.623 1,623 2.49 : o M.o4e .8n 943 142 1.084 1,005 2c 49 Copsnl1 AA,..G 3.M5 517 3.140 3.961 * -. . . . 258.371 204.10 U..8t SW761 Co. 1-,-17 1.868 14.48U 14.403 2.4.11 S4C01 0i44a., . - 16.687 2.51.3 19.42D 10.420 Co.s 1.8"9 32 21 314 54.465 7,670 64,491 64A491 6,W47 138.93 55 626,971 Z04 _5. 4 P4od 1c PeM5Od-oop8010, 2.0 TOMAL PERIOD2ýCOSr Y 1,608 32 21 314 .57.187 8,611 6.7.33 6T.853 6.94? 378, 13935 6 825.071 W91.833 . . 378.M52 ISO 3.029.881 PIOODZTOrTA. 4.78i 4,70 87 Os 8 313,589 44.368 353.186 180,972 172.213 PERIOD 06 U,.60 8 S Fo~oOig aAFS7r Oom D-y Pw,593. a-4 0.0,ls.00_-V A 805 61 9 M0 70 928 3.1 1 01*91001171= = 001101050008 3,284 214 32 246 246 Sao;2 R-, lobs&
aft-2 qWS.
341 3 P810- ftý 1-8I01 47 7 54 54 714 3., 1 4 610 P.1- 0-080- 925 3,1.9 0880.. W 0104 flI~l 9 70 70 349 52 402 402 5.2155 3.1 6 12.6.j.1101000606 2,213l 22 166 106 3u.17 PrfO1SER044EA 3,570 3a.1.6 PM-11 So~.0poof.Co1 Slo4, 233 35 268 268 2.926 1
3a1, 9 Pip.*96655111 1.6-8 0Fl10110 0(0 191 29 219 219 3a.;.11.1 R.-L01~t. 0007L w -1191119086 343 51 395 353 39 2,975 3,. 11.2 0(. b *- 29 223 201 20 331 5s 380 386 5.069 4.041 303 45 340 348 3.1.11..4 R- -Ws~s.
357 3.1.11.5 6.o~laýi 23 3 Z7 27 2.228 3.A 111651., 0409 145 22 167 167 43 1.142 74 11 8a 43 34111 ooole 040
- 31. -11 U.lloln.M 3 21 21 296 3 21 21 30 .1
' a 84oC-l8od 145 228 22 167 64 84 3.284 214 32 286 246 34.11;.11 WOO.~ A01ft0111 6 46 24 24 643 42 278 2.130 1.W75 252 26.461 U I.1. TOM 1? 129 129 1,714 3, 1.12 P,.,-o 60.111095q.115 112 3..3'jI' 06.001 w a7.84107400 2.419 363 2782 2.782 Is 75 1.000 31.18A 1211449 _OW, d.0.5001011 *. . . 8 10 34 (15 RegeolCol Cnw 6I t141lO6091 30w 2.356 2,316 TLOGS_.ooioA 101.
Dsoo.s* Ell-15.*-3-S IMdis Pmj$ S-rgy C-n8,. Unit 2 App,-r O PAP 71Gf24 Des~ooi0 CC1 A.W01.
Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate ith-osads sf 2007 dollrs)
NRC Spool 1-1 Fuo Sto Ml tOaVns 05i BUfl -- ,
511.
01f-0t ULOW WsOsI Od Tm U.Js.
Ter WbownSt Rsostomon Voumo Chos A Cos.BB C!os. C OTCC Po d CoM C-laoto I I00447 OoZon RoooPsJs C
c-Pso l
og s
P-1 c-l
. *P Ccs OaT.,
Cools 0 0 C-s 0 0oo C-. F-1l k. C. F- Wt- Lb. o M rl I
- . 878
- 3. 1 16 PIocu.r a.sM -15& Oconlslfo *ST 2 68 6 * . - 51,010
- 3. 1 Stail0 P.15 3. A.OoCOOO 7.052 1.079 9j=0 0,175 256 . - . -
Poýs 25000607. CO..
3.21 *O S. C -ooblllos - 2218 065 2.843 2.003 3.2 S&UsWPýo 3a A4,s Coo 2,218 M5 2.A03 2513 Pe,r0433,PWo4.0000115, Coo
.5 0W3 603 3.4A2 P1,-ll-l 3.4.3 Ho450phy0* osses k 436 109 545 545 304 -
304.5 o I-oI~oy 5 IQ00W 1514 n 44010 flA 7O 536 535 3.405 DPlospcofLA OQfd0 td 2 2 23 6 33 33 514 10287
ý'-LA Ph e.gy Wg - -" - 2,70 410 3,143 3,143 258 20 204 284 3U.4.7 NRCFens
' .7.0 293 3.01 2,001 51 a 59 59 31.49 G-oO.onows M1*ng
- - 1.ia02 279 2,141 2141 304.10 C01950IOAOG "
.0411 30412 S0.oaysm IM3y S4fl C-
~C-o *- 2.540 14.014 304 2,249 2.942 11.243 2,942 I7.243" 2 2 23 24,745 3.05 29.530 29.530 4 323.807 3.4 S f,,s P.11d 30 P3. 5100p000d15 Col-s 901 514 23 34.810 5.700 41.443 41,11 255 014 12,287 4 375.717 30.0 TOTALPERIOD323CCS 001 2 2 PEfOlD 310- -00 -0m0ng PmAUIOCO
- . 3.319/
S3:1 5o 307 348 301 2 0-t 0o so-.- " Ira8 93 1,743 27 2W0 204 31 1.13 RemainS9 OIdir0 96 14 11 28 064 sy
- 70 82 02 714 3b1.14 CRIO)c..o4s 10 714 3b 1.15 CRl 'sawoomn, & Cl 5.0 71 11 82 82 11 42 02 714 250 2.592 3blt 1 6 h-a~ "Zý 39 297 297 as 13 9s 49 857 32 5 37 37 321 361.110 7 o0.Oosnb-d 25 as7 13 90 50 37m 3,204 3b 1..12 I RI 5n0101. 327 49 376 71 11 &2 41 714 301.1.13 0550"ru561* III 17 127 127 1.114 12T 1,114 3b1.1. To sCo.owww Ali 301.1 310*40 bi 194 -29 223 201 22 * - 1949 3011.ýl0 Roo.5o 194 29 223 201 22 511 23.02 3 ... 5045 P0004 304140Co 2.291 344 20535 2,124 3b0114404601 CoR-ols 511 . - 23.G22 2,291 344 2,025 2,124 30.2.1 SUlkrf0l 0010101 n 5.0165650 Ad14*on*l.P3,5030 3.93u 5w0 4.025 4.025 3N2 3.035 590 4.525 4.525 P.,kW 30 COýo~l.Coos 30.3 I 2.D 04501 044 1.103 0.13 30.312 P". 1."000W4014 995 143 1.100 1.100 30.3 Sb0104 Pýlo 3b Co40o0 c-0 950 957 257 2.203 2,203 TOLGS. o.
1-e
DoW-eeIE21-438-003 1ndimo Pm.6 El",rgy CG-1r., U.if 2 App*odi. A. P.E. 84 14 M--o..o.i-i-ht Co4t A-y3.4.
Tabie A Indian Point Energy Center. Unit 2 SAPSTOR Decomnlissioning Cost Estimatre (th 0306ds of 2007 d.11.,.)
100 PL.4 sit. P-eo"d 044304
.. d4 May.Vi.m
- 08.83. 4+/-8W 90.0 0 W.. 8004.1o4.4 Paging c03 Trin.o e1 P' 8 C Other LoT n .1A= ot I l= 4 10443 C.... C..Soo r.
C-86 C... C. 04 ... 00.
00C.
C.4~
0C C 3s.0.3 o
844.4..
1 UmO..fl Co4011 3*0fl 3
I-l. Aýj 304.3 Doconsqisdo 7 37 37 S024 n;O_44A 307 3M 333 3317 3b43 PropsrMfa-0s 3044 34"M pi""0 0.43f40
- 243 3o 3300 30.45 H-n wap* o. .n.t 230 36 271 271 0443 2 4 Is 30 3b4.7 %r04 4 1,385 200 1.593 1.593 131 3b,4. fP... 13 144 M44 3,.4.40 34. 0444 1 223 18363 1i0 ",407 4 30 30
.. 4131 03 '.0.34Moo.0. 342 03.85 3,083 281) 304.12 Soooy Stti Co- 1.207 304 3,491 3.491 304.13 32, l4 543 C- 3.043 3*3.10 12,T73 3 4 2 214.884 3..4 suD.OIw period30. Pft o4-Oe33 n Co.t. 30 476 13 16.433 Z,.47 10.43 19.403 5.804 513 2W3 1.843 2 237.M48 3D.0 TOTALPERIOD31 COST Sao 1.43.3 13 22.640 3.768 20.045 20,334 Us ,334 4 2 78 40.303 6 6,3,603 PERIOD3 TOTALS 34 07,453 0.408 70,330 69.022a PERIO0 44 - -" 0-00ý0.3 Re-1o.)
F~l,,d 40 DMWD - 9 Anmýn~
9330., S3*.03 .
S34*4 R....40 IN 763 .17.710 5.523 403.3.3 0340 C04303P4")2 34 334 32 31 3M 226 324 3.34 1,040 43 43 0.57 153 4A1.1 2 Pr-awe2 R00f TP £0 2 4 2 2 S 123 a 42 42 2.115 330 4,324 1.274.302 3.81 403.I3 Pvo.
l4 la'dPo-n &M 28 123 53 214 301 2.115 33 70 .297 - 2,341. 258.971 1,805 354 553
- 61 1.011 1.011 37,Y4A 16,303 3,1113.63 20.00 2.633 1,955 3.067 2.;75 4.279 312.4 13.645 13.345 13,527 37.344 I6.303 .. 3,111.603 30.8W 2.850 4A0A. 16 R Wr
.* SIM "W"Tn " Un 070 331 1.956 3.307 2,051 13.527 40 753 2.947 83,4 SM 2.120 -
40.1.11 Rl9.8 RV0.304. 53 92 1333 34174 179 513 2,312 37 501 . 324.050 36.12 803 04 2.444 3.170 18 4,53 34538 14,538 11.141 - - 496 304.140 4.1'1. V..w44& In1 0 GTCCoual." 13702 3'.049 Q3.049 8.481 2.055 . . 14.083 . 38.767 803 41 p.103a1V 002 439 6382 140 0054 21.931 21,931 .
292 20.537 80,476 80,476 71.586 51.823 31330 501 486 9.408.30. 7013 71.305 312 13,.34 9.306 7,063 4,336 3IS.0 R-mo 4 M.,w Eqwpnco.
3731,04 7.141 403.2 M.i o4..3o. o4 500 230 55 692
- 261i 1.743 1.743 4,374 3X243 6,047 3M,93,3 27.4"3 4.1,3 M.4nCoOl . 1.914 141 45 0 . 5&3 3.24a
- 4. .14.1 o RC 0W 0o-4'M311
.nr 0 0 40 14.9177 234 1.791 3,790 422 403_4.1 00WVAuCo.00,0r4 47 7 54 30 758 36 11 8as 0 4eI 4 Tudw. B.M.9*1 U92 334 786 719 4.1 42, Ws... H.16,0 .0. P.3 342 2 36 16 38 2.745 1.14' 2.,163 4.34 To.TS 2.341 DPOt3 W4 P8403 Sy 34.0 5.420 7 Rq,-*'l 331.977 Zll.5 1 w Sli-l & Aw4 377 6 17" 216 130 744 704 6246 40,.52 A-. Stl, A&0 Oo. Re W (RCA) 1 4 47 26 151 Is, 253.22 1.360 73 307 14.381 am 4I.. 53 A-. S30.3-P30v3 PI.. 3 2 20 433 17.505 9w 443.5 4 A. S3-APn-y PI4 (RCA) 65 3 3 33 22 123 123 4.1355 3...*3gC" Wi 287 43 33 330 4,420 4a 1666 Ct*mi" C"* 607 03 63 - 699 155 44.1.57 C3heia Food to TLG 907icea. 1-0.
Indlius PointEnergy Cot-, Unit 2 A*p7.mk8 A, P* * .fJ4 D -omw..4.iont Cont Axofo-Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR Deconmmissioning Cost Estimate (lthb d..nof Z007 doil-.15)
Of"-SlLA- m0c Sp- F5,I sm o 5.0r01Vtwools Bw1.,utyI Wlt 4305117 D.,on 00.0.0. P .cVit T1p1o9 P0r0**.n DI=,4 000.r T081 y Tm.
To1ll U,Cot 400n- R"sCo... 08 Co., Cho.O*
C Feet C.. 500,*
A Cw e cla.
C,. 51c G4TcC Co. 5001 P..
00L.L .
0ritCotracsolI M.Ono.l, 00.01 ... I 014.0 A8,rllI 00.0r311o 05,t CO4l CornO COrti Ctl.rt Co stsCmlCooS CaSlo Cool 2 93 11.87 711 "4. .5 A C9800 Foo t RCAI 52 8 22 17 93 242 0 5 304 4S 4a.1 559 C-isnl.Oly1WOw8n .3 0 I 0 1 5 5,14 1.60.085 22.748 to-oN*M:oo S.rJ.W.o, 48.1.610 244 3,51 a00 5.795 S 1464
- 0 2 111 35 z2 222 *. 59.450 467 4.1512 Co oo04V* RA 1.701 115 17 133 133 4.15A13 CO*O45..l. 35647 1.57T,510 39.510 2.150 62 .235 2.934 1,021 6.410 6.410 2 10 W2 92 11,751 F0o 441 514 Oem*n*hts. Rw.*i,1. 51 0 22 71 3 1i 1a 2*99 t21 4.1.6.15 Et0.00*9 i*4 IR.**
- 13.230 537.069 10.471
- 4. 1510SAS00095nSi- 744 21 341 0.15D 2.150 1,104 45 0 625 321 .405 2364 2.664 - 8,272 1,408 407.03m 10.098 4*1I5,$? F..40-8..'ak 711 11 01 87 1,129 61 37 207 287 3,03 974 22 13.26 751 541 303 2.254 2.254 0.944 205 427.750 5 11. 10i40 S, g. &
4.1.521 *117 .Sm5 53.,42 3,337 233 2 is 440 440 10 57 57 209 0,409 411
- 4. I 5.22 HuLoi Sun- A ConMO.i (RCA) 20 0 10 105 1 32. 179 110
- 510 4.81.5.23 H1wv St- ACo*o4.s,. - FH7l
- 14 . 39 20.715 1.305 40.1.524 52, h01 & Vcum 015 A 1 4 57 40 1.5.25 Hyp1o90C*O Fv4t 31 Is 4l 1.52i 4.1.5 27 LP 71 0.Wol P2 Ponabum 01"01-0.0g o TaO.k
& Vo.
160 729 is 10 so 0 25 257 103 1,491 1.491 193
- 6.1067 2.430 4L1.5 20 Lt- Lt-Id IMok.Finh So- WaS 2 lB 230
- 4. 1.5.*2 2 Los L.-i V040 m pmi*r8 Mo 3 a 4 4..1530 L,81 o0 10 2 12 12 4a0 531 L-O.Lo.. 3 23 23 305 4.52 44 1.533 At35,
- AA-S.0J-
~~op o - 286 2O 105 0 5m3 3
3.099s 3,005u 3
17,30 *. 703.110 16.930 4 1.5 34 U Ma. oRCA1 nS 20 323 124 765 755 1?3.G56 1487 4,205 I.3m 4 1535 Ww. 044.o.So.o"~o Pian 2 I 4 4 352 30 1.57'7 2.739 481. 536 M1 ,. 5paw A HP MIR DRa V 210 44 5.437 0.437 4: 1.6 W Poi F*4W 1 2 0 0 4,1 38 Ruil MonI0, C. & S., M, _0 1 3 3 10 0 240 40.1 539 Rat 0,8100CO-l504400.. 3 2 2 125 16 4a.1540 RmwIN- FiO4 14 110 21 1,4,7 21 3 24
- 307 481.41 S.sls8 44-5VW004CA& &,W Wore 27 344 451.542 0AG. FitPW L8bf 23 4 27
- 4. 1. 43 S2 i r1.. Nborni Co.n- I 1 * . . 140 4a154.4 5081 G*oo.081O* n~o - 310 2 23 14 02 02 13 12.591 575
- 2 0 I 4 4 10 4:::4,150 50.llbo.1l. RCAJ J0ag .7 525 29 4.1.,5 47 581.- G ý OS.4 o 0.0,. 000.0 A 403 3 12 140 125 091 690 79.400 5.622 i 7 52 80 431.5.47 Tuo" GeIandSail, 456 7 52 115 4a.1.5.40 V"0.ls oPnrll - 194 29 223 2.M0 4&.1.53 W.s-e H *4I-T~o oP 314 20 44 291 166 173 1,017 1.017 2.3? 4.578 40.1.931 Witt Tom 197 30 227 227 2,434 14.273 363 1.214 14,307 54S ,7.15,301S 300,355 4a.1.5 T1a1d 5.651 .%5 6.501 2,74 3.445 100.
40.16 SooItOuol0. pp. a 40w144n01g 3 32 5 135 095 m5 317 23 0.*~~ 6.247 2.485 217.429 54,53 3.330 1.305 40.1 5.U4,1al P.ood 40AAN 0y Coinl 312 33,449 9.184 90210 20.3211 32,035 20 27.82T 131.455 1203S72 501 40 1035.5 3530,-23 4 .3.1 FVros. I,.id .- W0 30 20 Il0 1s o0 299 290 .1.700 50 40.32 S. I . jt 0 c aoil 472 71 543 481 54 4.3.3 Sm., 01, R-16~0 N0058t,OpMaud 11t 33 144 144 280) 54 255~10.r500 5 40.3 &63" PO.nod4. CIA..1. C-.. 36 412 20 110 70 lit 160 905 931 T/O Striv* In-.
14i,. Po.1. Eo-gr C-atlr, 02id 2 Appe"44A, P.sio JO of 14 D- lwu oiog Cowl Afoobio Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR Deconnissioning Cost Estimate
(¢housonda o,(2007 4.11-.r) 011u"ol 110l1lR NRC Sp-l 708 09 =*urial YaIoi. 04.11 Ure 004 00l~o1~ 00.0. 5l- 0.R-1 P.8006,4 T-soo.o P-ai...' ODopooo 0060, I".0 Tlo. UN.1,., Ifna- R-00.001 V,01 C08 A C 11 CNN.C .7CC ""'MCOI oooo In-. o.4l, tD-H. t Co.. Cool Co-h COON Coo. Cool Co." Coot- Coo. Co. CooI Coot Cm o Nt. . =Fo CI P0 Co.79 P0188.10 Co.F N800o0080 No 0 4.oP0OO~o4 Cýt.
10 IS 6 70 441 O0al007. 644 60 711 711 4a.4.3 P1p,0w'y 2,148 53, 2.684 2.,00
- 4. 4.5 H"ov ooo,,or Woo Z.430 - 364 2.794 2,744 4.6A 0-4-po* DAW000105 23
- 220 - 02 320 329 .5 Z.s 5,90 ,
- 2.215 416 3.191 3'1%1 4,.4.8 NRCFoot 300 37 104 004 404..9 5" O&M 3.073 461 3,5:4 3.534 48a41o R~d*,. P-mlkicg E* *pW-VS. 397 60 457 457 54 a 63 w2 40.412 .9 294 2298 228 24.413' 4 4.14 S ~
CýoO~oI A&G l201Cýt SW UVty Sl Coat - .
2.733 24.05 410 3.720
.143 28.24 3,143 211.524 69.643 407.020
- - 5.044 100,91 40 4T7,4T1 404 50, 1 P-I2d 4, 01o l.S0P.10P0l COON. 03 45S7 23 16 228 36.M3 644 4.1, 48,201 9,M97
- 2.,20 277,429 50,.910 3,3120 231 499 16.133,290 352151y 408.,77 4.0 TOTAL PERIOD4ACOST 410 384R9 9.,5* 20.328 32.441 37.241 34.441 102.04.4 10,1 PERIOG, Ab- S"t D-904imln PS-1t 41,0-. Doool0000lO L 442 11,62 1.812 230,11 1.201 4b.1.1 Ronýr.. wd hw nooL. 519 60 150 71 542 2.165 00064P1.11 GyOno 0,1T7 050" 451,542 14,292 M0 3& N0 443 192 410 2.410 2,401
$.061 7'10 142,45l 7.220 40.1.22 C0.lrn & 2o1,me C0nr44 50 20 3I 146 153 194 ".055 1.055
.00 35 72 603 212 I.010 7,45 071 389,520 0.672 40.1:243 C1rnownolCoo WI., 260 1.610 9.452 2,236 584.300 19.966 0124 1 Co, Co0n0 W.I. (OCA) 1,360 64 119 714 419 589 3,365 5,365 7 519 147 34,230 1,572 100 5 7 .39 32 43 235 235 205 501 20,360 1.174 4b.1.26N C01PI AU(RCA) 120 1 3 38 38 205 05 2.037 190 401.2.7 C.ýKlamnl H4.14-0 2070 (RCA) 14 0 0 5 4 23 23 233 40 1.28 canli*rn-fl.OOmnl Al 2 17 5.274 208 4h1 29 C0.boAlowrotM1mal Au(RCA) 23 0 1 10 7 42 42 4 1.2 10 C-Ai=on S-sY 187 - - 28 215
- S 21s . 2,79D 1,412 67,345 2,357
. .2,11 Cwft M18lOytCA) 110 2 9 107 * .
01 17.512 830 62 1 3 33 21 11a 1la 431 29 D 1 19 I0 60 s 10,08 384 4b 1.2.13 O, a 1,749 -- -
40.1 2.14 -
eon0*8.-oNoH RCA 2112 2,011 2.011 - 254845 Z,.12 s. Elýw- CW FICA 1.086 8345 6345 1.1011350 42.246 4b1.2116 Et.w - CoOCAm - 9951 00 lOS 2.25 149 842 842 ,24,323 0225 432 6 20 218 17 3,041 77 52 140 4 6.410 420 401.2.17 040208 - FHO 29 0 1 11 1 0 52 lb1. 1 1 1 1 W~a 1-*&[* - 20 201 2,619 40b12 1: F1, Pmecfiw & D0n7101Wam 1.1' ) - 174 - 201 11 al at 12201 448 32 1 3 33 431 247 Do 113 603 603 32273 .00 169.510 2.120 4b.1.2 20 F-I Pt (RCAI a1g 14 31 4b 1.221 110lPa4. FHB 27 2 2 3 10 10 54 S0 35 47 5.75 383 14 130 525 67 27.151 7IT 4I I 22 Cýo $0W1o.oCpoGA 53 2 5 -0 24 130 23 120 120 18,116 870 0.1223 Gcl WoVoolýoECOl(c.) so 2 1 I 185 11 '812 25 00 1224 600s0 WoN -W -..FB 2 0 o10 19 3,*52 110 40.1 2.25 H11 - RCAIFHO) o 19 ',37,'Wo 3,11s 4b I 2.26 HVAC-RCA1Or1h1) 260 6 20 256 121 110 326 41.2.27 141H60 Fk.a -P0101.46 I 0 0 0 a 5 5 19 3Se 401,228 Ooygon(RCA) 2 0 a 1 707
- 6 0 0 2 13 20 1,152 116 41.1 2.2g *
"0M tl* MM 2 13
- 5 0 0 2 2 a 9 2* 1.061 73 40.1.230 React 10 (RCA) 60 3 4 a 24 'M. 148 ' 91`32.g 014 4b 1 2.31 R90w0C110,067.0106M 23 121 121 132 737 737 1.67 am 14,,76 2M219 4b.1 2.32 60O11oCýWd 2.5 22 30 121 201 TLG Sorokoo fo.
In-h- Psi.W Ess,02 CiiMr Unit 2 D-ut"Im..i-Mg, Cost Anolys.. AjpFOOdioAP.S.39o14l Table A In~dian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFS1'OR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (tha..saado. sf007 doll~s.)
af-. 0.31190lip P.1l Sho FosKbso Boslo VOlo_. 044k taI WHY Croft a*
In..o0sliy 703... ~
Ass .o ~
n Dw"o Cm oi R8941.
Cm P.0="00 04 7ron.olw Cosob PtI..sosgt" D0.po.I Cs.t cs.
Othoi cosio sobd Cenio Togo Lk.1,,s
- Co.c. Cod.f Maoamasoo Coost Cooto Va.
C.. Fý CI...A C.. FoI CWoý10 O&&IiC 01TCC Proo..o C...FoIt C...F.4t C...FWc WWLasb- bs.l ~Wld D~.Po,,I0aPinin,3Sv.o 55154)
.1111849 4.1112 401;.233 ReOl-io00Sp.Oy
- 340 55 13i 227 269 1.701 1.701 40 2,34 Rm0006100o4osi0 414 50 6211 207 1.3*2 1.312 - .8,30 337.542 6.003 13 244 . 4.011 40 1 235 Oswely I%-s 20 30 M9 -
9 44 44 40 19- 3,3M 4"9 40 1 236 54.55kg - 30 1 3 4 Ab1.2327 S5W.0l1 (R9C.0 2 14 26 131 131 23 63 6.5"0 1.3D 2
4b.7I2.3 5.050 A...50fiu0 RW Ow~ 3 I 58 2 14 14 103 - 4.544 48 002 77,400 1,031 4111 2.39 50.5 &Onain 3 33 - 24 135 - 135 49 "4 2 4 13 7,155 347 4.1.2.0
`4(1 6nýi (0R52A) - 21 41.241 Waitit Oaspoo 11 54 Q6 14 416 414 752 24% 70,151 2.271 to 15 ;1 91 411 477 62,3*0 2,713 Ab01.4.2 WOMs0apsuk 5FICA7 1I 3 34 21 122 122 78,194 4A 40 1.2.43 W89.115lo0ks.225a 63 4.1.I .0o'40 12,0.53 7 6,917 1.939 4,453 6.5*14 23,775 2.743 91.572 . 9.478 4,513.5*3 173.408 401.Aa S k7,g"n 1489050 O51001c40140 7W 5 47 a 203 1.,42 1,042 28.568 12.370
-555 32 S.~B.44,np asos.~sS 00.01 0-., (ýoarnn 1.415 934 138 233 543 1.138 4,4148 4,448 921,883 32,750 43 4.42 I 0027.05 Ca" 131 275 - 400 188 1.091 1,091 15.633 1"563,350 1.150 72 40b1I3 F-S S-"og 6o54n 445 490 14 145 27 376 1.504 1.504 '2. 6114 14.9g72 13.00 17 55 53 117904 483 4 44 Mi..5nona 5501"p428.0" 31 3 35 0 - 3 045 PtiO.sn.nkC..oo o-n - 12 137 23 7'a 40 466 7.403 100.300 173 404 P6 r Auo40'5404.6dn 226 75 34 10 33 51 153 54 UK 434 2,12*2 220,09 4,253 40n41 47.01 ho4St 042 20 431 1.i53 - 2.44" 1,332 1,117 7,117 94.153 9.418.250 12.110 401.4 iiiiaiiii, 2540 I. f 43 12 2 2 4 11 20 102 102 54 404 42.007 170 Ab14 T044. 2.541 Z2.9 0G2 2,231 415 3469D 3,310 15.407 15,407 5,454 131.0810 * . 13.107,2m4 W9.49 41,1 SuioW Pod Fs4b 25 ACIotiI0 i 3,051 15,468 1.131) 3,1. 7.379 t2c1? 2.401 44,710 42.M 2,743 07,235 143,050 17.19.5.0 656,7611 ft o04b644.00542. .
0 4b 2 1 FillS No.SI.yo ProW-0,JAIo.8950 052 19S 44 a04" 6.2Q4 3,10 332.518 8,565 t.2.0 0 2ý2 ISM0IJoa.s Tiiosýo 647 103 as am3 344 1,4Wi0 - "am 46.2,3 AMPCO S050 R...iaton 285 to 422 1 619 3.399 3.3W0 - 90.304 10.436.,oDo 2.331 1.741 220 1,212 1.272 24.*41 1,80*0550 544 -
40:24 02.0SO 5s5aon Re00 e 72 323 643 70 7.311 5,518 1,40 12.4727912 11.100 1.324 40 2 0020408PcW4 00,44410,B 000 1,004 tO,* 2.509 1.315 1,341 127,04 PenodSb091410002.40 40.31 Poo.ko hWOS 5%9 31,991 144 204 148 . 104 5" 403.2 53r4"00 c.
4o . 34 390. . . .5 4.49 449 40233 0-nii.coaos Eqopnro,4 Dosoco '35 59 5w 42 i's am ON S 8.00 373 303.5*7 at 5
45314 Sons," 0 Roic.. St 5.p5s0 P 894 224 1.103 1M162 003 Siia.oWt`IP.1c84b c00ftr coota 24 350 113 2138 502 230 834 001 3.077 3.071 4.004 207 335.49* 162 401,n140 ft 40554 0540)Oodocot 4001 O.,,0400.
D 775 4042 1500000 044 H Splyb . plc 052 2.310 2,258 404 H05"55s45 m 011001 2.9432 ol 441 3,304 3,304 4044 OktOost*W48 40105 p. 12 47 248 248 6.334 30 41,47 *444401s.5 adgel 401 3.075 3,075 9
40 40: hfC Foo 2,541 45 493 A03 4049 52.0000A 341 2.022 2,9U 4064180 R04,0114 Pnsssc~isg F,,,I imScs1 57 73 $57 f57 110.4411 Gflsfl"it,0o~i~rs10 2424 10 76 76 41,412 00,700(07.0 1,032 M34 2,793 2.793 4004.13 S00000SionCc 100 1,117 1.107 30.240 TL42GS*,io Il-
Ividi.n. Pt.o E-',g Casto. 77.gt D- -~ne..i.,n Co-t A.ody~i. Appesdw A. Pege 12 f.J4 Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (tho..-nd. of 2007 do.1r..)
AcL4t0 RLMeoo P 8Il569q0 Tm wna P ma. ie 04posM 09 9. 98 Tow t Lk. Tillm U9 9 e-iw R mt do fn Vo i lot CUM, CA04 S C 8 C GTCC PtC ln OO C* 4nnl Perod 4b Poo .DepenApnt Coss coo4k-d) 4b 4.14 UA, 59 Co=l- . . . 19.535 2.930 22.465 22.465 - 337,280 3
4b4 Sao ,Pi bP.so9-0.p.M.dt* C-I4P 775 41749 7 12 173 29.m8J ".57. 41,297 41,297 3,811 76.334 30 3665.*0 4b60 TOTALP'ERSOD4bCOST 3.924 21,612 1.421 4.435 7.8W2 9.119 32206 15,670 96.470 99.928 1,80o 2.743 103.233 274.448 30.970,480 2MJOW 374,040 PERIOD4d -.0"y99 ba4o8 oI T.er8 tol9 P.-80 4dPe-o,.Oep.504 CoILn 40.4.1 9.sUcaL.-
Pp" 4.4 2 Pp .Oinytaon - - -. . - . . .-
46.43 0hylim4wc 7 H59tI.I 60 -- Is 74 74 - - +
4d.4.4 09p8a. IIIDAWg99 . 0 0 3 - 1 4 4 - 1.322 1 44.45 :CM PS47 -2y bud. . 1e 27 2w 20w 49940 N -RC7F48 104 54 157 157-,. .
.4447 54.O&M 73 11 9 84 -
4,".48 0 94056,4g I.9*9.t, .34 5 38 39 4".49 Coqa0orw.% 6G .. 1,2235 185 1,420 1.420 4459910 Se0.5 S.0 . 8 I 9 9 4.1'49 4d.4.11 Ub Cy0t 4
Coil - - - 509 79 562 5a2 - 90 9.w 4,.4 W,00890 PNOW9 4d P.0io-p9nm.7 Co,, - s0 0 a 3 2.179 335 2I78 2.578 be 9.32 1 13.829 44.0 TOTALPERIODW COS1 T0 0 0 3 2.,79 33m 2.578 2.679 9.322 0 513,29 PERIOD48 -0804.#89i9 T90k Pcnod~kI-40Osr 9.os9s0- i mgO a~9 48.9.1 ORISL0059990019 959 992 46 90s 196 4812 44.19 ~ 7.-mos I-o50 P84@
wi NOW88 4*4959 Coitt, 152 49 198 196 P.90480049.8 C-o 4.29 FWSA Su.n5750 7.500 Z.364 10.243 50.243 113.935" 3,120 4.22 560,.9oýo.ow.. - . . . 3.93a 545 4.525 4.525 4*.2 590908 P.9044.44440150Costs * . 9.854 2.9A4 94.766 47811 1139.835 3,120 P.55004 P.-.n,,pmn08 C-o.
4.A.1 1-sos 44.2 7999940 4.3 91t99 47 897 - - . 2944 9.0221 1.021 "
4.4.4 Diip,-id d 0W gem-d. 2 1 15 - 4 21 21 330 6.60 3 40.4.5 P9.99090989609889 .49 62 474 474 "A.45 H4RC F-e 216 26 2&S 285 4.4.7 S44090 799 oIN 927 627 4.4,8 G--nd.9eMa01 38 6 4 4 44.4..9 C-posos9 994 1.403 290 1,653 9,6,3
"-48.4.0 500.5 9090 COOt 46 7, 5 % I 1 86 9
4449, II 84 409Sftc00 - -6.319 948 7,267 7.267 81.464 9
40.4 509001Paro444 P89.o-Viqxi08, C01W, 817 2 1 15 9.X27 1,639 12,100 12.10D 330 - .003 3 107.230 "A. T0OTAL PERIOD04o COST 817 2 1 15 21154 4.639 27.807 27.067 - 3w 8.603 113,39,; 190,370 PERIO004TOTAL$ 4,334 6018M 11.320 13,821 28,209 41,570 93.223 55,200 308.759 3D05677 9,809 5.282 31.062 354.761 3.330 501 496 49,111,670 735.546 903,015 noW s.994999,, i0,
fdIod,o Point Eoor, Coot., hoot 2 Dooo..og 8.84.083-4015 D0-ooomiwrit,.g Coos Aoolya.i Ap~odmoA, P09, 21 of 14 Table A Indian Point Energy Center. Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decommnissioning Cost Estimate (tbtooodo of 20074011.H) 0f-5.4 -U.W NRC boot Foot BIt.*
i PI.oo59 6..8tvoso Soiwl LAMY9 .nn Ao604y O(M. R-mow Pfk.12o Trooporl Pbooo0t0 Dh0000 Otto Totot Tolt hO.
U.0..T oo t R..Nwt98tn V800 CI-A CO.m. CO..C OTCC P76084* CIO C.B I.t.t.. 0020215 0*SCO0500 Co. Cost Coot. Coot. oot CCot C.'=eo=o Co.t. Co"t. Cost. Coot. C. Foo C. Foo Co Fot Co. Fo Co. Foot WI ft."Aho .
PERIOD6b. Site Roo~too~io D--00 ot Roiong fto8otdov-5b.1.1I RooctCoIt.,,u'I BA33 1,3)25 10,138
- 10,138 84.987 5b01.12 80.tF GoTrs 5,3 4 30 30 5b11.3 Cood t.Odng 26 sb01tO 4 D~.tt eno 80&,-,v 139 21 160 *- 1.8017
- 108 24 184 184 107 5018t Ekoo0 TIIII A R"*V.0t Wo *50 41 325 220 S.011I 7 : E460 - .W"146Et3oo 27 209 41 36. 3.147 501l1.0 Foot Godgq
&t'g dV 27"0 42 320 3,W*)
316 5 302 00,1111 4
796 6.097 6.1097 57."a4 M IXSStooilo 154
-~t.01OlEX.oooo 2 17 50 1112 " 101 82,1 1,41 00 1 113 P~Ioty A.1o40,Oot.Mvg 713 7.190 5b1...4 So-otoo s'-, III *.225 104 1412 - 179 . 9.U22 St. 1.110 SW- oG-r~m t...o F.Aty 708 106 8ta 7.8511
- 5. 1.1'16 7TV*Pwa& F-odaI- 156 23 179 1,814 10 137 137 . 1,3&2 I0tttT-VII-r Pad010 814 122 536
- 9,792 164 1.2M 8,91s 806 12 83 93
- 24 4 30 281 5b Vt oo, T. I H 20,278 - 23,320 202.92 501A.2 0Oo64 S.10
- 4.226 634 4,060 4.8w1 " ?0.846 50.1.3 Glod. AWndx-,o 0G1o 1 8 - - a . 27 5 14 F",M1.P.,I. WC 11 127 127 213,844 1.t14 24,511 3.M63 28.3,1 127 2a,108 Pl."'V 50 Ad*0.0 CxsII ft02A Cmo. Coosv 8. 8 3 73 003 563 0 12,031 So.22 ISFSICI1110ino 80.0,0 37 * ,. 22 165 1274 1.274 5.5*0 08 002 U0,1I140.1.1/Sol Roo-100 586 68 255.173
- 19,04.4006 05,28 2.156 6 .379 O-N 250 2.35 13.W80 1Mo
-18,494,*
363 255.153 0.740 2.574 14.003 1t3 1.274 0021 S- W A-100,0 50 380 387 336 5b.3 SIM"80PoI 50b000008CooS so 380 387 P-1.00U,4.O1000, Co.-
5b.03 Hoo7 o-e, ,t 00 9.201 1.194 10L614 10,684 0044 pt-I ,gy D51,0400 104 1.25 -
00040 S1.006M 1.936 290 2,225 2,225 5b.4.8 010t.ooe 61010100 204 31 235 235 50.4 , 051.
7,344 1.120 8.35w 0.61M 0
054: 001.,1 0..11s S" Coo 2.276 341 2617 2.617 55.427 0040 &IIIIIWty tl Mdt 4 b d-np. 264, 4,320 3r,1Z2 33122 .29 '360 9.205 41,7T/ 7.660 68,727 11.044 47.04 .. 481.787 50 0 TOTAL. PERIOD5So COST 36.206 w0 30379 8,680 41.913 13,978 102332 24,237 1.274 76,421 . 255,173 . 19.494.000 232,613 40MAI01 TLG S-otl't, I..
hsd.., Po.'s4 £aXy Ce.ni'. lVil2 fl1.- -14.gi 4 C-11 A2..y... A"p..di. A. Pogec 14 014 Table A Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 2 SAFSTOR Decomnnissioning Cost Estimate (th.o..ands of 2007 doll.rs0 E
I=.0 I - 00-0 Coot R...oo Co.,
P"91.g19 0.8.
lYo$p.
Com.
P..
C-.
Ing0o DiWI~p Coot.
011-Coot T-1.
to.o.-,
1.W.
Coot Lj.0T-00 Man%
Co.
88.0.Wn Co..
Vos...
C.. fe~
Clo. A Co F.t CI...8 C...F...
CW...C Co.0.8 GYCC C.-t0.1 Pr-**
W.. 0 C..O M.0, -.
C.8s8.
.. 8-PERIOD5 TOTALS - 35-W 8 3,379 - 880 41,913 13.978 102.332 24,237 1.274 7,8281 25.173 ., 19.494.000 22Z,13 482.961 TOTALCOST TO DtCOMS*&SON 9.737 107,865 11.603 11,206 28.mp ;0.00 55.9.122 13M.494 920.4n7 6.351 178.257 82.469 381.052 620,166 3.330 5DI 46" 0.251.500 1.013.835 1,842.571 TOTALCOSTTO OECOUMMSS408I WITH17.24%CONTT000CY: 880477 088.-... ý 2887888.7.
0OTAL 848CUICEMIETIUUU1IA1108 COST1571.83%
.00 $888308 8..0-M-1 28074418.
SENTFUELMANAGEMENT14 COST1 16 31%OR: 811712511 8.oh...8 & 20111488.18 NO#4-UCLEA* DEMOLITION COSTIS09. OR: $82,048 lho..nd 18 no?2 .4881 TOTALLOW14"LVERADIOACTIVE WASTE7 VOLUMEBURIED(EXCLUDING GTCCI. 605.087108 TOTALGREATERTHANCLASSC RADWASIEVOLUME GENERlATED. 448 8..bl.8.81 OVAL. SCWA METAL. REMOVED. 37.492 041 OTAL CRAFTLABORREQUIREMET:5 1.018'm0 IMMIN011 1/0.-~l. M610ýy -I ChWld 50 4300oo f- 801 8 -, 008.88.1088=
U81 9 *800 TLG S......., 1-.